O’REGAN J [18] In this case, the applicant argues that the Supreme Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the principles of vicarious liability do not render the respondent liable in this case is inconsistent with the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights and that the principles of vicarious liability therefore need to be developed to hold the respondent liable. This argument raises a constitutional issue. The question of the protection of Ms K’s rights to security of the person, dignity, privacy and substantive equality are of profound constitutional importance. In addition, it is clear and it was conceded by the respondent that it was part of the three policemen’s work to ensure the safety and security of all South Africans and to prevent crime. These obligations arise from the Constitution15 and are affirmed by the Police Act.16 In the light of these obligations,17 the Court said in Carmichele ─ “In addressing these obligations in relation to dignity and the freedom and security of the person, few things can be more important to women than freedom from the threat of sexual violence. As it was put by counsel on behalf of the amicus curiae: ‘Sexual violence and the threat of sexual violence goes to the core of women’s subordination in society. It is the single greatest threat to the self-determination of South African women.’ .... South Africa also has a duty under international law to prohibit all gender-based discrimination that has the effect or purpose of impairing the enjoyment by women of 15 Section 205(3) of the Constitution provides that: “The objects of the police service are to prevent, combat and investigate crime, to maintain public order, to protect and secure the inhabitants of the Republic and their property, and to uphold and enforce the law.” 16 Preamble to the South African Police Service Act, 68 of 1995. 17 Note that the interim Constitution was in force at the relevant time for the purposes of Carmichele as well as an earlier Police Act, 7 of 1958. The differences between the two Constitutions and the two pieces of legislation have no relevance for the purposes of this case. 13