iii. On the discrepancy concerning the Fourth Victim who according to the Respondent State, failed to mention to the PPO that she had been assaulted by Mr. El-Deeb and also failed to mention the episode in the hospital and the police, the Complainants explain that the Victim mentioned in her affidavit that she was greatly distressed at the time she was reporting to the PPO. According to the Complainants, the Fourth Victim indicated that she had difficulties recalling all the details and events at the time, and that she was only able to identify Mr. El-Deeb later. Furthermore, according to the Complainants, the Fourth Victim stated: "I feel like I was having a nervous breakdown at the time, and could not focus."25 106. The Complainants aver that the Respondent State uses the discrepancies as a basis that hampered its investigations of the alleged violations, meanwhile, according to them, the statements made by the Victims had no discrepancies whatsoever, but rather omissions due to the particular circumstances of the case. They argue that the omissions have no material bearing on the present Communication. 107. They reiterate that the Respondent State failed in its obligations, in particular in its procedural obligation to investigate. This is because, according to the Complainants, when the Respondent State received the complaints, it failed to institute investigations that could have led to the identification of the perpetrators or established criminal wrongdoing. Rather, it expected the Victims to provide them with the identities of the perpetrators. 108. The Complainants submit that when the PPO provided reasons for its failure to prosecute, they stated that the crime of 'assault on honour' could not be prosecuted because the perpetrators, whoever they are, lacked the requisite intent for committing the crime. In this regard, the Complainants aver that the Respondent Slate's submission that it failed to investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators because of the omitted information by the Victims is incorrect. They argue that the Victims submitted sufficient information, to enable an investigation to take place. The African Commission's Analysis on the Merits 114. In this Communication, the African Commission is called upon to determine whether the Respondent's State failure to protect the Victims from the alleged acts or omissions is a violation of their rights under the African Charter; specifically Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 7(1) (a), 9(2), 16, 18(3) and 26. 115. Articles 2 and 18(3) will be considered together, given that both have an element of discrimination. 116. Article 1 of the African Charter will be dealt with after all the other Articles have been analyzed, since a violation of Article 1 can only be established if other Articles in the Charter have been violated. Alleged violation of Article 2-Right against non-discrimination, and Article 18(3)-Right of Non-discrimination Against Women 117. Article 2 of the African Charter provides that: "Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national or social origin, fortune, birth or other status." 118. Article 18(3) of the African Charter provides that "The State shall ensure the elimination of every discrimination against women and also ensure the protection of the rights of the woman and the child as stipulated in international declarations and conventions." 119. The non-discrimination principle generally ensures equal treatment of an individual or group of persons irrespective of their particular characteristics, and the non-discrimination principle within the context of Article 2 and 18(3) of the African Charter ensures the protection from discrimination against women by States Parties to the African Charter. 120. Before the African Commission proceeds to determine whether Articles 2 and 18(3) of the African Charter have been violated in this Communication, it finds it imperative to define discrimination and its relationship with gender-based violence as alleged in this Communication. 121. The Women's Protocol defines discrimination against women as "Any distinction, exclusion or restriction or any differential treatment based on sex and whose objectives or effects compromise or destroy the recognition, enjoyment or the exercise by women [...] of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all spheres of life."26 The same Protocol defines violence against women as "All acts perpetrated against women which cause or could cause them physical, sexual, psychological, and economic harm, including the threat to take such acts; or to undertake the imposition of arbitrary restrictions on or deprivation of fundamental freedoms in private or public Life..."27 11