CCPR/C/125/D/2556/2015 11. However, unlike the Committee, I fail to see how the State party is to be held accountable for the alleged disruption of the author’s family life or of her future marriage. 12. Regarding family life, the author herself acknowledges she did not complain about her rape to her own family and that she felt too ashamed to ask for her parents’ support (para. 7 of the opinion above and para 2.10 of the Views). Moreover, her family received her after the events, cared for her and gave her shelter and understanding. Therefore, the author did not face a situation of family disruption. 13. As for the author’s marriage, it was entered into seven years after the events, and the causal link between the sexual crimes endured and the initial disruption of the marriage intermingle with several other factors (husband’s and in-laws’ perception of the author as a victim of sexual violence, perceptions of the community on the same issue, social prejudices and bias and many others). I therefore fail to see how the State party is to be held responsible for the author’s disrupted marriage, particularly since the spouses later reconciled with each other. 14. By concluding with a violation of the author’s rights under articles 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant for the above reasons, the Committee opens up an avenue for State responsibility that will have hardly any boundaries, both in terms of the number of years to take into account after the events and of the extent of such responsibility. 15. I would therefore have concluded that Nepal was not responsible, in the present case, for a disruption of the author’s family life and marriage and therefore had not violated, on those grounds, articles 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant. 13