CEDAW/C/78/D/130/2018

United Nations

CEDAW/C/78/D/130/2018

Convention on the Elimination

of All Forms of Discrimination

against Women

Distr.: General

12 April 2021

Original: English

21-04766 (E) 050521

*2104766*

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women

Views adopted by the Committee under article 7 (3) of

the Optional Protocol, concerning communication

No. 130/2018*,**

Communication submitted by:

Magdulein Abaida (represented by

counsel, Juergen Schurr of REDRESS)

Alleged victim:

The author

State party:

Libya

Date of communication:

8 March 2017

References:

Transmitted to the State party on

11 July 2018 (not issued in document

form)

Date of adoption of views:

18 February 2021

* Adopted by the Committee at its seventy-eighth session (15–25 February 2021).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the present

communication: Gladys Acosta Vargas, Hiroko Akizuki, Tamader Al-Rammah, Nicole Ameline,

Marion Bethel, Leticia Bonifaz Alfonzo, Louiza Chalal, Corinne Dettmeijer-Vermeulen, Naéla

Gabr, Hilary Gbedemah, Nahla Haidar, Dalia Leinarte, Rosario G. Manalo, Lia Nadaraia, Aruna

Devi Narain, Ana Peláez Narváez, Bandana Rana, Rhoda Reddock, Elgun Safarov, Natasha

Stott Despoja, Genoveva Tisheva, Franceline Toé-Bouda, Jie Xia.

CEDAW/C/78/D/130/2018

21-04766

2/10

1.

The author of the communication is Magdulein Abaida, a national of Libya born

in 1987. She claims to be the victim of a violation by Libya of her rights under articles 1,

2 (b), (d) and (e), 3, 5 (a) and 7 (c) of the Convention. The Convention and the

Optional Protocol thereto entered into force for the State party on 15 June 1989 and

18 September 2004, respectively. The author is represented by counsel, Juergen

Schurr of REDRESS.

Facts as submitted by the author

2.1 The author has lived in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland, where she has refugee status, since September 2012. Before her departure

from Libya, she worked as a financial assistant and translator for journalists,

companies and regional bodies in Tripoli. As a women’s human rights defender, she

had registered her own women’s rights organization, Hakki (“My Right”), and

collaborated with Creative Associates International, DanChurchAid and other

organizations for women’s empowerment.

2.2 On 7 February 2012, she participated in a demonstration in Tripoli, “Libyan

women’s day of anger”, about the lack of quotas for women in the national elections

and comments by the Chair of the National Transitional Council on men having

multiple wives. The organizers’ names, including the author’s, were subsequently

published on Libyan Facebook pages. She and others received messages accusing

them of trying to destroy the Islamic way of life. The commander of a powerful

militia, the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade, claimed that the organizers had

repudiated their own culture, including by not covering their hair. As a consequence,

the author and others were afraid to leave their homes.

2.3 Later that month, in an interview on Libyan television, the author explained the

reasons for the demonstration and commented on women’s rights in Libya. The

following month, filmmakers interviewed her about the situation of women in Tripoli.

She helped them to conduct interviews with a number of women in Tripoli, Misratah

and Zuwarah. On their way back to Tripoli, she and the filmmakers were stopped from

filming by armed men, who prevented them from leaving. Eventually, an officer took

their footage from them and released them.

2.4 In June 2012, while working as a translator for a European Union adviser, the

author met a Libyan Jewish representative, R., for whom she began to work as a

translator for three journalists making a documentary. She had understood the lead

journalist to be French but was later informed that he was an Israeli citizen.

2.5 On 19 July 2012, in Benghazi, the author was interviewed about the human

rights situation in Libya, as a contribution to the documentary. She believes that she

was covertly filmed by an unknown man. At a makeshift checkpoint on the way to

the airport, armed men stopped the car and told the occupants, including the author,

that the vehicle had to be checked for explosives. They were taken to a compound,

where guards told the author that her belongings made her suspicious. They asked

about her relationship with R. and whether she preached Judaism. She was released,

without her belongings, after four to five hours of interrogation. On 20 July 2012, she

returned to Tripoli, where she filed a complaint about her arrest and detention with

the National Council for Civil Liberties and Human Rights. The Council issued a

memorandum about her case; however, she subsequently received no further

information. She was later informed that R. had been detained for 10 days, that one

of the journalists worked for an Israeli television channel and that pictures of her and

others with R. had been published on social media, where they were depicted as

traitors. She received threats, including comments that she and others in the pictures

should be executed.

