Women and Justice: Topics: Gender discrimination, Gender violence in conflict, Gender-based violence in general, Sexual violence and rape

The purpose of the Concept is to improve society's understanding of the essence and tasks of state gender policy and to perceive it as an integral component of a democratic and legal state. The text of the Concept highlights the problems that need to be solved. For example, the gender discrimination, gender-based violence, and sexual harassment in Ukrainian society. Gender stereotypes are often ignored and dismissed, which is a negative trend. In addition, an extremely dangerous factor is the large amount of sexist and discriminatory content in the informational space, including sexist advertising. Women are underrepresented in the upper echelons of the labor sectors, public life, and politics. These, as well as a number of other global problems in the field of ensuring equal rights of women and men, led to the adoption of this Concept. The realization of this strategic program document is planned until 2025. For this, an action plan was developed and presented for discussion with the public, which contains successive steps for the implementation of the Concept and contains 8 strategic goals, in particular, ensuring the participation of women in the decision-making process and political activity; ensuring equal access of women and men to justice; elimination of gender-based violence, etc. It is planned that the achievement of these goals should be carried out mainly through public awareness (media appearances, discussions), educational activities, research on gender issues, communication companies, etc. The Concept should help intolerance of all forms of discrimination, overcoming established stereotypes regarding gender roles, as well as embedding standards of equal rights of women and men in society.

Метою Концепції є вдосконалення розуміння суспільством сутності та завдань державної ґендерної політики та сприйняття її як невід’ємної складової демократичної та правової держави. У тексті Концепції висвітлено проблеми, які потребують вирішення. Наприклад, ґендерна дискримінація, ґендерне насильство та сексуальні домагання в українському суспільстві. Ґендерні стереотипи часто ігноруються та відкидаються, що є негативною тенденцією. Крім цього, надзвичайно небезпечним фактором є велика кількість сексистського та дискримінаційного контенту в інформаційному просторі, в тому числі сексистської реклами. Жінки недостатньо представлені на керівних посадах, у громадському житті та політиці. Ці, а також низка інших глобальних проблем у сфері забезпечення рівності прав жінок і чоловіків зумовили прийняття цієї Концепції. Реалізація цього стратегічного програмного документу розрахована до 2025 року. Для цього розроблено та представлено на обговорення громадськості план заходів, який містить послідовні кроки щодо реалізації Концепції та містить 8 стратегічних цілей, зокрема забезпечення участі жінок у процесі прийняття рішень та політичній діяльності; забезпечення рівного доступу жінок і чоловіків до правосуддя; викорінення ґендерного насильства тощо. Передбачається, що досягнення цих цілей має здійснюватися переважно через інформування громадськості (виступи в ЗМІ, дискусії), просвітницьку діяльність, дослідження ґендерних питань, комунікаційні компанії тощо. Концепція має сприяти нетерпимості до будь-яких форм дискримінації, подолання усталених стереотипів щодо ґендерних ролей, а також утвердження стандартів рівних прав жінок і чоловіків у суспільстві.

Article 11 requires that the state guarantee equality between women and men in all civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The state must work to adopt measures ensuring the proportional representation of women in the houses of parliament, as determined by the constitution. In addition, the state must ensure women’s rights in pursuing public employment, employment in the senior management of the state, and appointment in judicial agencies without discrimination. The state is committed to the protection of women against all forms of violence and guarantees the empowerment of women in reconciling familial duties and professional obligations. Article 53 mandates that all citizens enjoy equality under the law, equally in their rights, freedoms, and general obligations, without discrimination on the basis of religion, faith, sex, origin, race, color, language, disability, economic status, political affiliation, geography, or otherwise. Such discrimination, as well as the incitement of hate, constitutes a crime punishable under the law. The state is committed to adopting the necessary measures to eliminate all forms of discrimination, and the law establishes a special independent commission to this end. English translation available at: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Egypt_2014.pdf.

The Criminal and Criminal Procedural Codes of Ukraine were amended in December 2017 to adopt provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention). As a result of these amendments, new dangerous acts were criminalized. For example, Article 151-2 supplemented the special part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine by providing criminal liability for forced marriage. Forced marriage (meaning coercing a person to marry, to continue a forcible marriage, to enter into cohabitation without marriage, to continue cohabitation, or to move to a territory other than that in which they reside, regardless of citizenship) is punishable by arrest for a term of up to six months, by restriction of liberty for a term of up to three years, or by imprisonment for the same term. Article 126-1 supplemented the special part of the Criminal Code by providing criminal liability for domestic violence. Domestic violence (meaning intentional systematic physical, psychological, or economic violence against a spouse or ex-spouse or another person with whom an offender has had a family or close relationship) is punishable by community service of up to 150-240 hours, or arrest for up to six months, restriction of liberty for up to five years, or imprisonment for up to two years. A new chapter, “Restrictions,” established that, in the interests of domestic violence victims, the convicted person might be (i) banned from living with a person who suffered from domestic violence or (ii) restricted in communications with their child if the child was a victim or observer of domestic violence. In addition, these amendments provide criminal liability for failure to comply with restrictive measures, which is punishment with arrest for up to six months or restriction of liberty for up to two years. Finally, consent is valid if it is a person's exercise of free will, in consideration of attending circumstances.

