CCPR/C/120/D/2256/2013 on her morality and reputation, exacerbated by the fact that the society she is living in considers her “polluted” since her virginity was lost before she was married. 7.6 The Committee recalls paragraph 10 of its general comment No. 18 (1989) on nondiscrimination, in which it indicates that, in a State where the general conditions of a certain part of the population prevent or impair their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take specific action to correct those conditions. In this connection, the State party is under an obligation to provide protection and ensure accountability for discriminatory acts such as violence against women, and rape in particular. The Committee notes that the State party has not contested the author’s claims under article 26, and that it failed to enable the author to make a complaint in her mother tongue, Tamil, as guaranteed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.26 The Committee also notes that the State party’s judges failed to acknowledge the author’s vulnerability as a minor member of an ethnic minority, in particular as they failed to intervene to prevent the unjustified public humiliation of the author by the defence counsel, casting doubt on the author’s morality and credibility, without adequate regard for her reputation, honour or dignity. In the light of the uncontested facts before it, the Committee finds that the author could not enjoy equality before the law and equal protection of the law, thereby suffering discrimination on grounds of her ethnicity and gender, in violation of article 26 of the Covenant. Moreover, the Committee concludes that the State party’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the author’s complaint, to promptly bring to justice those allegedly responsible and to provide reparation to the author has also amounted to the author’s discrimination on grounds of her gender and ethnicity, in violation of article 26 of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it reveal violations by Sri Lanka of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant and of article 26, read alone. 9. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated with an effective remedy in the form of full reparation. Accordingly, in the present case, the State party is obligated to, inter alia, provide the author with: (a) adequate compensation for the harm she suffered; (b) appropriate means of satisfaction, including a public apology, with a view to restoring her reputation and honour; and (c) social and psychological rehabilitation. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 10. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the Committee’s Views. 26 8 See, for example, communication No. 760/1997, Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia, Views adopted on 25 July 2000, para. 10.10.