CEDAW/C/78/D/130/2018

3/10

21-04766

2.6 On 9 August 2012, when the author was participating in a workshop on women’s

rights in Benghazi, some 7 to 10 armed men, with 30 more bearing Kalashnikovs

posted outside, interrupted the workshop and took three participants away. The author

was among those who were told to return to their hotels. Later that day, members of

the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade took her to a compound, where she was detained.

Guards questioned her about her relationship with R. and a Hakki colleague who had

also been detained and told her that women were forbidden to travel unless

accompanied by a male. A man bearing Ministry of Defence identification took her

and the Hakki colleague to a Ministry compound, where she was questioned about

what she would write about her abduction and why she had written publicly about her

earlier detention. She was released on 10 August 2012. An interrogator subsequently

told her that she should have been executed for her perceived relations with Jews.

2.7 On 11 August 2012, on their way to Benghazi Airport, the author and the Hakki

colleague were arrested by members of the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade, who took

them to a compound where they saw cars marked “Supreme Security Committee”.

Despite the fact that it was Ramadan, she was offered water, which she believes was

intended to demarcate her from practising Muslims. An officer shouted at her and

started kicking her all over her body, calling her a “bitch” and a “whore” and accusing

her of being Israeli, of having relations with a Jew and of being an Israeli spy. He hit

her with his gun and threatened that he could kill her there and then and no one would

find out. The assault lasted approximately half an hour and left her barely able to

move. In an office in the compound, she recognized two men as belonging to the

Martyrs of 17 February Brigade. She was shouted at and grabbed by the hair. Another

man, S., introduced himself as a Supreme Security Committee investigator, asked her

about R. and made the accusation that Hakki was a “prostitution organization”,

supporting Jews and Israel. The questioning continued until around 4 a.m. on

12 August 2012. She was released on the condition that she return the same day.

2.8 Later that day, members of the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade and the Supreme

Security Committee returned the author to the compound. S. told her that he and the

Deputy Interior Minister had been discussing her case and thought that she had been

inadvertently working for Israel. She was released on the condition that she return the

next day.

2.9 On 13 August 2012, the author returned to the compound, where she was made

to meet the Deputy Interior Minister, who complained to her about the “noise” that

she had created in the media. He did not enquire about her injuries, which were clearly

visible, and laughed when she told him that laws on street harassment would be a

“good start” in terms of women’s rights. He told her to sign a letter stating that she

would not deal with Jewish organizations or people; however, she wrote that she

would invest her skills and energy in her country. He released her, warning her that

she could be questioned anywhere. On 14 August 2012, she returned to Tripoli.

2.10 Following her return, the author could not resume her non-governmental

organization (NGO) work, as she was receiving hate mail, including letters from

members of the public threatening to kill her. Between 15 and 17 August 2012, she

was called by a man whom, on 11 and 12 August 2012, she had identified as a member

of the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade. She felt unable to reject his call or express

discomfort for fear of reprisals. She was also contacted by S., through Facebook. He

asked her to work with the Supreme Security Committee on a national reconciliation

project. She did not refuse outright, out of fear, although she did not follow up after

her departure from Libya in September 2012. She still fears the State party’s

Government, as well as citizens who have been led to believe that she is an Israeli

spy.

CEDAW/C/78/D/130/2018

21-04766

4/10

2.11 With regard to the requirement for the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the

author explains that, following her return to Tripoli, she was unable to file a complaint

because she feared persecution.1 In 2013, REDRESS submitted a complaint on her

behalf to the Libyan Prosecutor General, claiming that she had suffered

discrimination on the basis of her sex. Receipt was confirmed, but she found out only

through contacts that her complaint had been forwarded to the Attorney General in

Benghazi. Despite follow-up attempts, she has received no other response and it does

not appear that the Prosecutor General’s office has begun an investigation. The author

argues that the Prosecutor General’s failure to investigate has coincided with the

breakdown of the rule of law in Libya, resulting in the absence of a functioning justice

system.2 The author concludes that domestic remedies have been unreasonably

prolonged, are unavailable and are unlikely to bring effective relief.

