CEDAW/C/51/D/19/2008 replaced with the Northwest Territories Human Rights Act, 9 which similarly prohibits discrimination on a number of grounds, in the context of the provision of goods, services, accommodations and facilities, and thus likewise seeks to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise as per article 2, paragraph (e), of the Convention. In addition, the State party’s federal legislation, the Canadian Human Rights Act, specifically prohibits the denial of occupancy of residential accommodations on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, such as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted. 8.11 The State party notes that in its Decision of 25 November 2010 with respect to the admissibility of the author’s communication, the Committee observed the author’s claims that she was subject to domestic violence by her partner and in turn noted its general recommendation No. 19 on violence against women. The State party submits that the author herself did not raise in her communication any allegation to the effect that she was discriminated against on the basis of a failure on the part of the State party’s authorities to ensure that their agents exercised due diligence to protect her from domestic violence, including violence committed by her partner, nor did she otherwise allege a failure on the part of these agents to investigate or punish acts of violence or to provide compensation for the same. The State party further submits that there is no evidence that the author had made known to the authorities that she was suffering violence at the hands of her partner at any point before she filed the domestic litigation against him, at which point, determination of such allegations fell to the civil court process. The State party maintains that, in fact, it has acted with due diligence to generally prevent violations under the Convention, and that Canadian governments do act with due diligence to investigate and punish acts of violence against women by individuals, where these acts are brought to their attention. 8.12 The State party proceeds to analyse the circumstances of the current case in light of the Committee’s jurisprudence10 and concludes that, unlike in those cases, the Canadian authorities could not have known that the author was in danger, since she failed to pursue her claims in the domestic courts. The State party also notes ―the sharp contrast between the procedural history of the author’s domestic litigation and the procedural history in the Communication Vertido v. The Philippines‖11 and submits that, unlike the situation in the Vertido case, there is no evidence that the delays associated with the author’s domestic litigation were due to the failure of the court system to deal with her claims in a fair, impartial, timely and expeditious manner. The State party proceeds to describe the legislative and policy measures it has taken to protect victims of domestic violence. 9 10 11 12 4. (1) No person shall, because of the race, creed, colour, sex, marital status, nationality, ancestry, place of origin, disability, age or family status of a person or because of a conviction of a person for which a pardon has been granted, deny to that person the accommodation, services or facilities available in any place to which the public is customarily admitted. (2) No person shall, directly or indirectly, (a) deny to any person or class of persons occupancy of any apartment in any building that contains self-contained dwelling units, or (b) discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to any term or condition of occupancy of any apartment in any building that contains self-contained dwelling units, because of the race, creed, colour, sex, marital status, nationality, ancestry, place of origin, disability, age or family status of that person or class of persons or because of a conviction for which a pardon has been granted. The State party referred to sects. 11 and 12 of the Northwest Territories Human Rights Act. The State party referred to the Committee’s views in communications No. 5/2005, Goekce v. Austria, adopted on 6 August 2007, and No. 6/2005, Yildirim v. Austria, adopted on 6 August 2007. See Communication No. 18/2008, Vertido v. The Philippines, views adopted on 16 July 2010.