58 GENDER PERSPECTIVES ON TORTURE: Law and Practice treatment was later broadened to include sexual violence committed by private persons and acts committed in private spaces. For example, rape was first recognized as a form of torture when committed by State agents in State facilities such as prisons. Nonetheless, it has proven difficult to establish that acts committed in private spaces constitute torture, and they have tended to be considered degrading and inhuman treatment. The article analyzes, through different judgments and jurisprudence from the universal human rights system and the African, European and Inter-American regional systems, a clear progress toward the inclusion of a gender perspective in the definition of torture, the current need to con­ tinue challenging this definition in order to include the harm done to women specifically by private actors beyond rape and sexual violence, and the content of the obligation to investigate when apply­ ing the due diligence standard for violence against women. I. Regulation of Sexual Violence and Gender-Based Violence as Torture Under International Law Back in the 1980s, Rhonda Copelon fought to get forms of violence against women, includ­ ing rape and domestic violence, which were considered “private matters” at the time, recognized under international law for what they truly were: clear examples of discrimination against women and serious violations of women’s human rights.2 International Criminal Law (ICL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) include provi­ sions to punish these crimes. While ICL addresses individual responsibility and IHRL addresses State responsibility, a review of both bodies of law may be helpful in achieving a fuller understand­ ing of the elements of these types of crimes and violations of rights. Torture is a salient example. This crime is punished under jurisprudence issued by courts charged with enforcing both bodies of law, so these courts may influence each other as they work toward a more thorough interpretation and understanding of this form of violence. The prohibition of torture under international law has achieved peremptory norm (jus cogens) status. Torture must therefore be prosecuted as an international crime and a serious human rights violation. International law further requires all States to punish those responsible for acts of torture within their jurisdictions under domestic law or extradite them for trial in another jurisdiction, under the principle of aut dedere aut judicare. However, these advances have not succeeded in pro­ tecting the numerous women and girls who continue to suffer violence at the hands of State or non-State agents in both the public and private spheres. It is true that the States’ responsibility under IHRL for acts of violence or torture committed by non-State agents is a type of responsibility difficult to adjudicate, and is based on the principle of due diligence3. This principle marks a minimum in the performance of the State to comply with the obligation of respect for human rights. It also establishes the responsibility of States for the viola­ 2 Gaer, Felice (2012): Rape as a Form of Torture: The Experience of the Committee against Torture, CUNY Law Review, Vol. 15, p. 293. 3 “States should condemn violence against women and should not invoke any custom, tradition or religious consideration to avoid their obligations with respect to its elimination. States should pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating violence against women and, to this end, should: (…) (c) Exercise due diligence” UN. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, A/RES/48/104, 85th plenary meeting, 20 December 1993, 48/104. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/48/a48r104.htm.