87. The Complainants also allege a violation of Article 18(3) of the African Charter in the failure of the State to protect the Victims from discrimination against women. They submit that this case represents a critical opportunity for the African Commission to confirm that violence against women can amount to discrimination under the African Charter, and that States therefore have a legal obligation to prevent it, and take measures to thoroughly investigate, prosecute and punish in cases where it occurs. They also refer to Article 1 of the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa (the Women's Protocol),21 and argue that it strongly underscores violence against women, whether it is physical, sexual or psychological. 88. The Complainants make reference to the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), specifically its Articles 6 and 7. They submit that the CEDAW Committee's General Recommendation (GR) No.19 entitled "Violence against Women," provides a link between violence against women and equality. Furthermore, that paragraph 9 of the same GR specifies that in addition to applying to violence perpetrated by public authorities "Under general international law and specific human rights covenants, States 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." 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 violence against women." 90. 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 in this offence as the injuries sustained by the Victims were as a result of battery and clashes. 94. The Respondent State alleges that the documents containing a narration of the occurrences, incidents and statements submitted to the African Commission by the Complainants are contrary to the statements made under oath before the PPO by the Victims. It submits that new statements were made by the Victims to support their Complaint before the African Commission. It requests the latter to disregard unsubstantiated statements and not allow the assumptions of the correctness of the Complaint to lead to findings contrary to those of the PPO. 95. The Respondent State submits that the investigations of the PPO concluded that the perpetrators were unknown and that those who were accused by the Victims in their testimonies were not present at the scene of the incident at the time of its occurrence. The Respondent State's Additional Submissions on the Merits 96. The Respondent State submits in its additional submissions that there exist "Several discrepancies between what the Victims submitted in their testimonies before the PPO, and what they allege in their application before the African Commission." 97. The Respondent State outlines three instances of such discrepancies from the three Victims which are summarized as follows: i. The Second Victim, in her deposition to the African Commission, indicated that the wife of Mr. Mohamed El Deeb, a member of the NDP supporter was leading the demonstrations against them; she did not mention this allegation to the PPO. Furthermore, the Second Victim said the PPO police officer, Nabil 8