CEDAW/C/78/D/130/2018 Committee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol from considering the matter. 5.4 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated her communication for the purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares the communication admissible, insofar as it raises issues under articles 1 –3, 5 (a) and 7 of the Convention, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 6.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information placed at its disposal by the author, without the benefit of the State party’s observations, in accordance with the provisions of article 7 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee notes the author’s argument that, in breach of articles 1 and 2 (b), (d) and (e) of the Convention, the State party discriminated against her on the basis of her sex and as a defender of the human rights of women breaking gender norms. She claims to have been threatened because of her activism for women’s rights and to have been arbitrarily arrested and detained on three occasions, without an arrest warrant, charges or any basis in Libyan law, including on 9 August 2012 during a women’s rights workshop. Following this arrest, she was detained by members of the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade and questioned by a man identified as a Ministry of Defence official. Moreover, on 11 and 12 August 2012, she was subjected to genderbased and sexual verbal abuse, kicking, blows with a gun and a death threat, which resulted in her being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. She states that she saw vehicles of the State party’s Supreme Security Committee on the compound premises and that, immediately after the abuse, which rendered her barely able to move, S., a man identified as a Supreme Security Committee investigator, questioned her about Hakki, which he called a “prostitution organization”, until 4 a.m. Following her release, members of the Brigade and a Supreme Security Committee member brought her back to the compound, where S. again questioned her and said that he had discussed her case with the Deputy Interior Minister. The next day, she was made to meet the latter, who did not enquire about her clearly visible injuries. Rather, he complained to her about the “noise” that she had created in the media, laughed at her demands for women’s rights and told her to sign a letter stating that she would not deal with Jewish organizations or individuals. Despite follow -up attempts, her complaint to the Prosecutor General filed in 2013 has generated no substantive response. In addition to the author’s statement, the Committee takes particular not e of the press article according to which the Deputy Interior Minister stated that “a legitimate force affiliated to the Ministry of Internal Affairs arrested” the author and that her organization had “deviated from its course and started chanting for wome n’s freedom”. 6.3 The Committee recalls that discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention encompasses gender-based violence against women. 10 Such discrimination is not restricted to action by or on behalf of States parties. Rather, unde r 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. 11 Under the obligation of due __________________ 10 11 21-04766 General recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19, para. 21; general recommendation No. 19 on violence against women, paras. 6–7. General recommendation No. 35, para. 24; see also Vienna Intervention Centre against Domestic Violence and Association for Women’s Access to Justice on behalf of Goekce et al. v. Austria (CEDAW/C/39/D/5/2005), para. 12.2. 7/10