A/74/148 by, for instance, allowing husbands to “chastise” their wives or failing to criminalize marital rape (A/HRC/31/57, para. 55). With reference to article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Human Rights Committee has repeatedly condemned the failure of States to prevent and redress domestic violence (e.g. CCPR/C/JAM/CO/4, para. 23; and CCPR/C/LKA/CO/5, para. 9), and the Committee Against Torture has done the same with reference to the Convention against Torture (e.g. CAT/C/GRC/CO/5-6, para. 23). Moreover, in paragraphs 18 and 19 of its general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties, the Committee Against Torture confirmed States ’ due diligence obligations to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by non-State actors, including gender-based violence, such as rape, domestic violence, female genital mutilation and trafficking. Importantly, according to the Committee, if a person is to be transferred or sent to the custody or control of an individual or institution known to have engaged in torture or ill treatment, or the State has not implemented adequate safeguards, the State is responsible, and its officials subject to punishment for ordering, permitting or participating in this transfer contrary to the State’s obligation to take effective measures to prevent torture. 13. At the regional level, the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly found violations of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment owing to States’ failure to take general and specific measures to effectively protect persons from domestic violence, 9 or because the domestic court’s approach suggested that “isolated and random” acts of violence could be tolerated within the family. 10 In doing so, the Court has elaborated States’ positive obligations to protect persons facing domestic violence. 11 Thus, the Court has found, for example, that States should strive expressly and comprehensively to protect children’s dignity against domestic violence, most notably through an adequate legal framework affording protection through effective deterrence against serious breaches of personal integrity, through reasonable steps to prevent abuse of which the authorities have, or ought to have, knowledge and through effective official investigations of credible allegations of ill-treatment. 12 Other cases in which the Court has found a violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on the basis of States ’ response to domestic violence also concerned the right to life, 13 the right to private and family life 14 and the prohibition of discrimination. 15 14. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has found the failure to protect a victim of domestic violence and her children to be in breach of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, notably the right to life, liberty and security of person and the right to equality before the law, in particular owing to the State’s failure to enforce a restraining order against the victim’s husband. 16 The Inter__________________ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 6/23 See, inter alia, Opuz v. Turkey, App. No. 33401/02, Judgment of 9 June 2009; N. v. Sweden, App. No. 23505/09, Judgment of 20 July 2010; E.M. v. Romania, App. No. 43994/05, Judgment of 30 October 2012; Valiulienė v. Lithuania, App. No. 33234/07, Judgment of 26 March 2013; B. v. Republic of Moldova, App. No. 61382/09, Judgment of 16 July 2013; T.M. and C.M. v. Moldova, App. No. 26608/11, Judgment of 28 January 2014. D.M.D. v. Romania, App. No. 23022/13, Judgment of 3 October 2017, paras. 40–53. See factsheet on domestic violence produced by the European Court of Human Rights. D.M.D. v. Romania, para. 51. See, for example, Kontrová v. Slovakia, App. No. 7510/04, Judgment of 31 May 2007; and Branko Tomašić and Others v. Croatia, App. No. 46598/06, Judgment of 15 January 2009. See, for example, Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, App. No. 71127/01, Judgment of 12 June 2008; and A. v. Croatia, App. No. 55164/08, Judgment of 14 October 2010. See, for example, Eremia v. Republic of Moldova, App. No. 3564/11, Judgment of 28 May 2013. Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al v. United States of America, report No. 80/11, case 12.626, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 21 July 2011. 19-11892