CEDAW/C/58/D/47/2012 9.7 The Committee recalls that under article 2 (a) of the Convention, States parties have the obligation to ensure by law or other appropriate means the realization and practise of the principle of equality of men and women, and that pursuant to articles 2 (f) and 5 (a), States parties have the obligation to adopt appropriate measures to amend or abolish not only existing laws and regulations but also customs and practices that constitute discrimination against women. States parties also have the obligation, in accordance with article 16 (1), to adopt all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relationships. In that regard, the Committee stresses that stereotypes affect women’s right to impartial judicial process and that the judiciary should not apply inflexible standards based on preconceived notions about what constitutes domestic violence. 7 In this case, the Committee considers that the authorities of the State party, in deciding on the establishment of an unsupervised scheme of visits, applied stereotyped and therefore discriminatory notions in a context of domestic violence and failed to provide due supervision, infringing their obligations under articles 2 (a), (d), (e) and (f); 5 (a); and 16, paragraph 1 (d) of the Convention. 9.8 The Committee notes that the author of the communication has suffered harm of the utmost seriousness and an irreparable injury as a result of the loss of her daughter and the violations described. Moreover, her efforts to obtain redress have been futile. The Committee therefore concludes that the absence of reparations constitutes a violation by the State party of its obligations under article 2 (b) and (c) of the Convention. 9.9 The Committee notes that the State party has adopted a broad model for dealing with domestic violence which includes legislation, awareness-raising, education and capacity-building. However, in order for a woman victim of domestic violence to see the practical realization of the principle of non-discrimination and substantive equality and enjoy her human rights and fundamental freedoms, the political will expressed by that model must have the support of public officials who respect the obligations of due diligence by the State party. 8 These include the obligation to investigate the existence of failures, negligence or omissions on the part of public authorities which may have caused victims to be deprived of protection. The Committee considers that, in the present case, that obligation was not discharged. 10. In accordance with article 7, paragraph 3, of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and taking into account all of the foregoing considerations, the Committee considers that the State party has infringed the rights of the author and her deceased daughter under articles 2 (a-f); 5 (a); and 16, paragraph 1 (d) of the Convention, read jointly with article 1 of the Convention and general recommendation No. 19 of the Committee. 11. The Committee makes the following recommendations to the State party: (a) With regard to the author of the communication: (i) Grant the author appropriate reparation and comprehensive compensation commensurate with the seriousness of the infringement of her rights; 7 8 14-59288 Communication No. 20/2008, V.K. v. Bulgaria, Decision of 25 July 2011, para. 9.11. Communication No. 5/2005, Goecke v. Austria, Decision of 6 August 2007, para. 12.1.2. 17