У грудні 2017 року до Кримінального та Кримінально-процесуального кодексів України були внесені зміни з метою закріплення положень Конвенції Ради Європи «Про запобігання насильству щодо жінок і домашньому насильству та боротьбу з ними» (Стамбульська конвенція), прийнятої у 2011 році. У результаті цих змін нові суспільно небезпечні діяння були криміналізовані. Наприклад, особливу частину Кримінального кодексу України доповнено статтею 151-2, яка передбачає кримінальну відповідальність за примушення до шлюбу. Примусовий шлюб (тобто примушування особи до вступу в шлюб або до продовження примусово укладеного шлюбу, або до вступу у співжиття без укладання шлюбу, або до продовження такого співжиття, або спонукання з цією метою особи до переміщення на територію іншої держави, ніж та, в якій вона проживає (там «проживає» означає постійне місце проживання в певному місці, не обов’язково пов’язане з громадянством) карається арештом на строк до шести місяців або обмеженням волі на строк до трьох років, або позбавленням волі на той самий строк. Також у 2017 році особливу частину Кримінального кодексу України було доповнено статтею 126-1, яка передбачає кримінальну відповідальність за домашнє насильство. Домашнє насильство (тобто умисне систематичне вчинення фізичного, психологічного або економічного насильства щодо подружжя чи колишнього подружжя або іншої особи, з якою винний перебуває (перебував) у сімейних або близьких відносинах, що призводить до фізичних або психологічних страждань, розладів здоров’я, втрати працездатності, емоційної залежності або погіршення якості життя потерпілої особи) караються громадськими роботами на строк від 150 до 240 годин, або арештом на строк до шести місяців, або обмеженням волі на строк до п'яти років, або позбавлення волі на строк до двох років. Додано новий розділ «Обмежувальні заходи». Встановлено, що в інтересах потерпілого від злочину, пов'язаного з домашнім насильством, на засудженого можуть бути покладені такі обов'язки: заборона перебувати в спільному місці проживання з жертвою; обмеження спілкування з дитиною у разі вчинення насильства в сім'ї щодо дитини або в її присутності; крім того, ці зміни передбачають кримінальну відповідальність за невиконання обмежувальних заходів (покарання у вигляді арешту на строк до шести місяців або обмеження волі на строк до двох років). Примітка: Згода вважається добровільною, якщо вона є результатом вільного волевиявлення особи, з урахуванням супутніх обставин.

Article 302 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine states that creating or running brothels, and also procuring people for sex work in brothels, shall be punishable by a fine of 1,000-2,000 tax-free minimum incomes or restriction of liberty for up to two years. Article 302 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine states that creating or running brothels, and procurement, shall be punishable by a fine of 1,000-2,000 tax-free minimum incomes or restriction of liberty for up to two years. Article 303 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine prohibits engaging a person in prostitution or compulsion to engage in prostitution, involving deceit, blackmail or vulnerable state of a person, with imposition of violence or threat of violence, or pimping. If breached, the penalty is imprisonment for a term of three to five years. Under this Article, pimping shall mean any action of a person committed for the purpose of engaging another person in prostitution.

Статтею 302 Кримінального кодексу України передбачено, що створення або утримання місць розпусти, а також звідництво для розпусти караються штрафом від 1000 до 2000 неоподатковуваних мінімумів доходів громадян або обмеженням волі на строк до двох років. Статтею 303 Кримінального кодексу України забороняється втягнення особи в заняття проституцією або примушування її до зайняття проституцією з використанням обману, шантажу чи уразливого стану цієї особи, або із застосуванням чи погрозою застосування насильства, або сутенерство. У разі вчинення дій, що криміналізовані цією статтею, передбачено покарання у вигляді позбавлення волі на строк від трьох до п'яти років. Відповідно до цієї статті під сутенерством слід розуміти дії особи по забезпеченню заняття проституцією іншою особою.

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 law provides both for protection measures for women that are victims of abuse, such as specific agencies to channel the claims; and penalties for abusers, for instance from 10 to 30 years of imprisonment for femicide. In turn, Decree 6973 specifies that interpretation and application of Law 5777 of 2016 shall provide the broadest protection for women subject to violence. Subsequently, no legal provision may deny, undermine, or limit the rights guaranteed therein. The Decree sets specific courses of action authorities must undertake to prevent violence against women and particular procedures to accomplish that goal. Romantic, platonic, and other sorts of intra-family relationships are considered domestic. For these purposes, marriage is not a requirement.

Esta ley busca promover y garantizar el derecho de las mujeres a gozar de una vida libre de violencia. Su finalidad es promover estrategias de prevención y protección, sanción y medidas de reparación integral frente a cualquier tipo de violencia contra las mujeres. Esta ley fomenta políticas públicas para prevenir y remediar diferentes formas de violencia, como la violencia psicológica, sexual y física. También asigna amplias responsabilidades a cada Ministerio y agencia gubernamental para apoyar la lucha contra la discriminación. La ley prevé tanto medidas de protección para las mujeres que son víctimas de maltrato, como organismos específicos para canalizar las denuncias y penas para los abusadores, por ejemplo, de 10 a 30 años de prisión por feminicidio. A su vez, el Decreto 6973 especifica que la interpretación y aplicación de la Ley 5777 de 2016 brindará la más amplia protección a las mujeres víctimas de violencia. En consecuencia, ninguna disposición legal podrá negar, menoscabar o limitar los derechos en ella garantizados. El Decreto establece cursos de acción específicos que las autoridades deben emprender para prevenir la violencia contra las mujeres y procedimientos particulares para lograr ese objetivo. Las relaciones intrafamiliares, románticas y similares se consideran domésticas. A estos efectos, el matrimonio no es un requisito.

This decree created a cross-sectional commission called the ‘Mesa Interinstitucional para Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres’. Its purpose is to join efforts for the coordination and cooperation between public entities in order to achieve comprehensive and accessible quality care for women victims of any kind of violence. The commission is comprised by the ministries and directors of public agencies from several sections, including technology, education, culture, justice, among others.

Este decreto creó una comisión interinstitucional denominada ‘Mesa Interinstitucional para Erradicar la Violencia contra las Mujeres’. Su finalidad es consolidar esfuerzos para la coordinación y cooperación entre las entidades públicas, a fin de lograr una atención integral, accesible y de calidad a las mujeres víctimas de cualquier tipo de violencia. La comisión está integrada por los ministerios y directores de organismos públicos de varios sectores, incluyendo tecnología, educación, cultura, justicia, entre otros.

