CEDAW/C/68/D/91/2015 refused to investigate the complaint and that, consequently, no specific measures were taken to protect the author against the threats that she received. 6.4 The Committee further notes the author ’s submission that punishment for death threats has a two-year statute of limitations from the date on which the threats were made. The statute of limitations for the events in question therefore expired in February 2015 and any attempt to bring the perpetrator to justice beyond that date is therefore time-barred. 6.5 Lastly, the Committee notes that the State party provides no explanation as to how domestic remedies would have been effective in securing the rights of the author, given the consistent absence of any further measures to protect those rights. The Committee therefore concludes that, in the present case, the domestic remedies referred to by the State party would be unlikely to bring effective relief. Accordingly, the Committee is not precluded, by virtue of the requirements of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol, from considering the present communication as raising issues under articles 1, 2 (b)–(g), 3 and 5 (a) of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the author and by the State party, as provided for in article 7 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 With regard to the submission of the author that the decisions of the authorities were based on gender stereotypes, in violation of article 5 of the Convention, the Committee reaffirms that the Convention places obligations on all State organs and that States parties can be responsible for judicial decisions that violate provisions of the Convention. 7 The Committee also emphasizes that the full implementation of the Convention requires States parties not only to take steps to eliminate direct and indirect discrimination and improve the de facto position of women, but also to modify and transform gender stereotypes and eliminate wrongful gender stereotyping, a root cause and consequence of discrimination against women. 8 Gender stereotypes are perpetuated through various means and institutions, including laws and legal systems, and can be perpetuated by State actors in all branches and at all levels of government and by private actors. 9 7.3 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with paragraph 6 of its general recommendation No. 19, discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention encompasses gender-based violence against women. Such discrimination is not restricted to action by or on behalf of States parties. Rather, under article 2 (e) of the Convention, States parties may also be responsible for private acts, if they fail to act with due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate and punish acts of violence, and for providing compensation (see para. 9 (a) below). This has been reaffirmed by the Committee in paragraph 24 of its general recommendation No. 35 (2017) on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19, and in its jurisprudence. 10 7.4 The Committee takes note of the argument of the State party that, because K. was not a member of the author ’s family at the time of the alleged violence, her claim that she was a victim of domestic violence is unsubstantiated. The Committee __________________ 7 8 9 10 17-21669 See V.K. v. Bulgaria (CEDAW/C/49/D/20/2008), para. 9.11, and L.R. v. Republic of Moldova, para. 13.6. See Belousova v. Kazakhstan (CEDAW/C/61/D/45/2012), para. 10.10. See R.K.B. v. Turkey (CEDAW/C/51/D/28/2010), para. 8.8. See also Goekce v. Austria (CEDAW/C/39/D/5/2005) and Yildirim v. Austria (CEDAW/C/39/D/6/2005). 9/12