9.6.1 The public nature of human rights and emergence of ‘due diligence’ One of the key themes to emerge from the case studies is that family violence thrives because it is kept behind closed doors, where perpetrators are allowed to continue under no threat of having to face up to their responsibility. Part IV will consider to what extent the Samoan context contributes to this attitude but regardless, it is common worldwide and one which was also inadvertently endorsed by the human rights framework until relatively recently. The evolution of that mindset within the framework of human rights is helpful because it shows how this mindset needs to be changed and also how the responsibility to address family violence now lays with the State. If the State meets this responsibility they will not only be enforcing human rights, preventing individual violations, but through the inter-connected nature of the value systems, be reinforcing the Fa’asamoa and religious values. The development of State responsibility for individual acts of violence occurred in the mid-1980s as the connection between violence against specific groups and discrimination began to be better understood. Violence against women was starting to be viewed as a result of the inequality between men and women and this inherent discrimination led to the concept of ‘due diligence’ arising. This notion determines a State has responsibility for private actions even if they were not directly responsible and if it could be shown that a particular type of violence was discriminatory and a systemic violation of rights and fundamental freedoms. It also held that if such violence was widespread in its nature and the State failed to act, then it was implicitly tolerating that type of behaviour. “A State that does not act against crimes of violence against women is as guilty as the perpetrators.”85 Radhika Coomaraswamy, Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women This principle of due diligence now means that if a State does not take certain actions to address discriminatory violence then it is guilty of widespread violation of human rights. The case studies clearly demonstrate that women, children and specific groups suffer disproportionate levels of violence and the due diligence standard requires States to ‘prevent, investigate, prosecute and compensate’. This includes ensuring access to justice, an effective legal framework, access to shelters, allied health services and rehabilitation for both victims and perpetrators. The standard is high and Part IV will assess whether the current Government, as the primary actor of the State of Samoa, is meeting this obligation. Should such a finding be made then the human rights framework provides an extremely powerful tool in effectively addressing family violence. This is because it provides concrete legal requirements for the Government to act. In doing so the Government would also be strengthening and reaffirming the Fa’asamoa and religious beliefs that are also violated through such violence. 85 United Nations Commission on Human Rights. (1996). Economic and Social Council Fifty-second session. E/CN.4/1996/53/Add.2. Retrieved from https://documents-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G96/104/75/PDF/G9610475.pdf?OpenElement.