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. Articles 208 and following criminalize rape and establish aggravating circumstances including, among others, if the victim is under 14 years old, if the victim is incapable of defending him or herself, if the abuser used violence and if the abuse was held within the household. Article 116 A prohibits the use of chemical agents or corrosive substances that cause injuries or harm when they come into contact with human tissue. Finally, for some crimes, the code treats as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim is a woman. Law 1719 of June 18, 2014 modified and expanded these provisions.

Esta ley que contiene el Código Penal colombiano enumera las conductas que constituyen delitos y sus sanciones. El código establece varios delitos relacionados con el género. El artículo 104A tipifica como delito el feminicidio, es decir, el asesinato de mujeres solo por el hecho de ser mujeres. El artículo 123 sanciona a las personas que obligan a la mujer a interrumpir su embarazo. El artículo 187 prohíbe realizar tratamientos in vitro a mujeres en contra de su voluntad. El artículo 229 regula el delito de violencia doméstica. Los artículos 208 y siguientes tipifican como delito la violación y establecen circunstancias agravantes que incluyen, entre otras, que la víctima sea menor de 14 años, que sea incapaz de defenderse por sí misma, si el abusador usó violencia y si el abuso se llevó a cabo dentro del hogar. El artículo 116 A prohíbe el uso de agentes químicos o sustancias corrosivas que causen lesiones o daños cuando entren en contacto con tejidos humanos. Finalmente, para algunos delitos, el código trata como circunstancia agravante el hecho de que la víctima sea mujer. La Ley 1719 de junio 18, 2014 modificó y amplió algunas de estas disposiciones.

The Penal Code establishes penalties of six months to six years for those who in a meeting, public place, or through any means of dissemination or communication with the public, incite hatred against a person or group of persons because of their race, color, ethnicity, place of birth, sex, belief or religion, political or ideological convictions, social condition or origin or other cause, with the purpose of discriminating against them.

O Código Penal estabelece penalidades de seis meses a seis anos para aqueles que em reunião, espaço público, ou qualquer outro meio de disseminação ou comunicação com o público, incitar ódio contra pessoa ou grupo de pessoas por causa de sua raça, cor, etnia, lugar de nascença, sexo, crença ou religião, convicção política ou ideológica, condição social ou origem ou outra causa, com o propósito de discriminação contra eles.

Articles 213-220 prohibit certain actions intended to violate someone’s honor, which include insult, defamation, and slander, and mandate penalties ranging from 6-12 months imprisonment and fines. The articles provide for increased penalties if the insults/offensive judgments offend someone’s race, color, ethnicity, place of birth, sex, sexual orientation, disease, disability, or religion.

Os artigos 213-220 proíbem certas ações que são destinadas a violar a honra de alguém, que inclui insult, difamação, e calúnia, e atribui penalidades que variam de 6-12 meses de prisão e multas. Os artigos impõem penalidades maiores se os insultos/julgamentos ofensivos ofenderem a raça, cor, etnia, lugar de nascença, sexo, orientação sexual, doença, deficiência, ou religião de alguém.

Article 160 increases the penalty for murder to 20-24 years in prison if the crime was motivated by racial, religious, or political hatred, or generated by color, ethnic, or national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity of the victim.

O artigo 160 aumentou a pena para o crime de homicídio para 20-24 anos de prisão se o crime for motivado por ódio racial, religioso, ou político, ou gerado pela cor, etnia, ou origem nacional, sexo, orientação sexual, ou identidade de gênero da vítima.

For several crimes set out in the Criminal Code, knowing commission against a pregnant woman is an aggravating circumstance that increases the sentence. Murdering a pregnant woman is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 8 to 12 years, life imprisonment, or the death sentence under Art. 139. Torture of a pregnant woman is punishable by restraint on liberty for a term of one to three years or imprisonment for a term of one to five years under Art. 154. Taking a pregnant woman hostage is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 6 to 12 years under Art. 291.

Ratified by BiH in November 2013, this Convention opens the path for creating a legal framework at the pan-European level to protect women against all forms of violence and to prevent, prosecute, and eliminate violence and domestic violence against women. The Convention also establishes the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO), which is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Convention. Its members are elected by the state parties. The structure of the treaty is based on the “four Ps”: (1) prevention, (2) protection and support of victims, (3) prosecution of offenders, and (4) integrated policies. The Convention also establishes obligations in relation to the collection of data and supporting research in the field of violence against women. Article 2 of the Convention indicates that the provisions shall apply in time of peace and also in situations of armed conflicts. The treaty came into effect in Bosnia on the 1 August 2014.

A person who takes, hides, or imprisons a pregnant woman in order to force the woman or a third party to do, not do, or tolerate something against his or her will is subject to imprisonment of between 10 to 25 years. A person who kidnaps or hides a pregnant woman to obtain a ransom is subject to imprisonment of between 10 to 25 years. If perpetrator obtains the desired gain, the minimum penalty will be raised to eight years.

La persona que toma, esconde o encarcela a una mujer embarazada con el fin de obligar a la mujer o a una tercera persona a hacer, no hacer o tolerar algo en contra de su voluntad está sujeta a pena privadora de libertad de 10 a 25 años. La persona que secuestra u oculta a una mujer embarazada para obtener un rescate está sujeta a una pena de prisión de entre 10 y 25 años. Si el agresor obtiene la ganancia deseada, la pena mínima se elevará a ocho años.

The law aims to put in place measures to eliminate gender-based violence against women in order to achieve equality and respect for human dignity by adopting a comprehensive approach to prevention of all forms of violence, to punish its perpetrators, and to protect victims of violence. The law applies to vulnerability and all forms of violence, including physical, moral, sexual, political, and economic. It adopts the internationally agreed definition of violence against women consistent with the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1993.