Complaint

3.1 The author claims that, because of the involvement of the Ministry of the

Interior and because the conduct of the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade and the

Supreme Security Committee are attributable to the State party, the State party is

responsible for the treatment to which she was subjected. In this regard, she argues

that both the Brigade and the Supreme Security Committee act as an extension and at

the behest of the State party and perform its functions. 3 The Brigade claims to work

with the Ministry, while the Supreme Security Committee serves as an auxiliary

police and intelligence service and is nominally paid for and under the authority of

the Ministry.4 In the author’s case, this is corroborated by the statement of the

Supreme Security Committee investigator, S., that he had discussed her case with the

Deputy Interior Minister and by her meeting with the Deputy Minister. He stated

publicly that she had been arrested by “a legitimate force affiliated to the Interior

Ministry”.5

3.2 The author submits that the State party has violated her rights under article 1 of

the Convention as it discriminated against her on the basis of her sex and as a defender

of the human rights of women. She argues that the Supreme Security Committee

subjected her to severe pain and suffering while she was in detention from 11 to

12 August 2012, including exposure to gendered and sexual verbal abuse, kicking,

blows with a gun and a death threat, which violated her right not to be tortured and

resulted in her being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Given her arrest

during a women’s rights workshop and the questioning on Hakki immediately

__________________

1 The author refers to a letter by Amnesty International dated 18 October 2012 in support of her

asylum application, in which it states that she would risk persecution upon return to Libya.

2 The author refers to: Amnesty International, Libya: Rule of Law or Rule of Militias (London,

July 2012), p. 9; and Human Rights Watch, “Libya: universal periodic review submission

September 2014”.

3 The author refers to a letter by Amnesty International dated 18 October 2012 in support of her

asylum application and to: Max Fisher, “Libyan militia’s failed security at Benghazi”,

Washington Post, 2 November 2012; Francesco Finucci, “Libya: military actors and militias”,

Global Security, p. 10.

4 Letter from Amnesty International dated 18 October 2012; Frederic Wehrey and Peter Cole,

“Building Libya’s security sector”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 6 August 2013; and

Hanan Salah, “Militias and the quest for Libyan unity”, Human Rights Watch, 27 October 2015.

5 The author refers to a press article entitled “The Deputy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs: Haqy

Assembly has deviated from its objectives in Libya” (date unclear), in which it is mentioned, inter

alia, that the Deputy Interior Minister stated that “a legitimate force affiliated to the Ministry of

Internal Affairs arrested her and she was not abducted as most of the media reported, pointing out

that the Assembly entered the country with a permit to carry out mine clearance then it deviated

from its course and started chanting for women’s freedom, referring that they are calling to

delinquency and deviation from morals, confirming that she managed to fulfil her wishes by the

presence of women who followed her unaware of the true objectives of this Assembly”.

CEDAW/C/78/D/130/2018

5/10

21-04766

following her torture, the authorities were clearly attempting to punish her for and

force her to cease her women’s rights work and to discourage her from breaking

gender norms.

3.3 Also in violation of article 1 of the Convention, the authorities arbitrarily

arrested and unlawfully detained the author on 19 July, 9 August and 11–12 August

2012. On 19 July 2012, the vehicle in which she was a passenger was stopped on the

ground that it had to be checked for explosives, but there was no basis for any such

suspicion and she was instead questioned on unrelated matters. On 9 August 2012,

the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade took her from her hotel to a compound, where a

Ministry of Defence official questioned her. On 11 August 2012, she was again

arbitrarily arrested by the Brigade and detained and tortured. None of the arrests was

based on Libyan law; she was never served with a warrant or charged with a crime;

and she had no access to a lawyer. The arrests and detentions were therefore

unreasonable and unnecessary.

3.4 Furthermore, in contravention of article 1 of the Convention, the State party

violated the author’s right to freedom of expression. She had organized a

demonstration, collaborated with documentary makers and spoken out in interviews

and on television about women’s rights. In view of the fact that the authorities arrested

her during a women’s rights workshop and interrogated her about her activities as a

defender of the human rights of women and about her NGO, this treatment must be

considered as partially motivated by her exercise of the right to freedom of

expression. She submits that her actions did not threaten national security or public

order and that the restrictions imposed were clearly disproportionate.

3.5 The State party also breached the author’s right to freedom of association under

article 1 of the Convention. She had founded and run Hakki, a women’s rights

organization, but in response, the authorities arrested, detained and tortured her and

questioned her about the organization, which they called a “prostitution organization”

supporting Jews and Israel. She submits that the restrictions on her exercise of the

right to freedom of association were disproportionate and discriminatory and

intimidated her into ceasing to run the organization.

