A/HRC/26/38 of patriarchal norms of men as “protectors” and, by extension, women as “victims”; reinstatement of the family as the principal referent for analysis; depoliticization of the understanding of both gender equality and gendered violence; reinforcement of the public/private dichotomy; instrumentalization of arguments for the elimination of violence against women; conceptual confusion over men, masculinity and gendered roles; and the justifications and contradictions in the shift to men and boys and its supposed link to binding international law obligations. IV. Conclusion and recommendations 76. The present report articulates the challenge of 20 years of normativity, without legality, in addressing violence against women, largely through the use of soft law approaches. Despite the existence of interpretative guidelines and monitoring by human rights treaty bodies and the universal periodic review, the limitations of large and varied monitoring mandates, coupled with time constraints when examining State party reports, result in insufficient interrogation concerning the information relating to violence against women, its causes and consequences, and insufficient assessment of responses. Furthermore, the lack of specific legally enforceable standards further impacts attempts to ensure appropriate responses and also accountability for acts of violence against women, which is acknowledged as a widespread and systematic human rights violation. 77. The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Human Rights Council undertake an inquiry into the normative gap, in a quest to further strengthen efforts to eliminate violence against women. 78. As regards the other challenges raised in the present report, the Special Rapporteur recommends that the Secretary-General initiate a study on the impact of such challenges in the quest to eliminate violence against women. 21