38 GENDER PERSPECTIVES ON TORTURE: Law and Practice During the 2012 Committee against Torture-Canada session, Committee expert Ms. Sveaass drew Canada’s “attention to general comment No. 2 . . . [and] asked whether it would consider amend­ ing its legislation to include acts of torture committed by non-State actors” (Committee against Torture, 2012a, para. 38). The Committee’s recommendation to Canada was to fully incorporate the UNCAT into domestic law by prohibiting torture by non-State actors under national law. This recommendation was rejected by Canada and explained as: Canada’s longstanding view is that the general comments and concluding observations of the UN treaty bodies are not legally binding. General comments and concluding observations of the treaty bodies, and this includes the Committee against Torture, are given serious consideration by governments in Canada, but Canada’s view is that States Parties are not legally bound to implement them (E. Brady, personal communication, July 11, 2013). This explanation utilizes the concept of ‘soft law’ which Refer[s] to rules that are neither strictly binding . . . nor completely lacking legal signif­ icance. In the context of international law, soft law refers to guidelines, policy declara­ tions or codes of conduct which set standards of conduct. However, they are not directly enforceable (USLegal, 2001-2016; see generally Boyle, 2014). Women’s gendered inequality gives rise to multiple forms of violence that States have a due dil­ igence duty to prevent, including those perpetrated by non-State actors. This requires that national laws be in compliance with international standards (General Assembly, 2006; Human Rights Council, 2009; Office on Drugs and Crime, 2008). Being gender-sensitive and cognizant of the evolving international legal decisions previously discussed, Canada’s soft law and existing expla­ nations are without merit for not practicing due diligence and upholding women’s entitlement to the human and legal right not to be subjected to torture committed by non-State actors. Refusing to create a victim-related Criminal Code amendment also negates Canada’s federal victims’ strategy of empowering and assisting crime victims to reconstruct their lives (Department of Justice, 2015). Such structural, legal discrimination reinforces patriarchal oppression and women’s inequality as human beings, negating their human right to seek legal justice by naming non-State torture as the violation suffered. How will women ever earn legal credibility if they are forever denied legal justice to speak of the non-State torture crimes they have endured? A Gender-Sensitive Interpretation of Torture—and of Non-State Torture United Nations resolutions have contributed to the genderization of the UNCAT. These have mandated Special Rapporteurs against Torture to integrate a gender-sensitive perspective into their work, noting that at any time, in any place, and under all circumstances, the prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm that reaffirms that no one should be subjected to torture (Human Rights Council, 2008; General Assembly 2011). Article 1 of the UNCAT lists the four elements of torture: 1. Severe pain or suffering, mental or physical; 2. Intent; 3. Purpose including for punishment, coercion, to threaten, or for any reason based on dis­ crimination of any kind; 4. State involvement or acquiescence of the State.