Teresa Fernández Paredes 85 fered by the women as torture rather than ill-treatment and linked it to a reluctance to extend the coverage of the prohibition of torture to acts not directly carried out by the State. The ECtHR made it clear that different forms of gender-based violence conducted by a pub­ lic official amount to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. However, when such acts are conducted by private actors, the ECtHR has not ruled out the possibility that they fall under Article 3 but has not said that it could either, leaving the door open for further inter­ pretation. Finally, it has used the obligation of States to take measures to ensure that individuals are not subject to torture, inhumane or degrading treatment and to sanction States for the failure of public officials to investigate crimes perpetrated by private parties. In any event, this jurisprudence gives important clues to national Courts when examining tor­ ture cases where acts of sexual and gender-based violence were committed. International human rights law provides a clear road-map to apply the due diligence principle for acts of violence against women committed by private actors. Non-discrimination is a fundamental norm to guarantee this task. States must use the same commitment to investigate and punish violence against women. However, we have also seen through this article that there is room for improvement. The case of torture is an emblematic one. Its definition under international human rights has been harshly criticized by feminist theorists because it mainly focuses on (male) violence that occurs in a public sphere. The use of the principle of due diligence has great potential in broadening the narrow inter­ pretation of torture but is yet to be extended. Rape and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence, when committed by private individuals, have been qualified as degrading offenses or ill-treatments, but not as torture. Thus, there is still work to be done to guarantee that the due diligence principle is correctly applied in cases of torture against women and girls, in order to “prevent, investigate and, in accordance with national legislation, punish acts of violence against women, whether those acts are perpetrated by the State or by private persons.”159 As the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women once concluded there is a need “to continue punishing “the boundaries of due diligence in demanding the full compli­ ance of States with international law, including the obligation to address the root causes of violence against women and to hold non-State actors accountable for their acts, then we will move towards a conception of human rights compatible with our aspirations for a just world free of violence.” 160 The women’s movement has played a key role in transforming international law, but that work is far from finished. We, women right´s jurists, have a role in creating innovative legal strategies in order to challenge patriarchal legal foundations and gender hierarchies for which violence and other forms of discrimination against women are still justified or trivialized. 159 160 Art. 4. UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women. Op. Cit. Special Rapporteur Violence Against Women.