CCPR/C/132/D/2615/2015 Advance unedited version would not be distinct from the examination of the violation of the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee therefore considers that the author’s claim under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (2) of the Covenant is inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.7 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated her claims under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (1), 2 (3), 3 and 26 of the Covenant; and under articles 17 and 23, each read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (1), 2 (3), 3 and 26 of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to examine it on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that on 20 August 2002, she was subjected to rape, other forms of sexual violence and ill-treatment by members of the Royal Nepalese Army and the Armed Police Force. The Committee notes that the State party has not provided any specific comments to refute these allegations. The Committee observes that the author has provided a detailed and consistent description of the gang rape and other acts of sexual violence that she endured, and documentation to support those allegations, including statements from two individuals and the author’s husband, and a forensic medical examination certificate confirming the author was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression and that there was no reason not to believe the author’s account of the attack and its consequences. The Committee takes note of the author’s allegation that she experienced severe physical pain and mental suffering during and after the attack up to the present. The Committee also observes that according to the author’s allegations, the security forces intentionally subjected the author to rape and other acts of violence in order to extract a confession regarding her imputed support for Maoist insurgents. The Committee also notes the author’s reference to various non-governmental reports that indicate a general pattern of violations committed by the State party’s security forces during the internal conflict; those violations include sexual violence inflicted during interrogations of women suspected of being Maoists or Maoist supporters.24 In the light of the above, and in the absence of any explanation from the State party with respect to the factual claims raised, due weight must be given to the author’s allegations. Recalling its prior relevant jurisprudence, the Committee considers that the rape and other acts of sexual violence inflicted by the Royal Nepalese Army and the Armed Police Force upon the author, who is a member of the indigenous community of the Tharu, violated the author’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant.25 7.3 The Committee also notes the author’s uncontested argument that the rape and other acts of sexual violence to which she was subjected had a discriminatory effect, as demonstrated by the generalized use of rape against women during the conflict, owing to the particularly serious discriminatory consequences, shame and stigma for women victims of rape in society in Nepal, and, in particular, in the indigenous community to which the author belongs. The Committee recalls that women are particularly vulnerable in times of internal or international armed conflict.26 States parties must therefore take all measures to protect women and girls from rape, abduction and other forms of gender-based violence, particularly those women and girls belonging to more vulnerable groups, as indigenous communities like the one the author belonged to.27 In light of the context surrounding the rape and other forms of sexual violence to which the author, as a woman, was subjected,28 the Committee considers 24 25 26 27 28 10 See, inter alia, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Nepal Conflict Report (2012), p. 158. See, for example, Nyaya v. Nepal (CCPR/C/125/D/2556/2015), para. 7.2; Mehalli v. Algeria (CCPR/C/110/D/1900/2009), para. 7.10. See also Committee against Torture, A v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (CAT/C/67/D/854/2017), paras. 7.2-7.4. See Maya v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013), para. 12.4. See general comment No. 28 on Equality of rights between men and women (article 3) (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10 (2000)), para. 8; Nyaya v. Nepal (CCPR/C/125/D/2556/2015), para. 7.3. See Maya v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013), para. 12.4; Nyaya v. Nepal (CCPR/C/125/D/2556/2015), para. 7.3.