The plaintiffs, four members parliament, sought judicial review before the High Court of a decision of the State President to appoint a woman, Mrs. Fiona Kalemba, as the Clerk of Parliament. This occurred against the recommendation of the Parliamentary Service Commission, which had submitted a male candidate who they believed to be the best candidate for the position. The State President wanted three short-listed names for the position, and specified that a woman should be included. The Court affirmed the State President’s decision primarily on the grounds that a recommendation is an advisory action that does not have any binding effect. The Court further considered the possibility that if the President wanted a woman for the position, “reverse” or “positive” discrimination is allowed in Malawi and internationally, and hence would not be a violation of law. There is no requirement of merit as the deciding factor in presidential appointments. The Court denied the plaintiffs’ claim, holding that gender and empowerment of minority groups are relevant considerations that may be taken into account in making presidential appointments.
Women and Justice: Keywords
Domestic Case Law
Nr. 7/2017 „Dėl Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo nario Kęstučio Pūko, kuriam pradėta apkaltos byla, veiksmų atitikties Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucijai“ (No. 7/2017 on the Compliance of the Actions of Kęstutis Pūkas) Konstitucinis Teismas (Constitutional Court) (2017)
In this case, a member of the Parliament was accused of sexually harassing women who applied to become his secretary. The Constitutional Court held that sexual harassment is a gross violation of the Constitution and the breaking of the oath of a Parliament member. The Court explained that sexual harassment is defined as “undesirable behavior related to sex intended to degrade or degrade human dignity and create a hostile, humiliating or offensive environment.” It emphasized that harassment infringes on a person’s physical, psychological, and spiritual integrity and intellectual and creative freedom. English translation available here.
Šioje byloje Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo narys buvo apkaltintas seksualiniu priekabiavimu prie moterų, kurios ėjo jo padėjėjos-sekretorės pareigas bei pokalbių dėl šios darbo vietos metu. Konstitucinis Teismas konstatavo, kad seksualinis priekabiavimas yra šiurkštus Konstitucijos pažeidimas ir Seimo nario priesaikos sulaužymas. Teismas paaiškino, kad seksualinis priekabiavimas yra apibrėžiamas kaip „nepageidaujamas elgesys, susijęs su lytimi, kuriuo siekiama pažeminti ar yra žeminamas žmogaus orumas“ sukuriant, ar siekiant sukurti, priešišką, žeminančią ar žeidžiančią aplinką. Be to, pabrėžta, kad priekabiavimas pažeidžia asmens fizinę, psichologinę ir dvasinę neliečiamybę bei intelektinę ir kūrybinę laisvę.
State v. Inspector General of Police, Clerk of National Assembly & Minister of Finance (and others ex parte) High Court of Malawi Civil Division (2020)
This judgment was issued as part of the assessment proceedings subsequent to a judicial review by the state. This review investigated systemic and individual failures resulting in police officers committing widespread violent and traumatic sexual assaults and rapes of women and girls during the civil unrest in October 2019. The court was tasked with assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the 18 applicants on whose behalf the review was conducted. The basis for this award was the previous judgment of the court that: (i) failures by the Inspector General of Police resulted in violence, torture, and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment against the applicants in violation of section 19(3) of the Constitution; (ii) failures by the Inspector General of Police further resulted in violations of the right of applicants to dignity and equality under sections 19(1) and 20 of the Constitution; and (iii) failures by the Clerk of the National Assembly and the Malawi Police Service to investigate and prosecute the allegations of violence and rape resulted in violations of the right of access to justice under section 41 of the Constitution. The court also found numerous violations of domestic laws, including the Police Act, as well as Malawi’s obligations under human rights treaties, including CEDAW. Under section 46(4) of the Constitution, the courts have the power to award compensation to any person whose rights or freedoms have been unlawfully denied or violated. The court applied the principle of restitution intergrum, or making the victim whole as they would have been prior to the violation, and turned to international precedents when evaluating appropriate amounts. The court noted that any amount should be elevated when caused by a “constitutional duty bearer,” such as the police, and that lack of investigation was an aggravating factor. The court awarded different amounts to each applicant depending on the circumstances of their particular harm, ranging from K4,500,000-10,000,000, in addition to costs.
PAKR Nr. 39/2015 Gjykata e Apelit (Court of Appeals) (2016)
Four defendants were charged with War Crimes against the Civilian Population in violation of Article 152 of the Criminal Code of Kosovo and the Geneva Conventions, for variously beating “A” and “B,” both Kosovar Albanian female civilians, raping A, and subjecting them to a mock execution. All the defendants were acquitted by the Basic Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Basic Court’s acquittal of two of the defendants as the victims could not positively testify about their participation, and no other evidence conclusively linked them to the crimes. However, the panel held that the lower court failed to fully adjudicate the mock execution charge. It also dismissed as “incomprehensible” the first instance court’s ruling that there was no credible evidence that the victims had direct contact with S.S. (one of the remaining defendants who allegedly beat them), noting the victims’ testimony indicated they were certain of the identity of the defendant. The tribunal held that the lower court’s refusal to allow an in-court identification of S.S. was a violation of the Criminal Procedure Code. While the appellate court agreed that witness identification should be approached with great caution, here the victims had the opportunity to see the defendant clearly for an extended time. The panel disagreed that witness testimonies are by default unreliable, explaining that they are entitled to the same evidentiary value and analysis as any other evidence and in certain cases the victim’s testimony is the only available evidence. The appellate court then pointed out the lower court’s contradiction with regard to the rape charge: it accepted that A was kidnapped, and also that there were intercourses while she was in captivity, yet then assumed that the intercourses may have occurred with consent, only because A and H.2. (the defendant accused of raping her), had an earlier intimate relationship. The tribunal held that it was absurd to assume that someone in captivity would be able to validly express consent, and even if A did consent due to the Stockholm Syndrome, a traumatic bonding of that kind would be a psychological condition and “any consent expressed by a victim in such circumstances would hardly be considered legally valid.” The appellate court further ruled that the events took place during a war, and consent in such a coercive environment would be “void by default,” citing the definition of rape in the case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. On the question of whether H.2.’s actions constituted a war crime, the panel held that it was irrelevant whether he had any association with the military. The relevant factors were instead whether there was an ongoing armed conflict, whether it was governed by international or domestic conflict norms, whether the victims were protected persons under international law, and whether there was a causal link between the armed conflict and the offense. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Basic Court to clarify facts on the mock execution and the involvement of H.2. in the alleged rape, and to conduct an in-court identification of S.S. (Also available in English.)
