CRPD/C/22/D/24/2014 problem.20 The author states that the State party ought not to wait to be informed about human rights violations before acting to remedy the situation: it has the primary duty to act before being informed. 5.10 The author argues that a serious and diligent prosecution system could not spend more than seven years investigating a matter against two accused persons. The State party has not shown how vigilant it has been in dealing with the alleged violations, to uphold the confidence of the victims in its commitment in bringing the perpetrators to justice. The act of not appealing to the Court of Appeal and instead leaving the matter to end up in the High Court is to be interpreted altogether as a lack of commitment to curb the continued violation of the author’s rights. 5.11 In the case of the author, no one was charged, for lack of evidence. However, the author considers that the State party has the obligation to effectively and diligently investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of these inhuman acts. 21 The author contends that, even though the State party claims to have prosecuted the case, as long as the Government exhibits a lack of diligence in preventing and responding to the violations against persons with albinism, it is violating its affirmative duty to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. 5.12 The author claims that she was able to identify one of her attackers by a wick lamp, and because she knew him as her neighbour. She further submits that they had spent considerable time together in the afternoon before the night of the attack. As corroborating evidence, a pair of green sandals were found in her room together with a lighter, both of which were identified as belonging to the accused person whom she knew. 5.13 The author argues that the right to appeal is a constitutional right provided by the State party that aims to ensure equality before the law. 22 The right to appeal functions as a check against erroneous judgment. The State party therefore also denied her constitutional right by assuming the judicial position not to appeal from the commencement of the proceedings. Lack of reply from the State party on additional observations 6. On 29 August 2016, 13 February 2017 and 11 January 2018, the Committee requested the State party to submit additional observations on admissibility and the merits. On 15 January 2018, the State party requested the retransmittal of the author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits. On 16 January 2018, the State party acknowledged the receipt of the author’s comments. The Committee notes and regrets that the State party has provided no further information by the fixed deadline. B. Committee’s consideration of admissibility and the merits Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 65 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 2 (c) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter has not already been examined by the Committee, nor has it been or is it being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 Before considering the arguments of the parties as to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee wishes to recall that article 1 of the Convention states that 20 21 22 The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has held that in the context of “massive” and “serious” violations of human rights, a State is aware of such violations and it is expected to take appropriate actions to prevent the violations. See the National Prosecutions Service Act, 2008, sect. 16 (1) and (2), and the Criminal Procedure Act, sect. 90 (1). Article 13 (6) (a) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 (as amended from time to time). 9