who have claimed breach of Article 7 through sexual violence on their genitals. 172 There is as much scope for women victims of sexual violence to claim breach of Article 7.  There is nothing in the rules of the treaty bodies preventing them from allowing for the amendment of a complaint when new information comes to light or to comment on the gendered aspects of a complaint. Yet, in cases that had references to sexual violence against women, the HRC has generally neglected to probe further and draw that fact out exhibiting an overall approach of gender blindness. In Gedumbe v. Democratic Republic of Congo,173 a male teacher at a consular school in Bujumbura claimed breach of Article 7 when a former ambassador withheld his salary to force him to make his wife available for sex. While the case itself was declared inadmissible because of unsubstantiated facts, the HRC did not comment on the possibility that the wife may have been a victim of slavery and therefore suffered a breach of Article 8.  Similarly, in Blanco v. Nicaragua,174 the complainant claimed a breach of Article 7 when government forces ransacked his house and beat his pregnant wife to the point of causing her miscarriage. The HRC found a breach of Article 7 as was claimed, but failed to comment on the vicious attack on the wife. In another case of V.E.M v. Spain175, the male complainant claimed he was dismissed from military service because he “tolerated his wife’s dishonourable lifestyle” which constituted an attack on his honour. The complaint did not mention the wife nor was she included as a complainant. The HRC, instead of using the opportunity to question the biased notion that the sexual lives of women have an impact on men’s honour, ignored the reference while declaring the claim inadmissible.  General Comment 28, in relation to torture, refers to domestic or other types of violence against women, including rape, the denial of access to safe abortion when pregnancy has resulted from rape, forced abortion or forced sterilisation, and the practice of genital mutilation.176 The inclusion of such a broad range of crimes opens up avenues for claims from many women victims of these varied crimes and not only of rape.  General Comment 7 clarifies that Article 7 prohibits ill-treatment ‘even when committed by persons acting outside or without any official authority’ 177 thereby holding the State responsible for acts of officials beyond their prescribed roles and orders. General Comment 20 goes a step further and includes within State responsibility, acts of officers in their private capacity. 178 For women, who are often illtreated or tortured for information about their male relatives, such clarifications are important to send claims to the HRC. 5.3 United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) The Committee oversees the implementation of the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT Committee). 172 Motta v. Uruguay, HRC Comm. No. 11/1997 (29 July 1980); Ajaz and Jamil v. Republic of Korea, HRC Comm. No. 644/1995 (19 March 1997); Rodriguez v. Uruguay, HRC Comm. No. 332/1988 (19 July 1994). 173 Gedumbe v. Democratic Republic of Congo, HRC Comm. No. 641/1995 (10 July 1997). 174 Blanco v. Nicaragua, HRC Comm. No. 328/1988 (10 July 1994). 175 V.E.M v. Spain, HRC Comm. No. 467/1991 (16 July 1991). 176 HRC, General Comment No.28, Equality of Rights Between Men and Women, para 11. 177 HRC, General Comment No.7: Torture or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, para 2. 178 HRC, General Comment No.20: Torture or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, paras 2 and 13. REDRESS | INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES 49