KI 155/17 Gjykata Kushtetuese (Constitutional Court) (2017)
The applicant was a judge on the Court of Appeals and was a candidate in the election for the President of the Court of Appeals. She received the highest number of points among the three candidates in the candidate evaluation commissioned by the Kosovo Judicial Council (KJC, the body which administers the judiciary). During the voting by the KJC, the applicant was voted on first, but did not receive the necessary majority of votes. The voting then moved on to the second-ranked candidate, who won the overwhelming share of votes and was elected. Upon losing, the applicant submitted a referral to the Constitutional Court, alleging various constitutional violations, including violation of the principle of gender equality under Article 24 (Equality before the Law) of the Constitution of Kosovo. The KJC responded that the principle of gender equality consisted of equal treatment of every candidate using the same standards, and that it had done so irrespective of the candidates’ gender or ethnic background. The Constitutional Court noted that Article 24 of the Constitution implies that general principles of equality of treatment apply to all actions of public authorities in their dealings with individuals. The tribunal explained that in a voting process, a fundamental aspect of the principle of equality is that each candidate shall benefit from the opportunity to be considered fairly and equally. The panel then held that the KJC’s vote did not provide equal opportunities to the candidates, because it did not provide for procedural safeguards pertinent to the guarantee of equality of treatment. Each candidate was voted on in succession, and so KJC members could vote in favor or against all three candidates. Members could also abstain from the voting selectively and arbitrarily. Thus, it was impossible to know which candidate actually had the support of the majority of the KJC. The court therefore declared the vote incompatible with the Constitution, and ordered the KJC to conduct a new vote. (Also available in Srpski and English.)
KI 41/12 Gjykata Kushtetuese (Constitutional Court) (2013)
The deceased victim D.K. met her partner A.J. in secondary school, formed a union with him, and gave birth to a daughter. D.K. subsequently filed a claim to dissolve the union and for child custody at the Municipal Court because of a deterioration in her relationship with A.J. She also took their daughter to live with her parents. Following continuous threats by A.J., D.K. submitted a request to the Municipal Court for an emergency protection order under the Law on Protection from Domestic Violence. The court did not act within the statutorily mandated 24 hours of the request, and A.J. shot and killed D.K. several weeks later. The Kosovo Judicial Council (“KLJ”, the body which administers the judiciary) disciplinary committee issued a decision to discipline the responsible Municipal Court judge in response to a request by the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel, but D.K.’s parents were not party to the disciplinary proceedings. D.K.’s parents submitted a referral to the Constitutional Court, alleging the Municipal Court by its inaction violated D.K.’s rights under the Constitution of Kosovo, including Article 25 (Right to Life), Article 32 (Right to Legal Remedies), and Article 54 (Judicial Protection of Rights), as well as under the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), including Article 2 (Right to Life) and Article 13 (Right to Effective Remedy). The Constitutional Court observed that ECHR caselaw stresses that it is the duty of state authorities to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. This includes a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive measures to (i) protect one whose life is at risk from another, (ii) where the authorities knew or ought to have known of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from a criminal offense, but (iii) failed to take measures which reasonably might have been expected to avoid the risk. The court found the Municipal Court ought to have known about the real risk in existence when D.K. requested the emergency protection order since she had explained the deterioration of her relationship with A.J., specifically his death threats and her reports to the police. Furthermore, the Municipal Court was handling D.K.’s case for the dissolution of union and child custody. Accordingly, the tribunal concluded that the Municipal Court was responsible for acting under the Law on Protection from Domestic Violence and that its inaction was a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the ECHR. The court also found that the Law on Protection from Domestic Violence and the statute governing the judiciary do not offer effective legal remedies for the protection of the applicants’ rights, because the former does not contain measures for addressing court inaction, and the latter does not allow the applicants to participate in any disciplinary investigation or procedure. Thus, the inaction of the Municipal Court and the KJC’s practice of not addressing judicial inaction violated the deceased’s and applicants’ right under Articles 32 and 54 of the Constitution and Article 13 of the ECHR. (Also available in Srpski and English.)
KI 108/18 Gjykata Kushtetuese (Constitutional Court) (2018)
The applicant was registered as female at birth, but has always identified himself as male. He lived and appeared as a man in all areas of life, and had begun hormonal treatment to transition. The applicant filed a request with the Civil Status Office to change his name and gender marker to reflect his male gender identity, but the request was rejected. He appealed the decision to the Civil Registration Agency, which rejected the appeal on the grounds that the applicant provided no evidence that his current name prevented his integration in society, and no medical report supporting his request for a change of his gender marker. The applicant filed a claim with the Basic Court, and, only one week later and before a decision was rendered, referred the matter to the Constitutional Court. The applicant alleged the Civil Registration Agency’s decision violated his fundamental rights and freedoms, guaranteed by Articles 23 (Human Dignity), 24 (Equality Before the Law), and 36 (Right to Privacy) of the Constitution of Kosovo, and Article 8 (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant requested to be exempted from the legal obligation to exhaust all legal remedies before seeking a constitutional review on the grounds that the regular courts’ legal remedy would not be effective or sufficiently certain because of his special circumstances and the length of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court surveyed foreign constitutional courts via the Venice Commission for their respective relevant case law, confirming the general requirement for an applicant to exhaust his/her legal remedies before seeking constitutional review. The court noted the existence of a very similar and recently decided case, in which a person sued the Civil Status Office and Civil Registration Agency for their refusal to grant his request to change his name and gender marker from female to male after a successful gender reassignment surgery. The Basic Court ruled for the applicant and ordered the changes made, and the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The Constitutional Court therefore determined that the regular courts could furnish an effective and sufficiently certain legal remedy for the applicant. Moreover, the court noted that the applicant was not seeking review of an already lengthy court proceeding, but merely of the possibility of one, and in any event the Basic Court and Court of Appeals disposed of the above mentioned precedent in reasonable time. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court ruled the applicant’s referral inadmissible because it was premature. (Also available in Srpski and English.)