3.6 Referring to the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19 (1992) on

violence against women6 and its decision in M.E.N. v. Denmark,7 the author argues

that the treatment to which she was subjected was discriminatory and constituted

gender-based violence, as it was directed against her as a woman and aimed at

stopping her from working on women’s rights. She argues that the treatment should

be understood in the context of a pattern of discrimination against women in Libya

and a patriarchal culture in which deeply rooted stereotypes have persisted after the

2011 revolution.8

3.7 The author also submits that the State party has breached her rights under article

2 (d) of the Convention, as she was targeted as a woman breaking gender norms and

was subjected to gender-specific treatment designed to intimidate her into ceasing her

women’s rights work.

3.8 The author further submits that the State party has violated her rights under

article 3 of the Convention, which she submits covers the State party’s obligations to

__________________

6 Para. 6.

7 CEDAW/C/55/D/35/2011, para. 8.6.

8 The author refers to: report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (see

A/70/217), paras. 61–62; report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders

(A/HRC/16/44), para. 21; CEDAW/C/LBY/CO/5, para. 21; CCPR/C/LBY/CO/4, para. 11; letter from

Amnesty International dated 18 October 2012; Human Rights Watch, “A revolution for all: women’s

rights in the new Libya”, May 2013, p. 13; Amnesty International, “Annual report: Libya 2013”.

CEDAW/C/78/D/130/2018

21-04766

6/10

respect, protect and fulfil, inter alia, the right to be free from torture, the right to

liberty and security of person and the freedoms of expression and of association. She

argues that the discrimination to which she was subjected and the authorities’ attempts

to make her cease her NGO work and flee Libya amount to a violation of article 3.

3.9 The author also claims to be the victim of a breach of her rights under article 5 (a)

of the Convention. Referring to the Committee’s observations on “the persistence of

entrenched, traditional stereotypes regarding the roles and responsibilities of women

and men in the family and in society at large” in Libya,9 she argues that it was such

stereotypes that contributed to her being targeted for torture, arrest and arbitrary

detention, as well as the gender-specific abuse to which she was subjected in

detention.

3.10 The author further claims to be the victim of a breach of her rights under article

7 (c) of the Convention. The authorities failed to protect her from hateful and

threatening emails, letters and messages concerning her involvement in women’s

rights issues and stated that she had repudiated her culture and should be executed.

They pressured her to give up her activism and sought to coerce her to work for the

Supreme Security Committee.

3.11 Finally, the author claims to be the victim of a violation of her rights under

article 2 (b) of the Convention, having received no reparation or any other response

to her complaint submitted to the Prosecutor General.

3.12 The author requests remedies, including monetary compensation for material

and non-material damages, funds for continued psychological treatment and a prompt,

thorough and independent investigation to hold those responsible accountable. She

also requests that State party publicly apologize and accept responsibility. Finally, she

invites the Committee to issue general recommendations to the State party.

Absence of State party’s observations

4.

On 11 July 2018, 6 May 2019, 28 August 2019 and 21 January 2020, the State

party was invited to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits. The

Committee regrets that no submissions have been received. The Committee must

therefore base its decision on the information provided by the author, insofar as it has

been sufficiently substantiated.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

5.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide

whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. Pursuant to

rule 72 (4), it must do so before considering the merits of the communication.

5.2 In accordance with article 4 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee

notes that there is nothing on file to indicate that the same matter has been or is being

examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

5.3 As regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies under article 4 (1) of the

Optional Protocol to the Convention, the Committee notes the author’s contention

that she has exhausted all available domestic remedies. Her complaint lodged in 2013

of discrimination on the ground of her sex generated only an acknowledgement of

receipt, despite follow-up attempts. She argues that the authorities’ failure to

investigate has coincided with the breakdown of the rule of law in Libya. In the light

thereof and in the absence of submissions from the State party to the contrary, the

__________________

9 CEDAW/C/LBY/CO/5, para. 21.

CEDAW/C/78/D/130/2018

7/10

21-04766

Committee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 4 (1) of

the Optional Protocol from considering the matter.

5.4 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated her

communication for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares the

communication admissible, insofar as it raises issues under articles 1–3, 5 (a) and 7

of the Convention, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits.

Consideration of the merits

6.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the

information placed at its disposal by the author, without the benefit of the State party’s

observations, in accordance with the provisions of article 7 (1) of the Optional

Protocol.

6.2 The Committee notes the author’s argument that, in breach of articles 1 and 2 (b),

(d) and (e) of the Convention, the State party discriminated against her on the basis

of her sex and as a defender of the human rights of women breaking gender norms.

