Court of Human Rights clarified that “although the ill-treatment that Mrs. Aydin had suffered included being stripped, beaten, sprayed with cold water from high-pressure jets, put in a car tyre and spun around and raped by an individual in military clothing, the rape on its own would have been sufficient for the Court to make a finding of torture under Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights”.129 4.7.3 States’ Due Diligence Responsibility The understanding and application of due diligence standards has evolved over time. The IACHR and IACtHR have, in their reports and judgments, established the due diligence principle as a benchmark to decide on situations of violence against women perpetrated by private actors. The Velasquez Rodriguez case already referred to above is among the first cases that found State responsibility for violence by private actors. The due diligence responsibility of the State has been reinforced by other decisions since. The IACHR established in the case of Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes v. Brazil “that the obligation of States to act with the due diligence necessary to investigate and sanction human rights violations applies to cases of domestic violence”. 130 Moreover the rights contained in the American Convention may be implicated when a State fails to prevent, prosecute and sanction acts of domestic violence perpetrated by private individuals. 131 In Claudia Ivette González and Others, 132 the IACHR determined that “The protection of the right to life is a critical component of a State’s due diligence obligation to protect women from acts of violence. This legal obligation pertains to the entire State institution, including the actions of those entrusted with safeguarding the security of the State, such as the police forces”.133 The IACtHR too made similar observations on the legal obligations of the State in the landmark case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. 134 The ECtHR in the case of Opuz v. Turkey,135 discussed the extent and limits of such a responsibility. The question that States often contest is that there is no way a State could foresee or know the behaviour of a private individual to trigger the responsibility of prevention. In determining the question of knowledge, one common feature in the rulings of the ECtHR is that the State authorities had already recognised a risk of harm to the victim and/or her family members, but had failed to act diligently to protect them. The recognition of risk was reflected in the issuance of protection orders, 136 the detention of the aggressor, 137 assistance to the victim and/or her family members in the filing of complaints, 138 and the 129 Aydin v. Turkey, Judgment of 27 September 1997, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 57/1996/676/866. 130 IACHR, Report Nº 54/01, Case 12.051, April 16, 2001. 131 Report Nº 54/01, Case 12.051, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil), Annual Report of the IACHR 2001, ¶¶ 3, 37-44. 132 IACHR, Report 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, March 9, 2007. 133 See, IACHR, Report Nº 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette Gonzalez and Others (Mexico), March 9, 2007, ¶¶ 247-255; I/A Court H.R. 134 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, ¶ 245. 135 Opuz v. Turkey (Application no. 33401/02) Judgment, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, 9 June 2009. 136 See CEDAW Committee, Views on Communication No. 5/2005, Sahide Goekce v. Austria, July 21, 2004; CEDAW Committee, Views on Communication No. 6/2005, Fatma Yildrim v. Austria, July 21, 2004. 137 See, European Court of Human Rights, Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, Application No. 46598/06, 15 January 2009. 138 See, European Court of Human Rights, Kontrová v. Slovakia, Application No. 7510/04, ECtHR 2007-VI (extracts). 38 REGIONAL MECHANISMS | REDRESS