BVerwG 6 C 25.12 Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) (2013)
The Court rejected the appeal and upheld the decision of the lower court that a female Muslim high school student was not exempt from compulsory swimming lessons on the grounds of her religion. In the circumstances, there was not sufficient reason to undermine compulsory school attendance of children. The girl's parents had applied to the school for an exemption from swimming lessons on the grounds that Islamic dress custom did not allow their daughter to participate in co-educational swimming lessons. The school had rejected the application but permitted the girl to wear swimwear in accordance with Islamic custom (a burkini).
Das Gericht wies die Revision zurück und bestätigte die Entscheidung der Vorinstanz, dass eine muslimische Schülerin nicht aufgrund ihrer Religion vom obligatorischen Schwimmunterricht befreit werden kann. Unter den gegebenen Umständen gab es keinen ausreichenden Grund, die Schulpflicht von Kindern zu umgehen. Die Eltern des Mädchens hatten bei der Schule eine Befreiung vom Schwimmunterricht mit der Begründung beantragt, dass die islamischen Bekleidungsvorschriften ihrer Tochter die Teilnahme am koedukativen Schwimmunterricht nicht erlaube. Die Schule lehnte den Antrag ab, erlaubte dem Mädchen jedoch, eine dem islamischen Brauch entsprechende Badekleidung (einen Burkini) zu tragen.
Mukasa and Oyo v. Attorney General High Court of Uganda (2008)
Here, the Court held that government officials violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiff by illegally raiding plaintiff’s home without a search warrant, seizing plaintiff’s documents related to her work as an advocate for the human rights of LGBTQ persons, and illegally arresting a guest present at plaintiff’s home during the raid. Later, at the police station, plaintiff’s guest was forcibly undressed and fondled to “determine” her sex. The Court held that plaintiff and plaintiff’s guest were treated in an inhuman and degrading manner amounting to sexual harassment and indecent assault.
Decision of the Constitutional Tribunal, Case 2208/2013 Constitutional Tribunal (2013)
The Court held that it was not empowered to impose measures that guaranteed the physical and psychological integrity of domestic violence victims when other tribunals and bodies established for that purpose were competent. However, plaintiffs have the right to make the requests from the competent courts to take necessary measures in order to enforce its orders, using persuasive or coercive means.
La Corte sostuvo que no estaba facultada para imponer medidas que garantizaran la integridad física y psicológica de las víctimas de violencia doméstica donde otros tribunales y organismos establecidos con ese fin eran competentes. Sin embargo, los demandantes tienen el derecho de hacer las solicitudes de los tribunales competentes para tomar las medidas necesarias para hacer cumplir sus órdenes, utilizando medios persuasivos o coercitivos.
Decision of the Constitutional Tribunal, Case 1961/2013 Constitutional Tribunal (2013)
The Constitutional Tribunal held that the conduct of the municipal authorities forcing a victim of gender violence to reconcile with her aggressor under the threat of taking her children to a shelter violates the right of women to live free from violence. The Tribunal held that this conduct constituted undue harassment.
El Tribunal Constitucional sostuvo que la conducta de las autoridades municipales, obligando a una víctima de violencia de género a reconciliarse con su agresor bajo la amenaza de llevar a sus hijos a un refugio es contra el derecho de las mujeres a vivir libres de violencia. El Tribunal sostuvo que esta conducta constituía indebida acoso.
Dlanjwa v. Minister of Safety and Security Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2015)
The appellant was shot by her husband, who subsequently committed suicide. Her husband was employed by the South African Police Service, so she sued the Minister of Safety and Security for general damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, and loss of support arising from her injuries and the deceased’s suicide. She also sued for loss of support on behalf of her infant triplets with the deceased. The appellant alleged that the shooting and suicide were caused by, inter alia, the negligence of the station commander and/or certain police officials. The appellant claimed that these police officers failed to (a) dispossess the deceased of the firearm, (b) initiate disciplinary steps against him, and (c) have him criminally charged despite her previous requests and their knowledge that the deceased abused alcohol, had a violent temper and suicidal tendencies, had assaulted her, pointed a firearm at her and threatened to shoot her and thereafter kill himself, which led her to obtain a protection order against him under the Domestic Violence Act 1998. The Supreme Court of Appeal found that: (a) the police had a legal duty to investigate the appellant’s complaints once she reported that she feared for her safety; (b) the police negligently breached that duty by failing to take measures to protect the appellant from being injured by the deceased (and prevent the deceased from killing himself); and (c) the appellant had established wrongfulness on the part of the police due to the causal connection established between the police’s negligent breach of duty and the harm suffered by the appellant. The court therefore upheld the appeal.
Die appèllant is deur haar man geskiet waarna hy selfmoord gepleeg het. Haar man het vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisiediens gewerk daarvolgens het sy die Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit gedagvaar vir algemene skadevergoeding, mediese uitgawes, verlies van verdienste, en die verlies van ondersteuning wat voortspruit uit haar beserings en die oorledene se selfmoord. Die appèllant beweer dat die skietery en selfmoord veroorsaak is deur, onder andere, die nalatigheid van die stasiebevelvoerder en/of sekere polisiebeamptes. Die appèllant beweer dat diè polisiebeamptes versuim het om (a) die oorledene se vuurwapen te verwyder, (b) dissiplinêre stappe teen hom te inisieer, en (c) om hom strafregtelik aan te kla ten spyte van haar vorige versoeke en hul kennis dat die oorledene alkohol misbruik het, 'n gewelddadige humeur het en selfmoordneigings gehad het, haar aangerand het, 'n vuurwapen op haar gerig het, en haar gedreig het dat hy haar gaan skiet en daarna selfmoord pleeg, wat daartoe gelei het om 'n beskermingsbevel teen hom onder die Wet op Huishoudelike Geweld van 1998 te verkry. Die Appèlhof het bevind dat: (a) die polisie 'n wettige plig gehad het om die appèllant se klagtes te ondersoek nadat sy berig het dat sy vir haar veiligheid gevrees het; (b) die polisie was nalatig was deur hul plig ter versuiming om maatreëls te tref om die appèllant te beskerm teen die oorledene (en om te verhoed dat die oorledene selfmoord pleeg); en (c) die appèllant het die onregmatigheid aan die kant van die polisie bewys as gevolg van die verband tussen die polisie se nalatige pligssversuim en die skade wat die appèllant gely het. Die hof het die appèl dus goedgekeur.