She claims to have been threatened because of her activism for women’s rights and

to have been arbitrarily arrested and detained on three occasions, without an arrest

warrant, charges or any basis in Libyan law, including on 9 August 2012 during a

women’s rights workshop. Following this arrest, she was detained by members of the

Martyrs of 17 February Brigade and questioned by a man identified as a Ministry of

Defence official. Moreover, on 11 and 12 August 2012, she was subjected to gender-

based and sexual verbal abuse, kicking, blows with a gun and a death threat, which

resulted in her being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. She states that she

saw vehicles of the State party’s Supreme Security Committee on the compound

premises and that, immediately after the abuse, which rendered her barely able to

move, S., a man identified as a Supreme Security Committee investigator, questioned

her about Hakki, which he called a “prostitution organization”, until 4 a.m. Following

her release, members of the Brigade and a Supreme Security Committee member

brought her back to the compound, where S. again questioned her and said that he had

discussed her case with the Deputy Interior Minister. The next day, she was made to

meet the latter, who did not enquire about her clearly visible injuries. Rather, he

complained to her about the “noise” that she had created in the media, laughed at her

demands for women’s rights and told her to sign a letter stating that she would not

deal with Jewish organizations or individuals. Despite follow-up attempts, her

complaint to the Prosecutor General filed in 2013 has generated no substantive

response. In addition to the author’s statement, the Committee takes particular note

of the press article according to which the Deputy Interior Minister stated that “a

legitimate force affiliated to the Ministry of Internal Affairs arrested” the author and

that her organization had “deviated from its course and started chanting for women’s

freedom”.

6.3 The Committee recalls that discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of the

Convention encompasses gender-based violence against women.10 Such discrimination

is not restricted to action by or on behalf of States parties. Rather, under article 2 (e)

of the Convention, States parties may also be responsible for private acts, if they fail

to act with due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate and punish

acts of violence, and for providing compensation.11 Under the obligation of due

__________________

10 General recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating general

recommendation No. 19, para. 21; general recommendation No. 19 on violence against women,

paras. 6–7.

11 General recommendation No. 35, para. 24; see also Vienna Intervention Centre against Domestic

Violence and Association for Women’s Access to Justice on behalf of Goekce et al. v. Austria

(CEDAW/C/39/D/5/2005), para. 12.2.

CEDAW/C/78/D/130/2018

21-04766

8/10

diligence, States parties must adopt and implement diverse measures to tackle gender-

based violence against women committed by non-State actors, including having laws,

institutions and a system in place to address such violence and ensuring that they

function effectively in practice and are supported by all State agents and bodies who

diligently enforce the laws. The failure of a State party to take all appropriate

measures to prevent acts of gender-based violence against women in cases in which

its authorities are aware or should be aware of the risk of such violence, or the failure

to investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators and provide reparations to

victims/survivors of such acts, provides tacit permission or encouragement to

perpetrate acts of gender-based violence against women. Such failures or omissions

constitute human rights violations. In this regard, the Committee refers to its general

recommendation No. 28 (2010) on the core obligations of States parties, in which it

states that “States parties must address all aspects of their legal obligations under the

Convention to respect, protect and fulfil women’s right to non-discrimination and to

the enjoyment of equality” and that “they are further obliged to react actively against

discrimination against women, regardless of whether such acts or omissions are

perpetrated by the State or by private actors”.12

6.4 The Committee also recalls that, in determining when acts of gender-based

violence against women amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,

a gender-sensitive approach is required to understand the level of pain and suffering

experienced by women, and that the purpose and intent requirements for classifying

such acts as torture are satisfied when acts or omissions are gender-specific or

perpetrated against a person on the basis of sex.13 Given the author’s arrest by forces

affiliated with the State party’s Ministry of the Interior on 11 and 12 August 2012, the

physical and verbal abuse inflicted upon her and the fact that, despite her visible

injuries, public officials questioned her immediately thereafter about her women’s

rights organization, the Committee considers the abuse as described by the author to

have been gender-specific as well as, at a minimum, inflicted with the consent or

acquiescence of public officials, and thus to amount to torture, in respect of which the

State party failed to discharge its obligations to investigate, prosecute, punish and

provide reparations, in violation of the author’s rights under article 2 (b), (d) and (e),

read in conjunction with article 1, of the Convention.

