This law aims to develop article 42 of the Constitution which establishes standards to prevent, remedy, and punish domestic violence. The Law stipulates the behaviors considered violative of structured harmony/unity within a family, protective measures against domestic violence, medical and physiological assistance for victims, and sanctions by the courts against the aggressor.
This law prevents and punishes human trafficking perpetrated in Paraguayan territory and abroad, in any of its forms. It also protects and assists victims by strengthening public actions as a response against this crime. The law criminalizes with eight years of imprisonment any conduct intended to capture or transport victims with the purposes of sexual exploitation, slavery, or organ trafficking. The years of imprisonment could increase when aggravating circumstances are present.
This law serves as the basis for the Colombian Criminal Code, it enumerates conducts that constitute crimes and their sanctions. The code sets forth several gender-related crimes. Article 104A criminalizes femicide, meaning the killing of women because they are female. Article 123 sanctions people who forcibly terminate a pregnancy. Article 187 prohibits forcing in-vitro treatments on women against their will. Article 229 regulates domestic violence offenses.
This law promotes protection for victims of domestic violence who have suffered physical or psychological aggression from any of the members of the family, whether or not they cohabitate. Protection orders, as precautionary measures, shall be granted by a ‘Peace Judge’ (Juez de Paz). This law also regulates other support measures for the victim-survivor, such as the immediate attention and health care by the public health agencies.
This law seeks to promote and guarantee women’s right to live free from violence. Its purpose is to promote prevention and protection strategies, sanctions, and integral reparation measures for any kind of violence exercised against women. This law fosters public policies to prevent and remediate different forms of violence, such as psychological, sexual, and physical violence. It also assigns broad responsibilities to each Ministry and Governmental Agency to support the fight against discrimination.
The defendant, a public servant from a local prosecutor office in Colombia, was charged with a sexual harassment offense and acquitted. It was argued that the defendant met the plaintiff in a public park to discuss the subpoena of a parallel judicial proceeding in which the plaintiff was involved. Instead, he offered her money in exchange for sex. The plaintiff refused. The Supreme Court of Justice upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecutor incorrectly qualified the defendant’s conduct as sexual harassment.
The case concerned sexual abuse involving an underage victim. The court ruled in accordance with article 135.1º, 4º of the Criminal Code, on sexual abuse of minors, finding the defendant guilty and sentencing him to eight years in prison. It was argued that the defendant had several sexual encounters with the plaintiff, who was a minor. For such purposes, the defendant used to pick the plaintiff up at school and take her in his car to empty places to have sexual intercourse.
The case concerned domestic violence and resulted in a one-year prison sentence pursuant to article 229 of the Criminal Code. The plaintiff filed a complaint with the police, alleging that three days earlier, at approximately 6:00 A.M., her husband punched her and threated to kill her during an argument. The evidence showed that this violence was not an isolated incident, but part of continuous behavior of the defendant.
The defendant was convicted on charges of domestic violence and sentenced to 72 months of imprisonment. The plaintiff accompanied a friend to the bus station, where the defendant, her ex- partner, insulted and physically attacked her. One of the plaintiff’s daughters intervened and the defendant ceased. The defendant appealed his conviction and requested judicial review on the grounds that they were no longer a couple, therefore, the conduct did not qualify as domestic violence.
