The defendant was charged the defilement of the complainant, a 17-year-old girl. In his defence, the accused claimed that he could not get an erection (albeit, apparently, only after the magistrate raised the question himself). During the proceedings, a woman stood up in court and volunteered to ascertain whether the accused could obtain an erection. One week later, the magistrate, prosecutor, court interpreter, accused, complainant, and the woman who had volunteered met in the magistrate’s chambers to witness whether the woman could touch the defendant sexually until he obtained an erection. The magistrate observed, after approximately 30 minutes of sexual contact, that the accused’s “penis got a bit hard but not very hard.” Following a complaint from the complainant’s parent, the High Court was requested to review the conduct of the magistrate to determine the veracity of the complaint. At this point, the magistrate had not reached a verdict. By way of a preliminary conclusion, the High Court noted that “this illegal show seemed to come out of the blue” and found that the manner of investigation into the accused’s ability to obtain an erection was “raised by the magistrate, thereby making the [High] Court conclude that there were extra judicial discussions” between the accused and the magistrate. The Court also expressed serious concern about secondary victimisation, given that the sexual act occurred in the presence of the complainant. The Court then outlined its reasons for arriving at its ultimate decision, focusing on two matters: the existence of bias and judicial stereotyping. Regarding the first issue, the Court cited caselaw from across common law jurisdictions and the European Court of Human Rights relating to actual or perceived bias. Regarding the second issue, the Court highlighted the significant dangers associated with gender stereotyping on the part of the judiciary. The Court emphasised that judges should be alive to the concerns of victims of sexual offences, specifically that gender stereotypes harm such victims and contribute to further violations of their rights. Presiding officers are obliged to ensure that the courts offer equal access to men and women. In this context, it was emphasised that it matters not only how judges conduct themselves, but also how their conduct could be perceived during a trial. A judicial officer has to be aware of the negative results of displaying condescension toward women in court. In this case, the complainant was concerned about judicial bias, corruption, and/or collusion with the accused. The decision implied that the magistrate’s conduct could have arisen from his bias against, and stereotyping of, the complainant as a complainant in a sexual offence case. The Court highlighted that the judiciary could not condone the perpetuation of “structural gender-based violence, where courts instill fear in women and girls who are victims of sexual offences, using the criminal justice system.” Therefore, in order to create a discrimination-free judicial system that victims can rely on, it is incumbent on the judiciary to remain cognisant of its own biases and stereotypes, especially in the context of victims of sexual offences, and conduct cases in a manner which counteracts such biases and stereotypes. In conclusion, the High Court ordered a retrial under a different magistrate, and that the complainant and her family be provided with the resources needed to ensure her attendance at court. The Court referred (i) the magistrate’s conduct in the trial and (ii) the wider question of gender bias among judicial officers to the Judicial Service Commission. Finally, the Court recommended that the Chief Justice, through the judiciary’s training committee, should develop training programmes to avoid a matter like this re-occurring in the future.
Women and Justice: Keywords
Domestic Case Law
R. v. Yusuf Willy (Criminal Review No. 6 of 2021/Criminal Case No. 183 of 2021) High Court of Malawi (2022)
Decisión 657 de noviembre 9, 2010 Corte Suprema de Justicia de la República de Paraguay (2010)
This decision established the guidelines for the institutional policy on gender for the Paraguayan Judicial Branch. The Supreme Court agreed on: i) ensuring that users of judicial services receive communications (with an emphasis on gender) in a timely manner that are both easily accessible and understandable; ii) providing information on gender and gender rights; raising awareness on the importance of reporting events that violate individuals’ rights and dignity; iii) publicizing case law that studies gender issues; iv) digitizing the rulings (with a focus on gender issues) issued by different courts; complying with international standards; creating a framework for decision-making that incorporates a gender approach; v) hiring trained personnel to handle gender-related claims.
Esta decisión estableció los lineamientos de la política institucional de género del Poder Judicial de Paraguay. La Corte Suprema acordó: i) asegurar que los usuarios de los servicios judiciales reciban comunicaciones (con énfasis en género) en tiempo y forma que sean de fácil acceso y comprensión; ii) brindar información sobre género y derechos de género; sensibilizar sobre la importancia de denunciar hechos que vulneran los derechos y la dignidad de las personas; iii) difundir jurisprudencia que estudie temas de género; iv) digitalizar las sentencias (con enfoque de género) emitidas por diferentes tribunales; cumplir con los estándares internacionales; crear un marco para la toma de decisiones que incorpore un enfoque de género; v) contratación de personal capacitado para atender reclamos relacionados con el género.