Naidoo v. Minister of Police Supreme Court of Appeal (Hoogste hof van Appèl) (2015)
The plaintiff attempted to bring a charge of assault against her former husband under the Domestic Violence Act of 1998 (“the DVA”). She was incorrectly advised by a police officer that she required a protection order from the Magistrate Court before she could receive police assistance. She was then told by a second officer that her former husband would bring a similar charge of assault against her if she persisted. The plaintiff, along with her former husband, was arrested. She filed a claim for damages against, inter alia, the Minister of Police, arguing that (i) the officials involved were acting in the course and within the scope of their employment and (ii) the Minister of Police was vicariously liable for failing to comply with the DVA. The court agreed that the DVA requires the police to assist and provide the maximum protection possible to victims of domestic abuse.
Die eiseres het probeer om 'n klag van aanranding teen haar voormalige man onder die Wet op Huishoudelike Geweld van 1998 ("Die DVA") te bring. 'n Polisiebeampte het haar verkeerdelik aanbeveel dat sy 'n beskermingsbevel van die Landdroshof moes kry voordat sy polisiehulp kon ontvang. 'n Tweede polisiebeampte het vir haar gesê dat haar voormalige man 'n soortgelyke klag van aanranding teen haar sou bring as sy aanhou met haar klagte. Die eiseres, asook haar voormalige man, was gearresteer. Sy het 'n eis vir skadevergoeding teen, onder andere, die Minister van Polisie ingedien en het aangvoer dat (i) die betrokke beamptes volgens en binne die bestek van hul werk opgetree het en (ii) die Minister van Polisie onmiddellik aanspreeklik was vir die versuiming om die DVA te volg. Die hof het saamgestem dat die DVA vereis dat die polisie hulp en die maksimum moontlike beskerming vir slagoffers van huishoudelike mishandeling moet gee.
杨江山、中国人民解放军第四五八医院医疗损害责任纠纷，广东省高级人民法院 (Yang v. China PLA Hospital No. 458) Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province (2018)
Yang sued China PLA Hospital No. 458 for violation of his reproductive rights. The plaintiff alleged that his wife sought an abortion at the defendant-hospital and lied that she was unmarried. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant did not meet its obligation to investigate Peng’s marital status and chose to believe Peng’s lie. The Court held that under Article 51 of the Law on Protection of Women’s Rights and Interests, “women have the right to reproduce and not to reproduce under the relevant state regulations.” Therefore, Peng’s right to voluntarily terminate pregnancy is protected by law. Moreover, according to the Supreme People’s Court’s authoritative interpretations of the Marriage Law, “courts should not support husbands’ damage claims based on infringement of their reproductive rights due to their wives’ termination of pregnancy.” Therefore, the defendant’s actions were not unlawful.
堕胎与生育权
原告杨江山诉称中国人民解放军第四五八医院损害了自己的生育权。原告称他的妻子于被告医院进行了终止妊娠手术并谎称自己未婚。原告还称被告没有尽到查清自己妻子婚姻状况的义务并轻信其妻子的谎言。法院认为，根据《中华人民共和国妇女权益保障法》,妇女有按照国家有关规定生育子女的权利，也有不生育的自由。因此，原告的妻子有自愿终止妊娠的法定权利。另外，根据《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国婚姻法>若干问题的解释》，夫以妻擅自终止妊娠侵犯其生育权为由请求损害赔偿的，人民法院不予支持。因此，被告无需承担侵权责任。
Mapingure v. Minister of Home Affairs Supreme Court of Zimbabwe (2014)
A month after the rape, the appellant’s pregnancy was formally confirmed, she then informed the investigating police officer of her pregnancy who referred her to a public prosecutor. She was told by the prosecutor that she had to wait until the rape trial had been completed to have her pregnancy terminated. At the direction of the police, she returned to the prosecutor’s office four months later and was advised that she required a pregnancy termination order. The prosecutor requested that a magistrate certify the termination. The magistrate said he could not assist because the rape trial had not been completed. She eventually obtained the necessary magisterial certificate nearly six months after the rape, the hospital felt that it was no longer safe to carry out the termination procedure. The appellant carried to full term and gave birth to a child. The applicant brought an action against the Ministers of Home Affairs, Health and Justice for damages for the physical and mental pain, anguish and stress she suffered and care for the child until the child turned 18. The basis of the claim was that the employees of the three Ministries concerned were negligent in their failure to prevent the pregnancy or to expedite its termination. The particulars of negligence were itemized. Her claim was dismissed. The questions for determination on appeal were (i) whether or not the respondents’ employees were negligent in responding to the appellant, (ii) if they were, whether the appellant suffered any actionable harm as a result of such negligence and, (iii) if so, whether the respondents were liable for damages for pain, suffering, and the care of her child. The Supreme Court held, on appeal, that the State was liable for failing to provide the appellant with emergency contraception to prevent the pregnancy and ordered it to pay damages. However, the court dismissed the claim that the State was liable for failing to ensure a timely termination of the pregnancy and in turn that they were liable to pay for the care of the child. The case was referred back to the High Court for a determination of the amount of damages.
Raniola v. Bratton United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (2001)
The plaintiff, a female police officer sued a police department, alleging hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and retaliation claims under Title VII. The plaintiff alleged that she suffered years of abuse because she was a woman, including derogatory remarks, disproportionately burdensome assignments, sabotage of her work, threats, and false accusations of misconduct. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law. The Second Circuit reviewed all the evidence in the light most favorable to the officer and found that a reasonable jury could have arrived at a different conclusion than the district court. The Second Circuit determined that the evidence presented by the officer formed a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to conclude that she was subjected to hostile work environment because she was a woman and that she was suspended, put on probation, and then terminated in retaliation for having complained about her treatment. The Second Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the claims for retrial.
