89. The Complainants submit that, this was also confirmed by the CEDAW Committee‟s decision in A.T v Hungary,22 while the Committee was citing a report presented by the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences on due diligence and the standards expected of State Parties. In the Report, the Special Rapporteur specified that “the concept of due diligence provides a yardstick to determine whether a State has met or failed to meet its obligations in combating 90. AC HP R violence against women.” According to the Complainants, the sexual abuse endured by the Victims is gender-specific and amounts to discrimination on the grounds of sex, which is a violation of Article 18(3) of the African Charter. The Respondent State’s Submissions on the Merits 91. The Respondent State submits that the subject matter of the Complaint does not satisfy the condition of exhaustion of local remedies stipulated in Article 56 of the African Charter. 92. The Respondent State argues that there has been no violation of any of the provisions of the African Charter. It states that the national measures undertaken and stated in the Complaint are not in violation of the African Charter and the rights of the Victims were neither prejudiced nor violated. 93. The Respondent State further provides that investigations carried out by PPO concluded the existence of the crime of sexual molestation. They argue however, that the element of criminal intention was not established 22 The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Communication No.: 2/2003 (2005). 24