Recommended textual change: “Whether the person has been a victim of brutality or excessive use of force by public officials based on any form of discrimination physical or mental ill-treatment in the State of origin or would be exposed to such brutality ill-treatment in the State of transfer deportation;” (2) Paragraph 30 (c) 69. In order to ensure that women and girls enjoy equal protection against refoulement without discrimination based on sex and/or gender, its application should take into account the specific disadvantages, harms and risks thereof women and girls face and are more likely to face than men and boys. Although women and girls are also victims of torture and other ill-treatment committed by State officials, they are at greater risk of violence at the hands of non-state actors, such as private persons, e.g. intimate partners, parents, siblings and other family members and neighbours. They are also at greater risk of human trafficking and/or violence perpetrated by organized criminal groups. Especially along migration routes women and girls are particularly vulnerable to sexual violence, exploitation and slavery. 70. In its General Comment No.2, this Committee held that the “where State authorities or others acting in official capacity or under colour of law, know or have reasonable grounds to believe that acts of torture or ill-treatment are being committed by non-State officials or private actors and they fail to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish such non-State officials or private actors consistently with the Convention, the State bears responsibility and its officials should be considered as authors, complicit or otherwise responsible under the Convention for consenting to or acquiescing in such impermissible acts.”110The Committee further emphasized that, “gender is a key factor”.111 71. In Njamba and Balikosa v. Sweden, the Committee reaffirmed the due diligence obligation of the State to prevent rape and sexual violence by private actors under the Convention. It concluded that there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainants faced a real risk of being subjected to torture (in the form of rape) if returned to the DRC.112 72. Thus a gendered interpretation of the prohibition against refoulement under the Convention should include the obligation of States to ensure that women and girls are not transferred to country where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to violence by non-state actors and where the authorities of that country are unable or unwilling to exercise due diligence to effectively prevent such violence. If in the face of that known danger the transferring State goes ahead with the transfer, it bears responsibility and its officials should be considered as perpetrators, complicit or otherwise responsible under the Convention for consenting to or acquiescing in such impermissible acts. 110 CAT, General Comment No. 2, UN Doc. CAT/C/GC/2, 24 Jan. 2008 para. 18. CAT, General Comment No. 2, UN Doc. CAT/C/GC/2, 24 Jan. 2008 para. 22. 112 CAT, Njamba and Balikosa v. Sweden, UN Doc. CAT /C/44/D/322/2007, 3 June 2010. 111 31 AI Index: IOR 40/6040/2017