CCPR/C/120/D/2256/2013 (d) the delays in investigation and prosecution have been unduly prolonged. 19 Since the State party failed to protect the author against, or adequately respond to, the rape, the Committee considers that the author’s claims of a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant are sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. 6.5 As regards the author’s allegations related to article 24 (1) of the Covenant, the Committee notes that, according to the author, no mention was made during the proceedings that she was a minor when she was raped, and that the authorities of the State party failed to acknowledge her vulnerability as a minor. Nonetheless, the Committee also considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate the special care that she should have been provided by the State party as a minor, while taking into account that she was represented by a counsel during the investigation and court proceedings and that she became an adult 14 days after the beginning of the investigation of her case. Consequently, the part of the complaint referring to article 24, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant is declared inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee further notes the author’s claims that the State party violated her rights under articles 2 (1), 3 and 26 of the Covenant not to be subjected to discrimination as a Tamil woman. The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated this claim for purposes of admissibility and declares it admissible insofar as it raises issues under article 26. As no separate issue arises under articles 2 (1) and 3 of the Covenant, the Committee will not examine the admissibility of the author’s claims under those provisions. 6.7 As all admissibility requirements have been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible regarding claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) and article 26 and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 As regards the author’s claim of a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant the Committee notes that criminal and civil proceedings in the present case have been pending since 2001 and 2004, respectively, and are ongoing as regards civil remedies, while the criminal sentence of the perpetrators was handed down in December 2015. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that protection against and the investigation of an act of rape cannot be dependent on the status of the perpetrator and that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of international and regional courts and human rights bodies, a State is responsible for a violation of its obligations in relation to the prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment where it has failed to protect against or adequately respond to rape and other forms of violence against women. 7.3 The Committee notes that the author promptly filed a complaint with the police on 14 August 2001, two days after the rape. The suspects were identified and arrested on 18 August 2001; however, they were released on bail on 28 August 2001. It took more than five years for the authorities to file the first indictment against the suspects and, at the time of submission of the initial communication to the Committee, the case had been delayed for a further seven years amid a series of adjournments. The Committee notes that the author has not been responsible for any of the delays in court proceedings and has never failed to attend hearings. Also, the case does not involve complex legal or factual issues that could explain the delay and, furthermore, the perpetrators were identified early on. The 19 6 The author cites the Committee’s general comment No. 20, para. 2 and general comment No. 28 (2000) on the equality of rights between men and women, para. 11; European Court of Human Rights, C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania (application No. 26692/05), judgment of 20 March 2012, para. 69; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, communication No. 18/2008, Tayag Vertido v. Philippines, Views adopted on 16 July 2010; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, judgment of 29 July 1988, para. 172; and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, judgment of 16 November 2009, para. 289.