1.2.3.2. Specific considerations on acts committed by non-State actors 208. Regarding the ban on torture and participation of non-State actors in cases such as this one, the Committee against Torture has found that when the State does not act with due diligence and/or does not intervene “to stop, sanction and provide remedies to victims of [gender-based violence such as rape, failure to protect victims, etc.] and enables non-State actors to commit acts impermissible under the Convention with impunity,” then its “indifference or inaction provides a form of encouragement and/or de facto permission.”286 209. Likewise, the Committee against Torture [...] has made 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 illtreatment 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. 287 210. The Human Rights Committee has indicated that States have an obligation to adopt whatever positive measures may be necessary to provide protection to all individuals from acts prohibited by Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including when they are perpetrated “in a private capacity.”288 211. For his part, the United Nations special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment has found violence against women that takes place “outside direct State control” should not be excluded from the protection the Convention provides from torture. Thus: [...] the language used in article 1 of the Convention concerning consent and acquiescence by a public official clearly extends State obligations into the private sphere and should be interpreted to include State failure to protect persons within its jurisdiction from torture and ill-treatment committed by private individuals. Also, article 1 of CAT should be seen as reinforcing - and reinforced by - the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 48/104.289 212. For its part, regarding responsibility for the crime, the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture establishes elements such as complicity of officials or public employees with such acts or failure to prevent them when able to.290 286 United Nations. Committee against Torture. General Comment No. 2. Implementation of article 2 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Punishment or Treatment by States parties. CAT/C/GC/2. January 24, 2008, para. 18. 287 United Nations. Committee against Torture. General Comment No. 2. Implementation of article 2 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Punishment or Treatment by States parties. CAT/C/GC/2. January 24, 2008, para. 18. 288 United Nations. General Comment No. 20, General comments adopted by the Human Rights Committee, Article 7 Prohibition of Torture, or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 44th period of sessions, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 at 173 (1992), para. 2. 289 United Nations. Second Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, before the Human Rights Council. A/HRC/7/3. January 15, 2008, para. 31. 290 Article 3 of that instrument establishes that: “The following shall be held guilty of the crime of torture: a. A public servant or employee who acting in that capacity orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, or who directly commits it or who, being able to prevent it, fails to do so. b. A person who at the instigation of a public servant or employee mentioned in subparagraph (a) orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, directly commits it or is an accomplice thereto.” This Convention’s travaux préparatoires indicates that in its drafting, Article 3 was the subject of a number of discussions and submitted for consideration of the States with essentially two proposals: one that required the State to be an active participant in the crime; and another that would not draw the line at State officials but rather include all potential perpetrators of torture. The minutes of the debates indicate that the wording that was in the [continues …]