Berning v. State Department of Correction Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville (1999)
The plaintiff, the manager of the Tennessee Department of Correction’s Murfreesboro probation office, was fired after an anonymous letter was sent to the department alleging that the office was rife with sexual harassment, creating a hostile work environment. An administrative law judge reviewed the plaintiff’s termination and found it to be warranted. The plaintiff appealed the administrative law judge’s decision to the Davidson County Chancery Court, which affirmed the order. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the Chancery Court’s decision, holding in part that the conduct for which he was fired was not protected speech under the First Amendment.
Smith v. City of Chattanooga Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville (2007)
The plaintiff was a police officer with the Chattanooga Police Department. After repeated sexual harassment from a fellow officer, she filed a sexual harassment complaint against the officer. The officer was transferred to a different team, but still worked in close physical proximity to the plaintiff, which made the plaintiff uncomfortable. She filed suit against the officer and her supervisor for creating a hostile work environment and sexual harassment in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act ("THRA"). The Hamilton County Chancery Court granted a directed verdict in favor of the police department, but the Court of Appeals of Tennessee vacated the verdict, finding that reasonable minds could differ on whether the employer established the affirmative defense that it took appropriate corrective action. The appellate court also affirmed that the supervisor was not liable as an accomplice under the THRA because he did not encourage the officer nor prevent him from taking corrective actiion.
Pierce v. City of Humboldt Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson (2013)
The plaintiff was a police officer with the Humboldt Police Department. While off duty, she ran into an ex-boyfriend against whom she had a protective order. Based on this encounter, she filed a criminal charge against him for violating the order. The chief of police commenced an internal affairs investigation into her charges, and her ex-boyfriend filed a criminal charge against her for filing a false charge. While both charges were pending, the plaintiff informed the chief of police that she was pregnant. Once the internal affairs investigation was completed, the plaintiff’s employment was terminated. She filed suit in the Gibson County Circuit Court for discrimination based on gender and pregnancy in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”). The Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of her employer, but the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed and remanded, finding that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that she was treated differently than similarly situated male police officers.
Niese v. City of Alexandria Supreme Court of Virginia (2002)
The plaintiff alleged that she was raped several times by a police officer who had been assigned to help her deal with her son’s behavioral issues. The plaintiff reported the rapes to municipal mental health and domestic abuse entities, and she alleged that these entities violated their statutory duty to report these incidents or take further action. Consequently, the plaintiff sued the Alexandria Police Department for intentional tort and negligent hiring. The issue before the Court was whether the sovereign immunity doctrine barred the plaintiff from suing municipal entities for both intentional torts and negligence in failing to act upon plaintiff’s reports and in hiring and retaining the offending officer. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the action as barred by sovereign immunity, explaining that a municipality is immune from liability for negligence associated with the performance of “governmental” functions, which include maintaining a police force and the decision to retain a specific police officer. It declined to adopt an exception to sovereign immunity for the tort of negligent retention, as it had done in the context of charitable immunity. The Court observed that whether a municipality is liable for an employee’s intentional torts was an issue of first impression in Virginia, but the Court relied on Fourth Circuit precedent to conclude that sovereign immunity applies in this context. Finally, the Court held that the then-applicable statute requiring officials to make a report whenever they have “reason to suspect that an adult” has been “abused, neglected, or exploited” imposed a discretionary duty and not a ministerial duty upon the individuals subject to the reporting requirements and thus dismissed the claim. (i.e., ministerial duties make actions necessary when conditions for their performance arise while discretionary duties make actions optional, subject to the official’s judgment.)
A., R.H. and other v. E.N. M Seguridad – P.F.A. and others Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones en lo Contenciosos Administrativo Federal (National Appeals Court for Federal Administrative Litigation) (2011)
The plaintiff daughters, R.H. and V.C., filed suit against the State government and certain police officials requesting damages for the loss of the lives of their mother, Mrs. S., and father, Mr. A. The day after her decision to flee her home together with her daughters and reside with other family members, Mrs. S. filed a civil proceeding against Mr. A. for domestic violence. Mr. A. was prohibited from approaching Mrs. S. and his daughters, and Mrs. S. obtained permission to remove her and her daughters’ personal belongings from their previous home while escorted by police officers. While accompanied by police officers and her sister to remove the belongings, Mr. A. killed Mrs. S. with a knife and subsequently committed suicide. In finding for the daughters in the case of Mrs. S., the appellate court identified the following factors in support of its finding: (1) the existence of a real and immediate risk that threatened the rights of Mrs. S. and her daughters that had the potential to materialize immediately and which was expressly referenced by the Office of Domestic Violence, (2) the risk related to a specific threat against a woman and was therefore particular, (3) the State knew of the risk or should have reasonably known of the risk and (4) the State could have reasonably prevented and avoided the materialization of the risk.
Las hijas de la demandante, RH y VC, presentaron una demanda contra el gobierno del estado y ciertos oficiales de policía que solicitaron daños por la pérdida de la vida de su madre, la Sra. S. y el padre, el Sr. A. El día después de su decisión de huir de la casa junto con sus hijas, la Sra. S. presentó un proceso civil contra el Sr. A. por violencia doméstica. Al Sr. A. se le prohibió acercarse a la Sra. S. y a sus hijas, y la Sra. S. obtuvo permiso para retirar a ella y las pertenencias personales de sus hijas de su hogar anterior mientras estaba escoltada por agentes de policía. Mientras estaba acompañada por oficiales de policía y su hermana para retirar las pertenencias, el Sr. A. mató a la Sra. S. con un cuchillo y posteriormente se suicidó. Al encontrar a las hijas en el caso de la Sra. S., la corte de apelaciones identificó los siguientes factores que respaldan su descubrimiento: (1) la existencia de un riesgo real e inmediato que amenazaba los derechos de la Sra. S. y sus hijas que tenía el potencial de materializarse de inmediato y que la Oficina de Violencia Doméstica hacía referencia expresamente, (2) el riesgo relacionado con una amenaza específica contra una mujer y, por lo tanto, era particular, (3) el Estado sabía del riesgo o debería haberlo hecho razonablemente conocido del riesgo y (4) el Estado podría haber prevenido y evitado razonablemente la materialización del riesgo.
