A/HRC/7/3 page 7 28. The Special Rapporteur has suggested adding to these elements the criterion of powerlessness.5 A situation of powerlessness arises when one person exercises total power over another, classically in detention situations, where the detainee cannot escape or defend him/herself. However, it can also arise during demonstrations, when a person is not able to resist the use of force any more, e.g. handcuffed, in a police van etc. Rape is an extreme expression of this power relation, of one person treating another person as merely an object. Applied to situations of “private violence”, this means that the degree of powerlessness of the victim in a given situation must be tested. If it is found that a victim is unable to flee or otherwise coerced into staying by certain circumstances, the powerlessness criterion can be considered fulfilled. 29. The element of powerlessness also allows the specific status of the victim to be taken into consideration, such as sex, age and physical and mental health,6 in some cases also religion, which might render a specific person powerless in a given context. A society’s indifference to or even support for the subordinate status of women, together with the existence of discriminatory laws and a pattern of State failure to punish perpetrators and protect victims, create the conditions under which women may be subjected to systematic physical and mental suffering, despite their apparent freedom to resist. 30. In regard to violence against women, the purpose element is always fulfilled, if the acts can be shown to be gender-specific,7 since discrimination is one of the elements mentioned in the CAT definition. Moreover, if it can be shown that an act had a specific purpose, the intent can be implied. 31. The central role of the State in article 1 of the Convention, which restricts the definition of torture to acts “when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity”, has frequently been used to exclude violence against women outside direct State control from the scope of protection of CAT. However, the Special Rapporteur wishes to recall that the language used in article 1 of the Convention concerning consent and acquiescence by a public official clearly extends State obligations into the private sphere and should be interpreted to include State failure to protect persons within its jurisdiction from torture and ill-treatment committed by private individuals. Also, article 1 of CAT should be seen as reinforcing - and reinforced by - the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 48/104. 32. Article 4 (c) of this Declaration proclaims that States should “exercise due diligence 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”. Recently, the 5 See E/CN.4/2006/6, paras. 39-40. 6 See also European Court of Human Rights: Soering v. UK, 1989 and Costello v. UK, 1993. 7 I.e. violence that is gender-specific in its form or purpose in that it is aimed at “correcting” behaviour perceived as non-consonant with gender roles and stereotypes or at asserting or perpetuating male domination over women.