Deciding whether or not a State is meeting the due diligence standard ultimately comes down to an assessment of whether it is taking its obligations to prevent, respect, protect and fulfil seriously. A test proposed by the Special Rapporteur on violence against women in the context of a discussion on domestic violence is relevant: The test is whether the State undertakes its duties seriously … If statistics illustrate that existing laws are ineffective in protecting women from violence, States must find other complementary mechanisms to prevent domestic violence. Thus, if education, dismantling of institutional violence, demystifying domestic violence, training of State personnel, the funding of shelters and other direct services for victim-survivors and the systematic documentation of all incidents of domestic violence are found to be effective tools in preventing domestic violence and protecting women’s human rights, all become obligations in which the State must exercise due diligence in carrying out.134 2.4. SUMMARY OF THE KEY PRINCIPLES OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY RELEVANT TO TRAFFICKING In determining the responsibility of States for trafficking and related harms, the following summary of the relevant international legal principles and rules provides guidance: First, international legal responsibility requires that the act or omission must be attributable to the State. provide for their protection … not doing so violates and impairs or nullifies the enjoyment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the victims”). “Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy” (E/CN.4/1996/53, paras. 37 and 141). 134 • The “official” (even if unauthorized) conduct of a State organ or a State official who violates established primary rules is attributable to the State. • Whether an act or omission is determined to be “official” or private depends, to some extent, on whether the conduct in question is systematic or recurrent to the point where the State knew or should have known of it and should have taken steps to prevent it. • States will generally not be held responsible for the conduct of private entities unless there is a special circumstance (indicating control and/or approval) linking apparently private behaviour to the State itself. Second, in addition to being attributable to the State, the act or omission must also constitute a breach by the State of an international obligation. • The question of whether there has been a breach of an obligation depends on the content and interpretation of the primary rule; • In the area of human rights and trafficking, the general obligations of States extend beyond negative obligations of non-interference to include positive obligations such as legislative reform, the provision of remedies and protection from non-State interference. The composite nature of trafficking is reflected in the fact that breaches of obligation will often involve composite acts. Third, despite the general rule of non-attribution of private conduct, there are circumstances under which the State can be held responsible for trafficking-related violations originating in the conduct of private persons or entities: • In cases where responsibility for the initial act does not fall on the State, responsibility could still be imputed through a concomitant or subsequent failure on the part of the State COMMENTARY 81