become victim of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment as well as other forms of child abuse, States are required to undertake exhaustive investigation and ensure that commensurate compensation is rewarded to the victims. 74. States therefore have a positive obligation to effectively protect the human dignity and integrity of children as well as children‟s right to freedom from cruel and inhuman treatment. This obligation and responsibility of States arises even if the violation is caused by non-state actors. In this regard, the Committee against Torture in its General Comment no. 2 noted that „The Committee has made it clear that where State authorities or others acting in official capacity or under colour of law, know or have reasonable grounds to believe that acts of torture or ill-treatment are being committed by non-State officials or private actors and they fail to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish such non-State officials or private actors consistently with the Convention, the State bears responsibility and its officials should be considered as authors, complicit or otherwise responsible under the Convention for consenting to or acquiescing in such impermissible acts. Since the failure of the State to exercise due diligence to intervene to stop, sanction and provide remedies to victims of torture facilitates and enables non-State actors to commit acts impermissible under the Convention with impunity, the State‟s indifference or inaction provides a form of encouragement and/or de facto permission. The Committee has applied this principle to States parties‟ failure to prevent and protect victims from gender-based violence, such as rape, domestic violence, female genital mutilation, and trafficking.‟ 28 75. State responsibility arising from article 16 is therefore not only based on acts perpetrated by agents of the State but also on acts perpetrated by non-state actors. As stated by the African Commission: Human rights standards do not contain merely limitations on State's authority or organs of State. They also impose positive obligations on States to prevent and sanction private violations of human rights. Indeed, human rights law imposes obligations on States to protect citizens or individuals under their jurisdiction from the harmful acts of others. Thus, an act by a private individual and therefore not directly imputable to a State can generate responsibility of the State, not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due diligence to prevent the violation or for not taking the necessary steps to provide the victims with reparation. 29 76. In the Communication under consideration, TFA, a minor was raped and defiled by nonState actor. Despite the overwhelming evidence that TFA was raped, the Respondent State has not ensured prosecution of the perpetrator by carrying out effective investigation. It did not also ensure remedy for the victim for the violation she suffered. 77. Consequently, as a result of lack of due diligence to investigate the rape committed against TFA and effectively prosecute and punish perpetrator, as well as failing to ensure effective remedy to the victims, the Committee finds the Respondent State in violation of its obligation under article 16 of the ACRWC which requires it to take all the necessary measures possible to respect, protect, promote, and fulfill the right of TFA to be free from all forms of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and especially physical or mental injury or abuse, neglect or maltreatment including sexual abuse. iv. Alleged violations of other instuments 78. The Committee notest that the applicnats alledged violations under Articles 4 and 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; Articles 1, 2, 5, 7 and 18 (3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples‟ Rights, Articles 2 (1), 3, 4 (1), 4 (2), 5, 8, and 25 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples‟ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa; Articles 2, 28 29 Committee against Torture, General Comment 2, para 18. Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe (n 19 above). 15