failure of the Respondent State makes it accountable under international human rights norms as portrayed above. 64. The Committee further finds it imperative to see if the abovementioned explanation leads to violation of article 3 of the African Children‟s Charter, which the Committee can find violation on. Article 3 of the Charter states that every child is entitled to enjoy the rights provided therein irrespective of various factors including sex. The implication of this provision is that if a child is not able to avail from the protection of the Charter just because that child is of a certain sex, there is a violation of the principle of discrimination. In the case at hand, TFA was sexually abused which is an abuse that is perpetrated due to her sex as rape has been observed as gender based violence. The sexual abuse committed against TFA has disabled her from enjoying the protection provided in the Charter, namely protection against abuse and torture. Rape has been recognized as a form of torture despite the fact that it takes place outside of state facilities and it is committed only once. 65. Even though the discriminatory act was not perpetrated by State actors, the State has failed to deliver its obligation to protect TFA from such act through its failure to investigate the alleged violation. The European Court of Human Rights has clearly established that States‟ failure to protect women from gender based violence violates their right to equal protection of the law albeit the fact that the failure was not intentional. The Inter American Court of Human Rights in Cf. González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico case also adopted a similar view when it found violation of the principle of discrimination due to State‟s failure to investigate alleged violence against women. The Inter American Court decided that impunity on cases of violence against women perpetuates similar violence and constitutes discrimination. It is also this Committee‟s view that impunity entrenches the discriminatory act and hence makes the Respondent State accountable. 66. Therefore, Since gender based discrimination is prohibited under article 3 of the African Children‟s Charter; since, according to international standards, gender based discrimination includes gender based violence; and since the sexual abuse excluded TFA from enjoying her right under the Charter and other international human rights instruments, the Committee finds that the Respondent State is in breach of article 3 of the African Children‟s Charter due to its failure to thoroughly investigate the discriminatory act, in this case the sexual abuse, TFA suffered. iii. Alleged violation of article 16 on protection against child abuse and torture 67. Article 16 (1) of the ACRWC provides that „States Parties to the Charter shall take specific legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and especially physical or mental injury or abuse, neglect or maltreatment including sexual abuse, while in the care of the child.‟ Subarticle 2 of the same article further explicates that „protective measures under this Article shall include effective procedures for the establishment of special monitoring units to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment, and follow-up of instances of child abuse and neglect.‟ The Complainants submitted that the failure of the State to investigate the Complainant‟s complaint of rape and sexualassault, and to prosecute the perpetrator is a violation of TFA‟s right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in accordance with article 16 of the ACRWC. 68. Article 16 of the ACRWC is aimed at the protection of both the dignity as well as physical and mental integrity of the children. The ACRWC does not define the terms „torture or degrading treatment or punishment.‟ The term „cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment‟ is however to be interpreted so as to extend to the widest possible protection against abuses, whether physical or mental.19 While interpreting article 7 of Convention on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) which deals with torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment, the Human Right Committee also noted that „the prohibition in 19 Media Rights Agenda/Nigeria, Communication 224/1998, paragraph 71 13