CCPR/C/114/D/2234/2013 with acts of discrimination as understood by the Committee in its general comment No. 18, the Committee’s jurisprudence and as generally understood in legal terms. They are brutal acts of repression of dissent. Otherwise, every act of torture and every act of repression could be construed as discrimination. Even the legislation of the State party does not permit such acts. 6. True it is, and regrettably so, that there was a severe violation of article 7 of the Covenant when the author was raped successively by three unidentified persons when she was in police custody in 2005 and where she underwent surgery without being informed of the reason thereof and without giving her consent when she was in prison in 2008. Such heinous crimes and despicable conduct for which the State is responsible are severely condemned. 7. Furthermore, the views of the majority are not totally clear in paragraph 7.6 as to whether there is a finding of discrimination on the ground of political or other opinion as well. The majority takes note of the author’s allegations, which are not specifically refuted by the State party and comes to a general conclusion “in the circumstances of the present case” that the author’s rights under article 26 have been violated. However, the arbitrary arrest, detention of the author, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment of the author for her human rights activities, while they definitely violate her rights under articles 9, 14, 19, 21 and 22 as pointed out in paragraph 7.7 of the majority’s views, do not constitute acts of discrimination under article 26 of the Covenant. 17