Individual Application of Gülşah Öztürk, et al. Constitutional Court (2016)
In response to statements by the Turkish Prime Minister regarding abortion, the applicants demonstrated outside of the Ministry of Family & Social Policies of Turkey. The applicants asked for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Family & Social Policies to apologize for the statements. When police officers told the applicants that the Minister was not present in the Ministry building, the applicants tried, unsuccessfully, to enter the building using force. Following their failed attempt to enter the building, the Applicants headed to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey and blocked the road in front of it. At this point, the applicants were arrested by police. The applicants allege that during the arrests they were injured and sexually harassed. They were held in custody for seven hours. Medical reports indicate that when they were released, each of the activists had several bruises on their bodies. The Office of Public Prosecutor (the “OPP”) failed to investigate the activist’s allegations of abuse, did not take the testimony of the police officers regarding this incident, and decided to not prosecute this case. The applicants appealed the OPP’s decision claiming gender discrimination, but their appeal was dismissed by the lower court. The Constitutional Court ruled that the force exerted by the police officers while they arresting the applicants was proportionate because the applicants had used force against the police officers. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court concluded that the bruises mentioned in the medical report indicate that police officers only used force to capture the applicants. Because of this, the Constitutional Court found that bruises were not evidence of sexual harassment. This case is important because it demonstrates that the Constitutional Court relies on the medical reports to judge allegations of sexual harassment.
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.
Nabagesera & 3 Others v. Attorney General & Another High Court at Kampala (2014)
Members of Freedom and Roam Uganda (“FARUG”) sued the Attorney General and Minister of Ethics and Integrity Simon Lokodo for violating their constitutional rights to freedom of assembly, right to participate in peaceful civil society activity, and right to equal treatment before the law. In February 2012, Minister Lokodo personally appeared at and ordered closed down a FARUG-hosted “project planning, advocacy, human rights, leadership, and business skills” workshop in 2012 on the grounds that the workshop was an “illegal gathering of [h]omosexuals.” The respondents argued that Uganda Penal Code (sec. 148) prohibits homosexual acts, which includes the prohibition of direct or indirect encouragement, incitement, and conspiracy to commit the offense. Citing the Uganda Penal Code, Constitution of Uganda, and African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Court held that individual human rights are not absolute and may be restricted in the public interest as long as the restrictions do not amount to political persecution. Calling the workshops “a pretext for human rights advocacy to promote homosexual acts which are prohibited by the Ugandan laws,” the Court rejected Applicants’ freedom of expression arguments because their activities constituted “offenses against morality” and “prejudicial to the public interest.” In response to Applicants’ use of international human rights law, the Court held that Uganda’s “different laws and moral values” require different definitions and protections of the public interest than those cited in precedent from the UN, South Africa, the European Court of Human Rights, Hong Kong, etc. The Court also rejected the suit against the Minister of Ethics and Integrity in his individual capacity because he was acting in his official capacity, meaning the Attorney General was the only proper respondent.
Ragen, et al. v. Ministry of Transport, et al. Supreme Court (2011)
The petitioners sued the defendants for operating “mehadrin” bus lines for orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews. Petitioners argue that these bus lines discriminate based on gender by allowing men to board and sit in the front of the bus while requiring that women board by the rear door, sit in the back, and dress modestly. Petitioners claim these restrictions violate their fundamental and constitutional rights to equality, dignity, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience. Petitioners refused to comply with the gender restrictions, which respondents claimed were not compulsory but voluntary and thus legal. Petitioners, however, countered that the gender separation on mehadrin lines is not voluntary and that they were subjected to verbal harassment, threatened with physical violence, humiliated, and forced to leave the bus when they declined to observe the gender separation. After the respondents agreed to an examination of public transportation arrangements on lines serving the ultra-orthodox sector by an independent committee and the committee delivered its analysis, the Court ordered respondent 1 to instruct respondent 2 to publicize the cancellation of the separation arrangements (within 10 days of the date on which the judgment was rendered), and ordered respondent 2 to carry out its instructions within 30 days of the judgment. Within that period of time, respondents 2 and 3 were to post signs regarding the cancellation in all buses formerly subject to “mehadrin” arrangements, without exception.
Raposholi v. Commissioner of Police High Court of Lesotho (2007)
The plaintiff sued the government for false arrest and assault. The plaintiff, who worked for the government as an accounts clerk, claimed she was robbed by two armed men while she was transporting government funds. The next day, the police arrested her. The plaintiff alleged that she was taken to a police post, stripped down to her underwear, placed on her back, beaten, and interrogated, while the officers beat her and poured water over her head. The High Court determined that the plaintiff’s arrest was lawful but the torture was not. A medical certificate entered into evidence showed that plaintiff had injuries when she was released from police custody. Because there was no proof that she had those injuries before she was detained, the Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to relief.
Antrag an die Bundes-Gleichbehandlungskommission (Petition to Equal Treatment Commission) B-GBK I/178/16 Bundes-Gleichbehandlungskommission (Equal Treatment Commission) (2016)
After a restructuring of the Austrian Armed Forces, the petitioner lost her position, which was instead awarded to an older male with comparable experience but without the petitioner’s special training. Representatives from the Austrian Armed Forces (“AAF”) claimed that for reasons of economy, efficiency, and expediency, the reorganization sought to retain employees who were above age 50 and with presumably the shortest period of service remaining. The Equal Treatment Commission found this to be a violation of Section 4 no. 5 of Austria’s Federal Equal Treatment Act (Bundesgleichbehandlungsgesetz), which prohibits direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex in the context of professional advancement. In addition, the AAF did not conduct an assessment of technical competencies and personal suitability. Furthermore, the AAF focused solely on avoiding additional costs, but did not take into account the principles of equal treatment and the statutory imperative to advance women.