The Law on Education established that one of the principles of Spain’s public education system is the prevention of gender-based violence (Article 1). Preference in the admission to public schools will be given to students who have had to move because they suffered acts of gender-based violence (Article 84.7).

La Ley de Educación estableció que uno de los principios del sistema de educación pública de España es la prevención de la violencia de género (Artículo 1). Se dará preferencia a la admisión a las escuelas públicas a los estudiantes que hayan tenido que mudarse porque sufrieron actos de violencia de género (Artículo 84.7).

Spain criminalizes certain behaviors contrary to gender justice, such as the practicing of abortions without the patient’s consent, and female genital mutilation. In particular, Article 149 criminalizes female genital mutilation, establishing a penalty of six to twelve years in prison. Article 173 criminalizes the habitual physical or psychological violence exercised against a spouse or partner, punished with a penalty of six months to three years of prison (regardless of the penalty for any specific acts of violence that may have occurred). Article 314 criminalizes employment discrimination because of someone’s gender, ideologies, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, family circumstances, etc. The penalty for employment discrimination is six months to two years of prison or a pecuniary fine of 12 - 24 months. Article 510 criminalizes the incitement of violence, hate, or discrimination against any person or group for the aforementioned reasons. The penalty is one to four years of prison and a pecuniary fine of six to twelve months. Article 511 criminalizes denying a public service because of the aforementioned reasons, to someone legally entitled to receive said service. The penalty is six months to two years of prison and a pecuniary fine of 12 to 24 months, as well as being barred from public office for one to three years. Article 144 criminalizes the practicing of abortions without woman’s consent. The penalty is four to eight years of prison and being barred from any job in the medical profession.

España penaliza ciertas conductas contrarias a la justicia de género, como la práctica de abortos sin el consentimiento de la paciente y la mutilación genital femenina. En particular, el Artículo 149 penaliza la mutilación genital femenina, estableciendo una pena de seis a doce años de prisión. El Artículo 173 penaliza la violencia física o psicológica habitual ejercida contra un cónyuge o pareja, castigada con una pena de seis meses a tres años de prisión (independientemente de la pena por cualquier acto específico de violencia que pueda haber ocurrido). El Artículo 314 penaliza la discriminación laboral debido al género, las ideologías, la religión, el origen étnico, la orientación sexual, las circunstancias familiares, etc. de alguien. La pena por discriminación laboral es de seis meses a dos años de prisión o una multa pecuniaria de 12 a 24 meses. El Artículo 510 penaliza la incitación a la violencia, el odio o la discriminación contra cualquier persona o grupo por los motivos antes mencionados. La pena es de uno a cuatro años de prisión y una multa pecuniaria de seis a doce meses. El Artículo 511 penaliza la denegación de un servicio público por las razones antes mencionadas, a alguien legalmente autorizado para recibir dicho servicio. La pena es de seis meses a dos años de prisión y una multa pecuniaria de 12 a 24 meses, además de ser excluido de un cargo público de uno a tres años. El Artículo 144 penaliza la práctica de abortos sin el consentimiento de la mujer. La pena es de cuatro a ocho años de prisión y se le prohibirá cualquier trabajo en la profesión médica.

The objective of this law is to protect the human rights of every Venezuelan woman or woman resident in Venezuela. This law, independent of the race, creed, political, economic or social affinity of the women, seeks to defend the rights of the women in the following aspects: social, family, work and in all areas of daily life. This law intends to dignify women by providing that their fundamental rights are inviolable. It also recognizes as “violence” any form of abuse that violates or annuls any of the women’s human rights and sets forth diverse categories for all forms of violence against women and the procedures for the defense of the women’s rights. This legal instrument provides for all rights, regulations, and specific defense procedures necessary to protect the Venezuelan women from gender violence, but it is unclear the degree to which it will be enforced.

Article 144-A bans female genital mutilation and imposes a prison sentence of 2-10 years. Article 145 imposes greater penalties for offenses against physical integrity and female genital mutilation if the crime is committed, among other special circumstances, against the current or former spouse or a person with whom the perpetrator has a romantic relationship, regardless of sex and gender; if the victim is pregnant; or if the crime is committed due to the victim’s gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Article 118 provides that the statute of limitations on crimes of sexual violence and female genital mutilation against minors do not expire until the victim is at least 23 years old. Article 152 establishes the crime of domestic violence, punishable with imprisonment from 1-5 years. The crime consists of mental or physical abuse, including mistreatment, corporal punishment and sexual offenses, inflicted once or repeatedly on the following victims (1) a current or former spouse; (2) a person with whom the perpetrator has or had a relationship akin to a spousal relationship; (3) a parent of the perpetrator’s child; (4) a person who is incapable to defend him/herself due to age, disability, pregnancy, illness or economic dependency to the perpetrator. In addition, under Article 152, (1) the minimum imprisonment penalty is increased from one to two years if the perpetrator publicizes the victim’s personal information or any other private information (including information stored on audio or video) via Internet or other means available; (2) the perpetrator may be prohibited of having contact with the victim; (3) the perpetrator may be prohibited from being granted a gun license; (4) the perpetrator may lose parenting rights for up to 10 years. Also, Article 152 imposes a sentence of 2-8 years imprisonment if the domestic violence results in serious physical injury, which increases to imprisonment to 3-10 years if the domestic violence results in death.

