international law. States parties are thus obliged to ensure that private actors do not engage in discrimination against women as defined in the Convention. 147 214. The Committee has stated further in General Recommendation No. 19 that: The failure of a State party to take all appropriate measures to prevent acts of gender-based violence against women in cases in which its authorities are aware or should be aware of the risk ofsuch violence, or the failure to investigate, to prosecute and punish perpetrators and to provide reparations to victims/survivors of such acts, provides tacit permission or encouragement to perpetrate acts ofgender-based violence against women.14B 215. The European Court has consolidated in many of its findings (Talpis v. Italy, 2017 at 141; Opuz v. Turkey, 2009, at 191; Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova, 2013, at 85; T.M. and C.M. v. the Republic of Moldova, 2014, at 57) that a State's failure to protect women against domestic violence may breach their right to equal protection of the law and this failure does not need to be intentional. 216. In Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes v Brazil, the Inter-American Commission reiterated that: " ... the international and regional systems have pronounced on the strong link between discrimination, violence and due diligence, emphasizing that a State's failure to act with due diligence to protect women from violence constitutes a form of discrimination, and denies women their right to equaliti; before the law. These principles have also been applied to hold States responsible for failures to protect womenfrom domestic violence acts perpetrated by private actors. "149 217. The Commission concludes that the Victim was trafficked for sexual exploitation and suffered sexual violence, which is a form of discrimination. The Commission finds multiple discrimination on the basis of her sex, gender, age and nationality. As has already been established in our analysis, the Respondent neglected to undertake its duty to protect the victim fro~J,Scri:mia ~ · . because its failure to effectively investigate, prevent and punis9)the victin?s p~r trators. The Commission finds that the Respondent State is vio ~?CA~\ rt( " 2and 18(3) of the Charter as well as Article 2of the Maputo P.~to ol. ~ ~ = 0 ·n "i~ ot ~ AU,UA ~ ~ .J}'¼,, "'<.)· 0 "'"' ~•'' 4 Go Para 13 of CEDAW recommendation No. 18 <"'o '°1<1CA1N~ ~ .,"'"' 148 General recommendation No. 19, para. 9 E fl OES 149 IACtHR, Report N° 54/01, Case 12.051, April 16, 2001; European Court of Human Rights, se of Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02, 9 June 2009. 147 57