85. Nor has the Applicant made any comparison between her case and that of another person involved in the same or a similar situation of rape or victim of sexual crimes, who has been treated differently by the Defendant to her detriment, so as to justify the allegation of discrimination, contrary to Article 2 of the Charter, on any grounds. 86. Consequently, the Court finds that the Applicant's allegation of a breach of her right not to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendant is unfounded and unproven. c) On the alleged violation of the rights to dignity and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment 87. The Applicant alleges that due to the failure to effectively investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of rape and other acts of violence against her, the Defendant State became legally responsible for the violation of her rights to dignity and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, guaranteed by Article 5 of the Charter and 4 of the Maputo Protocol and 7 of the ICCPR. 88. She adds that the sexual abuse she suffered constitutes torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, since it consisted of so much pain and physical and emotional suffering. 89. That although the abuse cannot be directly attributed to the State, since it was not carried out by a State agent, the state is nevertheless responsible for the inability of its agents to offenders. The Court’s Analysis 22 successfully prosecute and punish