O artigo 114 proíbe a realização de mutilação genital feminina, impondo pena de prisão de dois a 10 anos. O artigo 145 estabelece penas maiores aos crimes de ofensa contra a integridade física e mutilação genital feminina, se o crime for cometido, dentre outras circunstâncias, contra cônjuge ou ex-cônjuge ou contra pessoa no qual o agente tenha estabelecido um relacionamento romântico, independente do gênero ou do sexo, se a vítima estiver grávida ou se o crime for cometido em razão do gênero, orientação sexual ou identidade de gênero da vítima. O artigo 118 estabelece que os crimes contra a liberdade e autodeterminação sexual de menores, bem como no crime de mutilação genital feminina sendo a vítima menor, o procedimento criminal não se extingue, por efeito da prescrição, antes de o ofendido perfazer 23 anos. O artigo 152 versa sobre o crime de violência doméstica, punível com prisão de um a cinco anos. O crime consiste em abuso mental ou físico, incluindo maus-tratos, castigos corporais e ofensas sexuais, infligidos uma ou várias vezes às seguintes vítimas (1) atual ou ex-cônjuge; (2) uma pessoa com a qual o agente tem ou teve uma relação semelhante a uma relação conjugal; (3) um dos pais do filho do agente; (4) uma pessoa incapaz de se defender devido à idade, deficiência, gravidez, doença ou dependência econômica do agente. Além disso, nos termos do artigo 152, (1) a pena mínima de prisão é aumentada de um para dois anos se o agente divulgar as informações pessoais da vítima ou qualquer outra informação privada (inclusive informações armazenadas em áudio ou vídeo) via Internet ou outros meios disponíveis; (2) o agente pode ser proibido de entrar em contato com a vítima; (3) o agente pode ser proibido de receber uma licença de porte de arma; (4) o agente pode perder os direitos parentais por até 10 anos. Além disso, o Artigo 152 pune com prisão de dois a oito anos caso a violência doméstica resulte em sérios danos físicos e pune com prisão de três a dez anos se a violência doméstica resultar em morte.

Article 9 defines crimes against humanity to include violent acts such as rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced sterilization or other forms of sexual violence.

Article 9 of the FDRE Constitution provides that all international treaties ratified by Ethiopia are integral parts of the law of the land. Similarly, Article 13.2 provides that fundamental rights and freedoms shall be interpreted in a manner conforming to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenants on Human Rights and International instruments adopted by Ethiopia. Ethiopia has ratified many of these treaties including ICCPR, ICESCR, and CEDAW. Article 35 of the FDRE Constitution pertains to the Rights of Women. The article provides for equal rights under the constitution, equal rights with men in marriage, entitlement to affirmative measures, protection from harmful traditional practices, the right to maternity pay, the right to consultation, property rights (including acquiring and controlling and transferring property), employment rights, and access to family planning education. It is worth noting that this article explicitly imposes an obligation and accountability on the state to protect women from violence at Article 35.4: “The State shall enforce the right of women to eliminate the influences of harmful customs. Laws, customs and practices that oppress or cause bodily or mental harm to women are prohibited.”

The Equal Opportunities Act of Ukraine (the “Act”) provides the legal framework for men and women’s parity in all spheres of social life through providing legal support for equal rights and opportunities, removal of gender-based discrimination, and prevention of imbalance between women’s and men’s opportunities in implementing the rights granted to each of them by the Constitution and other laws. The Act defines “equal rights” as the absence of gender-based restrictions or privileges. The Act provides that government regulatory bodies must ensure equal rights for men and women in elections, civil service, employment and career, social security, entrepreneurial activity, and education. The Act prohibits gender-based violence (which is defined as “actions directed at persons through their sex, stereotyped widespread customs or traditions or actions that relate predominantly to persons of a determined sex and create physical, sexual, psychological or financial damage or suffering”) and sexual harassment (defined as "sexual actions of a verbal or physical nature, which may humiliate or insult the person who is dependent on the perpetrator for work, official, financial or other reasons"). Exceptions to the prohibition of gender discrimination include when restrictions or privileges have a legitimate, objectively justified goal achieved with appropriate and necessary methods. Violation of the Act can result in the issuance of a limitation order to temporarily restrict the rights of the offender and protect the rights of the victim, including prohibiting the offender from residing with the victim, approaching the victim within a certain distance, and restricting telephone calls or other communication with the victim.

Закон України «Про рівні можливості» («Закон») створює правові основи рівності чоловіків і жінок у всіх сферах суспільного життя шляхом правового забезпечення рівних прав і можливостей, усунення дискримінації за ознакою статі та запобігання дисбалансу між можливостями жінок та чоловіків у реалізації прав, наданих кожному з них Конституцією та іншими законами. Відповідно до Закону «рівність прав» означає відсутність обмежень або привілеїв за ознакою статі. Закон передбачає, що рівні права чоловіків і жінок забезпечуватимуться у виборчому процесі, державній службі, працевлаштуванні та кар’єрі, соціальному забезпеченні, підприємницькій діяльності та освіті. Рівність забезпечується через відповідні державні/регулюючі органи. Закон забороняє гендерне насильство (діяння, спрямовані проти осіб через їхню стать, або поширені в суспільстві звичаї чи традиції (стереотипні уявлення про соціальні функції (становище, обов’язки тощо) жінок і чоловіків), або діяння, що стосуються переважно осіб певної статі чи зачіпають їх непропорційно, які завдають фізичної, сексуальної, психологічної або економічної шкоди чи страждань, включаючи погрози таких дій, у публічному або приватному житті) та сексуальні домагання (дії сексуального характеру, виражені словесно (погрози, залякування, непристойні зауваження) або фізично (доторкання, поплескування), що принижують чи ображають осіб, які перебувають у відносинах трудового, службового, матеріального чи іншого підпорядкування). Винятки, в яких можлива законна неріівність: коли обмеження чи привілеї мають законну об’єктивно виправдану мету, методи досягнення якої є доцільними та необхідними. Порушення Закону тимчасового обмеження прав правопорушника (цивільна, адміністративна та кримінальна відповідальність згідно із законом) та захисту прав потерпілого, у тому числі заборони потерпілому проживати з потерпілим за місцем проживання, наближатися до потерпілого до певна дистанція та обмеження телефонних розмов чи іншого спілкування з жертвою.