Decisión 662 de diciembre 14, 2010 Corte Suprema de Justicia de la República de Paraguay (2010)
This decision provides that complaints of domestic violence must be channeled through the ‘Permanent Attention Office’ (Oficina de Atención Permanente). This Office is responsible of receiving all types of domestic or intra-family violence claims, without making any distinction based on the sex or age of the victims. Since violence against women constitutes a violation of human rights, the creation of the Office is intended to streamline judicial proceedings, serving victims of physical or mental abuse in a timely and efficient manner.
Esta decisión establece que las denuncias de violencia intrafamiliar deben canalizarse a través de la Oficina de Atención Permanente. Esta Oficina es la encargada de recibir todo tipo de denuncias por violencia doméstica o intrafamiliar, sin distinción alguna en razón de sexo o edad de las víctimas. Dado que la violencia contra la mujer constituye una violación de los derechos humanos, la creación de la Oficina tiene por objeto agilizar los procesos judiciales, atendiendo a las víctimas de maltrato físico o psíquico de manera oportuna y eficiente.
Individual Application of Ferida Kaya Constitutional Court (2016)
The applicant, Ms. Kaya, was arrested for alleged political offences. After she was released, she submitted a petition to the Office of Prosecutor General, asserting that she had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment while she was in custody. She also claimed that physicians at the state hospital ignored her complaints related to torture and inhuman treatment. After the incident, Ms. Kaya received asylum from Austria in 2002. Concurrently, the Office of Prosecutor General brought an action against the gendarmerie personnel and the physicians who ignored Ms. Kaya’s complaints to address her complaint regarding inhuman and degrading treatment. The trial at the Court of First Instance took about nine years. During that period, the claim against physician was dropped due to the lapse of time. Ms. Kaya was outside of Turkey during the trial. However, she remotely applied to several hospitals in Turkey to get consultations regarding the medical reports that were prepared while she was in custody. All of Ms. Kaya’s medical reports indicated that she showed signs of torture and inhuman treatment. She submitted those reports to the Court of First Instance. In 2011, the Court of First Instance dropped the case as a result of lapse of time. However, the Constitutional Court set aside the Court of First Instance’s decision and ruled that the prolonged trial violated Ms. Kaya’s right to access justice. The Constitutional Court held that Turkey must hold a speedy trial to abide by its constitutional obligation to effectively investigate claims related to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. This case is important, because it concluded that an insufficient investigation may itself be inhuman treatment. This case should constitute a precedent for the future cases where women are harmed as a result of insufficient and ineffective investigation.
Mrs. X v. Ministerio dell'interno Tribunale di Cagliari (2013)
The applicant, a Nigerian-born woman, was granted refugee status based on the absence of protection for violence against women generally in Nigeria, as well as her specific experience with gender-based violence. In 2010, the applicant was, without her consent, taken to Libya where she was subject to forced prostitution and violent attacks that included removal of applicant’s nails and hair. The applicant was then transferred to Italy where she applied to the Territorial Commission for international protection. Her application was denied and she appealed to the Tribunal of Cagliari to overturn the Territorial Commission’s decision. The Tribunal of Cagliari found that the applicant’s subjective credibility should have been considered, along with the objective facts available regarding the dire situation for women in Nigeria, and that the Territorial Commission’s findings were invalid because her application for international protection was not translated to a language that she was able to understand.
La ricorrente, nata in Nigeria, ottenne lo status di rifugiato sulla base dell’assenza di protezione per la violenza contro le donne in Nigeria, nonché della propria esperienza con la violenza di genere. In particolare, nel 2010, la ricorrente è stata, senza il suo consenso, portata in Libia, dove è stata soggetta a prostituzione forzata e ad abusi violenti che comprendevano la rimozione di unghie e capelli. La ricorrente è stata quindi trasferita in Italia dove ha richiesto alla Commissione Territoriale la protezione internazionale. La sua domanda venne respinta e quindi presentava ricorso al Tribunale di Cagliari per ribaltare la decisione della Commissione Territoriale. Il Tribunale di Cagliari ha ritenuto che si dovesse prendere in considerazione la credibilità soggettiva della ricorrente, unitamente ai dati oggettivi disponibili in merito alla terribile situazione delle donne in Nigeria, e che le conclusioni della Commissione Territoriale non erano valide perché la domanda di protezione internazionale non era stata tradotta in una lingua che la ricorrente era in grado di comprendere.
File No. 7C/203/2006 District Court Prešov (2007)
International Case Law
Case of Airey v. Ireland European Court of Human Rights (1979)
The petitioner, a domestic violence survivor, could not find affordable legal assistance to appear before a court. The Court ruled that member states must guarantee effective access to the courts, including access to counsel.