Nach einer Reform in der Organisation des Österreichischen Bundesheeres hat die Antragstellerin ihre Arbeitsstelle verloren. Anstelle der Antragstellerin wurde ein älterer männlicher Bediensteter mit ähnlicher Berufserfahrung - allerdings ohne die speziellen Anforderungen, welche die Antragstellerin erfüllt - auf diese Stelle berufen. Die Vertreter des Bundesheeres haben angegeben, dass die Reform aus Gründen von Wirtschaftlichkeit, Effizienz und Zweckmäßigkeit bezweckt, Angestellte zu erhalten, die älter als 50 Jahre alt sind und daher voraussichtlich die kürzeste Dienstzeit, bis zum Renteneintrittsalter haben. Die Gleichbehandlungskommission erachtete diese Entscheidung als Verletzung von § 4 Ziff. 5 des Österreichischen Bundesgleichbehandlungsgesetzes, das die unmittelbare und/oder mittelbare Diskriminierung aufgrund des Geschlechts im Rahmen des beruflichen Fortkommens verbietet. Des Weiteren hat das Bundesheer keine Beurteilung der Fachkompetenz und persönlicher Geeignetheit durchgeführt. Vielmehr hat es sich nur auf die Vermeidung zusätzlicher Kosten konzentriert, ohne die Gleichbehandlungsprinzipien sowie das gesetzliche Frauenförderungsgebot einzubeziehen.
International Case Law
Yildirim gg. Österreich [C/39/D/6/2005] CEDAW Committee (UNO-Frauenrechtsausschuss) (2007)
The decedent sought to divorce her husband who threatened to kill her and her children if she ever initiated divorce proceedings. In response to the decedent’s numerous reports of assault and dangerous criminal threats, the Austrian police issued an expulsion and prohibition-to-return order against her husband. The police also recommended that her husband be detained, but the Vienna Public Prosecutor twice denied the request. The decedent appealed to the Vienna Intervention Center (“VIC”) after her husband repeatedly came to her workplace to harass and threaten her; the VIC asked the police to pay more attention to the decedent’s case. When the decedent finally filed a petition for divorce at the Vienna District Court of Hernals, her husband followed her home from work and fatally stabbed her. The complaint stated that the State’s action violated Article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (“CEDAW”) because the Austrian criminal justice system negatively impacts women through the public prosecutors’ failure to treat cases of domestic violence seriously. The complaint also stated that the failure of judicial officials and law enforcement to collect data and maintain statistics on domestic violence instances denied the decedent the enjoyment of her human rights in violation of Article 2 and 3 of CEDAW on eliminating laws, regulations, and customs that adversely effect women. Finally, the complaint stated a violation of Article 5 of CEDAW on eliminating social and cultural attitudes towards women in the State’s continual treatment of domestic violence as a social or domestic problem rather than a serious crime. The Committee held that the Austrian police force’s failure to detain the decedent’s estranged husband was in breach of the State’s due diligence obligation to protect the decedent, noting that a perpetrator’s rights cannot superseded women’s human rights to life and to physical and mental integrity. The Committee also took note of the correlation between lenient attitudes towards women’s cultural subordination and domestic violence. Although Austria prosecuted the decedent’s husband to the fullest extent for her death, the Committee found violations of Articles 2 and 3 upon which they recommended that Austria strengthen its implementation and monitoring of the Federal Act for the Prevention against Violence within the Family, and ensure enhanced coordination between police and judicial officers to protect women victims of gender-based violence.
Die Verstorbene wollte sich von ihrem Ehemann scheiden lassen. Dieser drohte ihr, dass er sie und die Kinder umbringen würde, sollte sie jemals ein förmliches Scheidungsverfahren anstrengen. Als Reaktion auf die zahlreichen Anzeigen der Verstorbenen von Übergriffen und gefährlichen Drohungen erließ die österreichische Polizei einen Wohnungsverweis und ein Rückkehrverbot gegen den Ehemann. Die Polizei hat außerdem empfohlen, den Ehemann festzunehmen, allerdings hat die Staatsanwaltschaft Wien dies zweimal zurückgewiesen. Die Verstorbene hat die Wiener Interventionsstelle gegen Gewalt in der Familie („Interventionsstelle“) angerufen, nachdem der Ehemann wiederholt auf ihrer Arbeitsstelle erschien, um sie zu belästigen und zu bedrohen; die Interventionsstelle ersuchte die Polizei, der Angelegenheit um die Verstorbene mehr Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken. Letztlich beantragte die Verstorbene die Scheidung bei dem Bezirksgericht Hernals in Wien. Kurz darauf folgte der Ehemann seiner Frau von der Arbeit nach Hause und erstach sie. Die Beschwerde bringt vor, dass das staatliche Verhalten eine Verletzung von Artikel 1 der UN-Frauenrechtskonvention darstelle. Das Wiener Strafsystem wirkt sich negativ auf Frauen aus, indem die Staatsanwaltschaft versagt, Fälle von häuslicher Gewalt ernst zu nehmen. Weiterhin geht aus der Beschwerde hervor, dass das Unterlassen der Gerichtsbediensteten und Staatsanwaltschaft, Daten zu sammeln, und Statistiken über häusliche Gewalt zu führen, der Verstorbenen das Recht nahm, ihre Menschenrechte wahrzunehmen. Dies stelle eine Verletzung von Artikel 2 und 3 der UN-Frauenrechtskonvention dar, die eine Vernichtung von Gesetzen, Richtlinien und sonstigen Gewohnheiten, die Frauen negativ beeinflussen, verlangen. Zuletzt meinen die Beschwerdeführer, eine Verletzung von Artikel 5 der UN-Frauenrechtskonvention liege vor. Hiernach obliegt dem Staat eine Pflicht, soziale und kulturelle Vorurteile zu überkommen, um häusliche Gewalt gegenüber Frauen als ernstzunehmende Straftat zu erkennen, und nicht weiterhin als rein soziales oder häusliches Problem abzutun. Der Ausschuss stellte fest, dass das Unterlassen der österreichischen Polizei, den Ehemann festzunehmen, die staatliche Schutzpflicht gegenüber der Verstorbenen verletzte. Hierbei betonte er, dass die Rechte des Straftäters nicht schwerer wiegen können als die Menschenrechte der Frau auf Leben und psychische sowie physische Unversehrtheit. Der Ausschuss hat darüber hinaus auf die Korrelation zwischen der kulturellen Unterwerfung einer Frau und häuslicher Gewalt hingewiesen. Obwohl die Staatsanwaltschaft den Ehemann wegen der Tötung der Verstorbenen mit allen rechtlichen Mitteln verfolgte, befand der Ausschuss, dass der Staat seine Pflichten aus Artikel 2 und 3 der UN-Frauenrechtskonvention verletzte. Der Ausschuss empfahl daher, dass Österreich die Durchsetzung und Überwachung der Einhaltung des Bundesgesetzes zum Schutz vor Gewalt in der Familie verbessert, eine verbessere Koordinierung von Polizeiarbeit und Staatsanwaltschaft sicherstellt, um Frauen vor Gewalt zu schützen.
