applicant was a victim of severe domestic violence. The perpetrator, her common-law husband and father of her two children, had criminal proceedings lodged against him but was never detained. The applicant thus claimed that the State failed to protect her from severe domestic violence despite her repeated requests for assistance. There were no protection or restraining orders available and no shelters equipped to take her and her disabled child. The CEDAW Committee held that Hungary had failed in its obligations under the CEDAW Convention because it had not enacted specific legislation to combat domestic violence and sexual harassment, because no shelters existed for the immediate protection of a woman with a disabled child in the present case, and because there was no injunctive relief, such as a restraining order, available to her. 150 The CEDAW Committee in this case not only affirmed the emerging standards of due diligence responsibility of States to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish violence by non-State actors; it also itemised a whole range of State responsibilities to protect women against domestic violence, including legislative, administrative, and social welfare changes.151 In Goekce v. Austria,152 and Fatima Yildirim v. Austria,153 the women on whose behalf the cases had been brought were killed by their respective husbands after a series of violent incidents over a lengthy period. The two women were killed despite their appeals for assistance from law enforcement agencies and the courts on a number of occasions. The CEDAW Committee found a violation of the right to life and physical and mental integrity under Articles 2 (elimination of discrimination) and 3 (equality) of CEDAW, read together with Article 1 (non-discrimination) and General Recommendation 19 (violence against women). The CEDAW Committee considered that given the combination of factors, the police knew, or should have known, that the victims were in serious danger, and therefore the police were accountable for failing to exercise due diligence. In these cases, the CEDAW Committee also held that a perpetrator’s right to liberty cannot supersede a woman’s human rights to life and to physical and mental integrity. ii) Failures in judicial response to sexual violence In Vertido v. The Philippines,154 an important case on sexual violence, the applicant argued that the judiciary had discriminated against her by relying on gender-based myths in its procedures and decisions. The applicant had brought a rape claim against a colleague and reported the case to police within 48 hours of the incident. After the case was initially dismissed for lack of probable cause, she filed an appeal and secured an order that the accused be charged with rape. After an inordinate delay in the proceedings, the trial court ultimately issued a verdict acquitting the accused. It held that there was reasonable doubt to convict the accused based on evidence presented by the prosecution and that the testimony of the applicant indicated she consented to sexual relations. The applicant subsequently filed a complaint to the CEDAW Committee in which she argued inter-alia that the State failed in its obligation to ensure that women are protected against discrimination by public authorities, including the judiciary. She further alleged that the court had relied on gender-based myths in its judgment and claimed that the acquittal was evidence of the failure of the State to exercise due diligence in punishing acts of violence against women. The CEDAW Committee found the State in violation of its obligations under Articles 2(f) and 5(a) which require State Parties to take appropriate measures to modify or abolish existing State laws, regulations and practices that constitute discrimination against women. Article 5(a) in particular requires State Parties “to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women with a view to achieving the elimination of 150 A.T. v. Hungary (CEDAW Comm. No. 2/2003 (2005)) ¶ 9.3. 151 Ibid., 0.6, II General, (a) – (h). 152 Goekce v. Austria (CEDAW Comm. No. 5/2005 (2007). 153 Yildirim v. Austria (CEDAW Comm. No. 6/2005 (2007). 154 Vertido v. The Philippines (CEDAW Comm. No. 18/2008). 44 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES | REDRESS