Communication 341/07 - Equality Now v Ethiopia girls were under the continuing threat of being abducted, raped and forcibly married in the area where the practice was rampant, and where Ms Negash lived. This required escalated measures beyond the criminalisation of abduction and rape under the criminal law that existed at the time. 127. More specifically with respect to the case at hand, Ms Woineshet Zebene Negash was abducted twice. The State quickly became aware of her first abduction and rescued her, albeit after she had already been raped. The rescue was commendable. However, inexplicably, the perpetrator was released from custody, and neither party has explained what conditions, if any, were attached to his release for the purpose of preventing him from offending again. Further, after the first abduction, the Respondent State ought to have reckoned the reality of the risk Ms. Negash and other girls at her residence faced. The duty to prevent a repetition of the abduction, rape and forced purported marriage of Ms Negash, and no less other girls in like situations, required the Respondent State to adopt and implement heightened measures as a matter of urgency. 128. It is not for the Commission to pinpoint the actual measures that could or should have been adopted and implemented in the situation of Ms Negash and other girls in similar situations. Given its unique knowledge of the local realities, the Respondent State has a margin of appreciation in adopting the most appropriate and effective measures to prevent imminent violations that it is aware of. Without prejudice to that margin of appreciation, such measures could have included immediately launching sensitisation campaigns in the area about the illegality of the practice of forced marriage by abduction and rape and the attendant penal consequences; providing direct security at the residences of girls attending school; conducting random patrols of the areas where the practice was rampant; or indeed requiring the owners of properties accommodating school-attending girls, such as Ms Negash's dormitory, to adequately secure the premises. 129. From the facts presented, beyond the criminalisation of abduction and rape at the time, the Respondent State did not adopt any specific measures prior to Ms Negash's first abduction. Indeed the Complainant states that when the perpetrator was arrested for Ms Negash's first abduction, the practice ebbed. But it immediately resumed when it was learnt that the principal offender has been released on bail. This suggests that the Respondent State had not been prosecuting perpetrators of abduction and rape. Had it been doing so, the ripple effect of arrests and prosecution of perpetrators could have long operated as an effective deterrent as it did when Ms Negash's abductor was arrested the first instance. 130. More so, even after her first abduction the Respondent State doesj have adopted escalated measures of protection. In fact, its court set the perpetrator