Under Article 14 of the Japanese Constitution, “all citizens of Japan are equal under the law, and shall not be discriminated against in political, economic or social relations on the basis of sex.” Article 24 of the Constitution states that marriage can only be formed through the mutual consent of both sexes, and it must be maintained through mutual cooperation of husband and wife. Furthermore, Article 24 provides that “husband and wife have equal rights” under the law. Based Article 14 and Article 24, the following laws were enacted: the Basic Act for a Gender Equal Society requires the state and local public entities to take steps towards the formation of a gender-equal society; the Act on Securing of Equal Opportunity and Treatment Between Men and Women in Employment prohibits employers from discriminating based on gender; and the Act on the Prevention of Spousal Violence and the Protection of Victims etc., and the Stalker Control Law protect women from gender-based violence.

日本国憲法第14条では、「すべて国民は、法の下に平等であって、人種、信条、性別、社会的身分又は門地により、政治的、経済的又は社会的関係において、差別されない」とある。憲法第24条では、「婚姻は、両性の合意のみに基いて成立し、夫婦が同等の権利を有することを基本として、相互の協力により、維持されなければならない」とある。第14条と第24条に基づき、国や地方公共団体が男女共同参画社会の形成に向けて取り組むことを定めた「男女共同参画社会基本法」、事業主が性別による差別を行うことを禁止した「雇用の分野における男女の均等な機会及び待遇の確保等に関する法律」、女性を性暴力から守るための「配偶者からの暴力の防止及び被害者の保護等に関する法律」や「ストーカー規制法」などの法律が制定された。

The Rules of Evidence and Procedure (“Rules”) are a subordinate instrument for the application of the Rome Statute and to protect the rights of women in relation to sexual violence cases. For instance, under Rule 63(4) corroboration is not required to prove any crime within the ICC’s jurisdiction, including crimes of sexual violence. This is significant given the challenges faced in obtaining evidence in respect of sexual and gender-based crimes, and the physical and psychological impact on the victims. In cases of sexual violence, according to Rule 70 consent cannot be inferred where the victim was under coercion, incapable of giving genuine consent, or by reason of silence or lack of resistance. Finally, under Rule 71 evidence of the prior or subsequent sexual conduct of a victim or witness is generally inadmissible in order to prevent attempts to undermine or discredit victims of sexual violence.

This law requires the courts to secure the privacy and dignity, as well as physical and psychological well-being of victims of sexual violence during proceedings. However, it does not detail any specific measures to be undertaken. The law also stops courts from inferring sexual consent from silence or lack of resistance and prevents courts from taking into consideration a victim’s sexual history in ascertaining a defendant’s guilt.

This decision promoted the systematization of complaints relating to domestic and intra-family violence. It updated the ‘Violence Registration Form’ approved by Decision nº 454 dated April 24, 2007. The form promotes a system of centralized information and, consequently, accurate statistical indicators that will help authorities to better understand and prevent violence against women. This decision also promotes a new management model for all cases and complaints relating to domestic, intra-family violence and violence against women, filed in the ‘peace courts’ (juzgados de paz) throughout the country.

Esta decisión impulsó la sistematización de las denuncias relacionadas con violencia doméstica e intrafamiliar. Actualizó el “Formulario de Registro de Violencia” aprobado en la Decisión nº 454 del 24 de abril de 2007. El formulario promueve un sistema de información centralizada y, en consecuencia, indicadores estadísticos precisos que ayudarán a las autoridades a comprender mejor y prevenir la violencia contra las mujeres. Esta decisión también promueve un nuevo modelo de gestión para todos los casos y denuncias relacionadas con la violencia doméstica, intrafamiliar y contra la mujer, que se presenten en los juzgados de paz de todo el país.

The appellant, a Somali girl, applied to the Austrian government for asylum and international protection due to her precarious situation in Yemen. The appellant’s family fled to Yemen when she was four years old because her family was discriminated against in Somalia due to their affiliation with a Madhibaan minority clan. The plaintiff’s brother and father were killed and no other family remained in Somalia. Further, female genital mutilation is a common practice in Somalia. The appellant’s application for asylum and international protection was rejected by the relevant asylum authorities and the Austrian Federal Administrative Court on the grounds that the nature of the persecution was found to be insufficiently intense or severe. It was further decided that the appellant’s genital mutilation had already happened , so the international protection against threatened genital mutilation could not apply. However, the Austrian Constitutional Court ultimately revoked this judgment, finding (among other conclusions) that the circumstances of this case were not given sufficient consideration, in particular, the disregard of the fact that women of minority clans in the relevant geographic areas were particularly vulnerable to risks of torture, rape, murder, and forced marriages. The lower court also failed to consider sufficiently the possibility of repeated genital mutilation. Finally, the Court referred to UNHCR’s finding that prior genital mutilation was an equally reasonable justification for the application for asylum and international protection because the victim suffered life-long physical and mental damages.

Die Beschwerdeführerin, ein somalisches Mädchen, beantragte bei der österreichischen Regierung Asyl und internationalen Schutz aufgrund ihrer prekären Situation im Jemen. Die Familie der Klägerin floh in den Jemen, als sie vier Jahre alt war, weil ihre Familie in Somalia aufgrund ihrer Zugehörigkeit zu einem Clan der Madhibaan-Minderheit diskriminiert wurde. Der Bruder und der Vater der Klägerin wurden getötet, und keine andere Familie blieb in Somalia. Außerdem ist die weibliche Genitalverstümmelung in Somalia eine gängige Praxis. Der Antrag der Klägerin auf Asyl und internationalen Schutz wurde von den zuständigen Asylbehörden und dem österreichischen Bundesverwaltungsgericht mit der Begründung abgelehnt, dass die Art der Verfolgung nicht ausreichend intensiv oder schwer sei. Außerdem wurde festgestellt, dass die Genitalverstümmelung der Beschwerdeführerin bereits stattgefunden hatte, so dass der internationale Schutz gegen drohende Genitalverstümmelung nicht zur Anwendung kommen konnte. Der österreichische Verfassungsgerichtshof hob dieses Urteil jedoch schließlich auf, da er (neben anderen Schlussfolgerungen) feststellte, dass die Umstände dieses Falles nicht ausreichend berücksichtigt wurden, insbesondere die Tatsache, dass Frauen von Minderheitenclans in den betreffenden geografischen Gebieten besonders gefährdet sind, gefoltert, vergewaltigt, ermordet und zwangsverheiratet werden. Die Vorinstanz hat auch die Möglichkeit wiederholter Genitalverstümmelung nicht ausreichend berücksichtigt. Schließlich verwies das Gericht auf die Feststellung des UNHCR, dass eine frühere Genitalverstümmelung eine ebenso angemessene Begründung für den Antrag auf Asyl und internationalen Schutz sei, da das Opfer lebenslange körperliche und seelische Schäden erleidet.

