Chapter 3 parallels the Njemanze and the Collectif Cri de Coeur Pour Le Mali v. Republic of Mali cases. While the Njemanze decision was ruled in favour of the women victims, the Collectif decision was not. The applicants in Collectif relied on Njemanze to support their claims against the Republic of Mali. The Court further clarified its jurisprudence and limitations regarding holding states accountable for violations against women. The Collectif case raised important questions about when a state discharges its obligations under the Maputo Protocol to punish acts of violence against women and to implement programmes for the rehabilitation of victims. The chapter shows how the Court’s reasoning largely echoes the principles of the due diligence doctrine, which is why it rightly found Mali not responsible for the victims. However, it also reveals two jurisprudential faults in the Court’s reasoning. One involving the use and application of a decision of the African Court out of context, and another concerning its interpretation of when the due diligence principle applies in relation to healthcare services. It demonstrates how this flawed reasoning conflicts with the operation of the ECOWAS Court’s human rights mandate, especially its rule on local remedies.