Goekce v. Austria (Goekce gg. Österreich) [C/39/D/5/2005] CEDAW Committee (2007)
The decedent’s husband shot and killed her in front of their two daughters in 2002. Before her death, the decedent had obtained three expulsion and prohibition-to-return orders against her husband in response to repeated episodes of domestic violence. The Vienna Public Prosecutor denied police requests to detain the decedent’s husband, and stopped the prosecution against him on the basis of insufficient grounds two days before the murder. Police reports show that the law enforcement failed to respond in a timely fashion to the dispute that resulted in the decedent’s murder. The decedent’s heirs brought this complaint to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on behalf of the decedent. The complaint argued that Austria’s Federal Act for the Protection against Violence within the Family provided ineffective protection for victims of repeated, severe spousal abuse, and that women are disproportionately affected by the State’s failure to prosecute and take seriously reports of domestic violence. The Committee found that although Austria has established a comprehensive model to address domestic violence, State actors must investigate reports of this crime with due diligence to effectively provide redress and protection. The Committee concluded that the police knew or should have known that the decedent was in serious danger, and were therefore responsible for failing to exercise due diligence in protecting her. By allowing the perpetrator’s rights to supersede the decedent’s human rights to life and to physical and mental integrity, Austrian law enforcement violated its obligations to end gender discrimination through the modification or enactment of appropriate legislation under Article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”), and its Article 3 obligation to guarantee women’s exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedom on a basis of equality with men. Particularly, the Committee recommended that Austria strengthen its implementation and monitoring of the Federal Act for the Protection against Violence within the Family, respond to complaints of domestic violence with due diligence, and provide adequate sanctions for failure to do so.
Der Ehemann erschoss die Verstorbene vor den Augen der beiden Töchter im Jahre 2002. Vor ihrem Tod hat die Verstorbene in Reaktion auf wiederholte Ausbrüche von häuslicher Gewalt bereits dreimal ein Hausverbot und ein Rückkehrverbot gegen ihren Ehemann erwirkt. Die Staatsanwaltschaft Wien wies das Ersuchen der Polizei, den Ehemann festzunehmen, wiederholt zurück. Zwei Tage vor der Tötung hat die Staatsanwaltschaft die Strafverfolgung mangels ausreichender Beweislage eingestellt. Aus den Polizeiberichten ergibt sich, dass die Strafverfolgung versagt hat, zeitgemäß auf die Gefahrenlage, aus der sich die Tötung ergeben hat, zu reagieren. Die Beschwerde wurde von den Erben der Verstorbenen in ihrem Namen angestrengt und vor den Frauenrechtsausschuss der UNO gebracht. Hierin argumentieren die Erben, dass das Bundesgesetz zum Schutz vor Gewalt in der Familie keinen ausreichenden Schutz für Opfer von wiederholter, ernstzunehmender häuslicher Gewalt bietet und Frauen das Versagen der staatlichen Strafverfolgung dessen überproportional oft erfahren.
G.N. v. Burundi Committee Against Torture (2017)
G.N., a mother, brought the action on behalf of her nine-year-old daughter, C.N. A friend of the family, Captain D.K., was conducting night patrols and he stopped by the family home. G.N.’s husband was not at home, so the Captain said he was going to leave and wanted to take C.N. with him home. G.N. declined saying it was late, but when she returned to the kitchen to finish cooking the meal and then called for her daughter, she was no longer there. Neighbors informed G.N. that she had left with D.K. She looked for C.N., but did not see her. The serviceman was a friend of the family. She thought C.N. would soon return. When G.N.’s husband returned home, she informed him that C.N. had not returned and he reassured her so they decided to wait. C.N. returned home the next day. G.N. eventually learned from C.N. that D.K. had taken her to his house, raped her, and, when she cried, threatened her with his firearm if she made any more noise. He sent her to sleep with his own children and the next day gave her 500 Burundian francs (USD 0.30). He told her never to speak about the rape and threatened her and her mother if she revealed their secret. However, a week after the incident, her mother persisted in asking C.N. because she could not stand up and said she had a stomach ache. The victim’s father raised the issue with Captain D.K., who proposed an out of court settlement, which was rejected by G.N. G.N. took C.N. for a medical examination, which confirmed the rape and she reported the rape to the military prosecutor’s department. G.N. appealed to the domestic courts, which dismissed the case because of the ten-day period between the incident and reporting of it and the calmness and availability of the Captain. After seeking domestic remedies with no action taken, G.N. appealed to the Committee submitting that her daughter was the victim of a violation of articles 2(1), 12, 13 and 14, read in conjunction with article 1 and, alternatively, with article 16 of the Convention. The Committee found that the sexual abuse to which C.N. was subjected by an official of the State acting in his official capacity and the associated acts of intimidation fall within the scope of article 1 of the Convention. The Committee also determined the investigation was not impartial, effective and prompt, contrary to articles 12 and 13 of the Convention. It relied on the fact it was closed quickly and prosecutors did not seek additional evidence to pursue the case or arrest any other suspects, meaning the perpetrator of the rape has gone unpunished even though Burundi law provides that rape is punishable by life imprisonment when committed against a child under the age of 12. As the child received no redress, the Committee also found that Burundi violated its obligations under article 14 of the Convention. Finally, the Committee urged Burundi to: (1) promptly reopen an investigation; (2) provide reparation including compensation for the material and moral harm caused, restitution, rehabilitation, measures of satisfaction and a guarantee of non-repetition; (3) prevent threats/acts of violence against G.N. and C.N. for lodging the complaint; and (4) advise the Committee within 90 days of the steps taken.