The 90-year-old female appellant (an Iraqi national) applied to the Austrian government for asylum and international protection, stating that due to the war in Iraq, she feared for her life and for her family. She stated that she had been threatened by various battle groups. It appeared that the appellant was confined to a wheelchair and suffered from various illnesses including labyrinthine deafness, arterial hypertonia, kidney cysts, and dementia with behavioral disorder. Her application for international protection was rejected by the relevant asylum authorities and the Austrian Federal Administrative Court on the grounds that she did not meet the criteria for asylum or international protection. Among other reasons, her medical conditions were found to be insufficiently serious and of a nature that could be treated in Iraq. In addition, the fact that she still had family in Iraq to support her was found to be sufficient proof that she could lead a life without undue hardship. However, the Constitutional Court ultimately revoked this judgment, finding (among other conclusions) that the circumstances of the case were not sufficiently considered, especially the appellant’s age, serious medical condition, unreasonable difficulty accessing medical treatment in Iraq. Therefore, the Court found (1) the appellant’s rights of Article 3 European Human Rights Convention to be violated, and (2) the lower court’s decision arbitrary.

Die 90-jährige Beschwerdeführerin (eine irakische Staatsangehörige) beantragte bei der österreichischen Regierung Asyl und internationalen Schutz mit der Begründung, dass sie aufgrund des Krieges im Irak um ihr Leben und ihre Familie fürchte. Sie gab an, dass sie von verschiedenen Kampfgruppen bedroht worden sei. Es stellte sich heraus, dass die Beschwerdeführerin an einen Rollstuhl gefesselt war und an verschiedenen Krankheiten litt, darunter labyrinthische Taubheit, arterielle Hypertonie, Nierenzysten und Demenz mit Verhaltensstörungen. Ihr Antrag auf internationalen Schutz wurde von den zuständigen Asylbehörden und dem österreichischen Bundesverwaltungsgericht mit der Begründung abgelehnt, sie erfülle nicht die Kriterien für Asyl oder internationalen Schutz. Unter anderem wurde ihr Gesundheitszustand als nicht so schwerwiegend eingestuft, sodass dieser auch im Irak behandelt werden könne. Außerdem wurde die Tatsache, dass sie noch Familie im Irak hat, die sie unterstützen könnte, als ausreichender Beweis dafür angesehen, dass sie ein Leben ohne unzumutbare Härten führen kann. Das Verfassungsgericht hob dieses Urteil jedoch schließlich auf und stellte (neben anderen Schlussfolgerungen) fest, dass die Umstände des Falles nicht ausreichend berücksichtigt wurden, insbesondere das Alter der Beschwerdeführerin, ihr schwerer Gesundheitszustand und die unzumutbaren Schwierigkeiten beim Zugang zu medizinischer Behandlung im Irak. Daher stellte das Gericht fest, dass (1) die Rechte des Beschwerdeführers aus Artikel 3 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention verletzt wurden und (2) die Entscheidung der unteren Instanz willkürlich war.

The issue on appeal in this case was whether the doctrine of common purpose can be applied to the common law crime of rape. Under the common law, rape is an instrumentality offense, which means that the perpetrator must have committed the act himself or facilitated the offense by his conduct. The doctrine of common purpose, however, is applied when a crime is committed by a group of people “with a mutual objective intended to produce a specific result against a targeted victim.” In this case, a group of young men terrorized a township, breaking into homes, attacking occupants, and several of the attackers repeatedly raped eight women. The men were charged and convicted of eight counts of rape, respectively, seven of which were imposed based on the doctrine of common purpose. The Constitutional Court reasoned that it is unsustainable to simply characterize rape as an act of a man inserting his genitalia into an unconsenting woman’s genitalia, especially in a group rape context where the mere presence of the group results in power and dominance over the victim. Thus, it held, the law must dispose of the misguided idea that rape is only a sex crime. The Court, therefore, declared that the instrumentality approach perpetuates gender inequality and promotes discrimination because it seeks to absolve those who may not have committed the crime itself but who contributed toward the commission of the crime from liability. The Court further reasoned that the doctrine of common purpose should apply to rape because the object and purpose of the doctrine is to “overcome an otherwise unjust result… by removing the element of causation from criminal liability and replacing it with the imputing deed which cased the [crime] to all the co-perpetrators.” It observed that it is “irrational and arbitrary” to not apply the doctrine to common law rape, as opposed to murder and assault, based on the distinction that a genital organ must be used to perpetrate rape. It argued that courts should be aiming to afford the constitutional principles of equality, dignity, and the protection of bodily and psychological integrity to victims of sexual assault. Therefore, in this case, the Court observed that the applicants knowingly and with the requisite intention participated in the activities of the group and fully associated themselves with its criminal designs. Thus, the Court held them guilty of rape based on the doctrine of common purpose.

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.)