6.5 The Committee notes the author’s further claim that the State party breached her

rights under article 7 (c) of the Convention, in that its authorities made her cease her

work for Hakki, by failing to protect her from threats and by attempting to punish her

for her activism for women’s rights. The Committee also notes that the author was

arrested during a women’s rights workshop and questioned on Hakki immediately after

being tortured. In addition, it notes the Deputy Interior Minister’s criticism of Hakki for

“chanting for women’s freedom”. The Committee further notes that States parties should

encourage the work of human rights organizations and women’s non-governmental

organizations. In this connection, the Committee recalls its general recommendation

No. 30 (2013) on women in conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations, in

which it states that women’s “ability to participate as active members of civil society”

is among the “prerequisites for creating a society with lasting democracy, peace and

gender equality”.14 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the facts as submitted

reveal a violation by the State party of the author’s rights under article 7 (c), read in

conjunction with article 1, of the Convention.

7.

In accordance with article 7 (3) of the Optional Protocol and taking into account

all of the foregoing considerations, the Committee finds that the State party has

__________________

12 Paras. 9 and 10.

13 General recommendation No. 35, para. 17.

14 Para. 42.

CEDAW/C/78/D/130/2018

9/10

21-04766

breached the author’s rights under articles 2 (b), (d) and (e) and 7 (c), read in

conjunction with article 1, of the Convention and taking into consideration the

Committee’s general recommendations No. 19, No. 23 (1997) on women in political

and public life, No. 28, No. 30 and No. 35. Having reached that conclusion, the

Committee will not examine the author’s remaining claims.

8.

The Committee makes the following recommendations to the State party:

(a)

Concerning the author of the communication:

(i)

Carry out a prompt, thorough and independent investigation into the

discrimination, arrest, detention and torture suffered by the author, in order to

identify those responsible, and take appropriate measures to prosecute them and

sanction them;

(ii) Provide appropriate reparation, including adequate compensation, to the

author, commensurate with the gravity and the ongoing consequences of the

violations of her rights;

(b)

General:

(i)

Adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation;

(ii) Adopt and implement concrete and effective measures in the legislative,

executive and judicial branches and at all levels of government in order to

prevent and provide protection against gender-based violence against women in

the public and private spheres, including through comprehensive legislation on

gender-based violence against women;

(iii) Design public policies, programmes, institutional frameworks and

monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the competent authorities support and

apply such legislation effectively and respond with due diligence to gender-

based violence against women, including such violence committed by non-State

actors;

(iv) Take immediate and concrete measures to stop arbitrary detention,

mistreatment and all forms of violence, exaction and intimidation against

women, including by security forces, armed groups and militias;

(v)

Put in place concrete, specific and effective legislative and other measures,

including a national action plan, to ensure a safe and favourable environment

for women’s human rights defenders and female activists and address the current

state of impunity, including with respect to non-State actors;

(vi) Recognize publicly the specific place and role of women’s human rights

defenders and their legitimacy in the public debate;

(vii) Ensure that claims concerning violence against women are addressed

promptly and thoroughly and that perpetrators, including non-State actors, are

investigated, prosecuted and sanctioned, and also ensure the provision of redress

for the acts of private individuals or entities, as part of the State party’s due

diligence responsibility;

(viii) Engage with non-State actors to prevent human rights abuses, in particular

all forms of gender-based violence against women, relating to their activities in

conflict-affected areas;

(ix) Ensure that women who are victims of violence have access to effective

civil and criminal remedies and protection, including counselling, health

services and financial support;

CEDAW/C/78/D/130/2018

21-04766

10/10

(x)

Provide mandatory training for the police, prosecutors, the judiciary and

other law enforcement personnel with respect to combating violence against

women, including training on gender sensitivity and the handling of complaints

of gender-based violence against women in a gender-sensitive manner;

(xi) Eliminate institutional practices and individual conduct and behaviour of

public officials that constitute gender-based violence against women, or tolerate

such violence, and that provide a context for the lack of a response or for a

negligent response, including adequate investigation of and sanctions for

inefficiency, complicity and negligence by the public authorities responsible for

the registration, prevention or investigation of such violations or for providing

services to victims/survivors;

(xii) Take concrete, specific and effective legislative and other measures to

enable, protect and promote women’s participation, on equal terms with men, in

women’s rights organizations, non-governmental organizations and associations

concerned with the public and political life of the country, including peace

negotiation and electoral processes with a view to a sustainable and peaceful

national reconstruction, and take effective measures to ensure that women are

not intimidated into ceasing their participation in public and political life.

9.

In accordance with article 7 (4) of the Optional Protocol, the State party shall

give due consideration to the views of the Committee, together with its

recommendations, and submit to the Committee, within six months, a written

response, including information on any action taken in the light of those views and

recommendations. The State party is requested to have the Committee’s views and

recommendations translated into the State party’s language, to publish them and to

have them widely disseminated, in order to reach all sectors of society.