The applicant, a local employee of the UN mission in Kosovo, was arrested and charged with various criminal offenses, including facilitating or compelling prostitution (Article 241 of the Criminal Code of Kosovo). The Basic Court found him guilty and sentenced him to 14 years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal affirmed the guilty verdict. The applicant filed a request for protection of legality with the Supreme Court, which rejected the request. The applicant then submitted a referral to the Constitutional Court, alleging, among other things, that he was discriminated against on the grounds of gender in violation of Article 24 of the Constitution because the trial court found credible the statement of a victim and a witness because they were women. The Constitutional Court explained that, in the applicant’s circumstance, equality before the law should be understood as a right of a party to impartial treatment and equal opportunity to exhaust legal remedies despite personal status. Under European Court of Human Rights case law interpreting Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, treatment is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification – that is, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim, or there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means and aim. The court dismissed the applicant’s allegation of gender discrimination as “manifestly ill-founded,” finding that he failed to prove how and why the trial court treated him in an unequal way in relation to the victim and witness at issue, only because they were women. The tribunal rejected the applicant’s other claims and concluded that he had not substantiated his allegations of a violation of the fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, the applicant’s referral was declared inadmissible. (Also available in Srpski and English.)

The accused was prosecuted for assaulting a trans woman and her partner for being transsexual. The accused confessed to calling the victim and her partner “dirty transsexuals” and assaulting them. Following the assault, a doctor determined that the victim was unable to work. The Court found that the facts were uncontested and therefore proven. According to the Court, the accused showed a lack of respect for social norms and the physical integrity of other human beings. Additionally, the Court found the punishment should reflect that the crime was based on the victim’s transsexual status and that the punishment should serve to have a strong deterrent effect. The court convicted the accused and imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment and a fine of EUR 100.00 (increased with the multiplication factor of 50 (i.e., in total EUR 5000))which would be suspended during three years if the accused obeyed the terms of probation.

The accused was charged with assaulting and murdering a woman. At trial, the accused filed an application for his discharge at the close of the prosecution’s case, arguing that the prosecution failed to make a case requiring the accused to answer. According to prosecution evidence, after buying alcohol and drinking it with a group of women he did not know, including the deceased, an argument began because the accused stated that he could have sex with all the women. The driver stopped the car when the accused hit the deceased with a bottle. The accused continued to beat the woman outside of the car and the others drove away in fear for their lives to report the attack the police. Upon their return to the scene, they found and picked up the deceased, who was running down the road after escaping the accused. She later passed away from her injuries. At trial, prosecutors presented several eye-witnesses to testify against the accused, as well as direct and circumstantial evidence to support their case. The accused argued that the eye-witnesses had been intoxicated at the time of the assault and therefore their testimony was unreliable. He also argued that the prosecutors failed to meet their burden to convict him. However, the court agreed with the prosecution and refused to discharge the accused, finding that the prosecution’s evidence presented a prima facie case that the accused was legally obliged to answer.

A. was a drug-addicted prostitute working in the Sihlquai area in Zurich who agreed to perform certain sexual acts with client X. for a remuneration of Fr. 50. X. took A. to a rented room outside of the city of Zurich where X. beat A. with a whip and forced her to perform violent and humiliating sexual acts. A. claimed not to have agreed to perform these acts with X., while X. countered that they were part of the agreed transaction. X. was sentenced by the Baden District Court to imprisonment for sexually abusing A. X. appealed the verdict and the Canton Aargau Supreme Federal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the preconditions of sexual assault fulfilled. The Supreme Federal Court determined that, even if A. voluntarily agreed to perform certain sexual acts with X., she did not consent to the violent acts and she could not express her refusal in any other manner than verbally and through limited physical resistance. The Supreme Federal Court also found that the client X. could not expect the victim A. to agree to such violent sexual practices, even for remuneration.

A landlady alleged that two delinquent male tenants assaulted her and threatened to kill her if she sought to evict them. The tenants were charged with “violence against a woman,” a violation of the Organic Law on the Right of Women to a Life Free of Violence (the “statute”), which created special courts with exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases under the statute. The ordinary court declined jurisdiction and referred the case to the special court. In the meantime, after completing their investigation, prosecutors downgraded the charges to “general injuries,” a violation of the general penal code. The special court also declined jurisdiction, reasoning that its jurisdiction under the statute was limited to gender-based violence and that the violence alleged in the case was rooted in a contractual dispute and not in the landlady’s gender. When the jurisdictional conflict was certified to the Supreme Court, it held that the landlady’s gender was sufficient to bring the case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the special courts, irrespective of the statutory classification of the alleged crime. Dissenting judges argued that the special court’s jurisdiction was confined to gender-based crimes and that the majority opinion would result in a separate system of justice for each gender.

The applicant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment for abduction and robbery with aggravation. In response to his first application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, the judge granted him leave to appeal to the sentence, but refused permission to appeal against conviction. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against his conviction. The issue on appeal was whether the indictment erroneously citing the wrong statute warranted overturning the conviction. The offence of forcible abduction can be found in the section 17 of the Sexual Offences Act, and it was formerly an offence addressed in section 56 of the Offences Against Person Act. The latter was repealed when the Sexual Offences Act passed. Although the sections are not identically worded, they create the same offence of taking away a woman, against her will, with the intent of having sexual intercourse with her. The indictment in this case had incorrectly stated that the offence was in violation of section 56 (which had been repealed at that point). Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals decided that the error was not fatal to the conviction, as an amendment would have been permissible. This leads to the conclusion that as long as indictment errors are related to the form, and not the substance, then there is no prejudice to the appellants.

During the course of a three month-long relationship, M.H. assaulted A.I. four times. The question in the Court of Appeal was whether M.H. and A.I. lived together under circumstances that could be considered equal to a marriage and, if so, whether the repeated assaults should be classified a violation of a woman’s integrity (Sw. kvinnofridskränkning). The Court of Appeal held that they did not. Because the couple did not share a household, the crime could not be considered as violation of a woman’s integrity. The Court of Appeal then assessed whether the couple were “closely related persons” (Sw. närstående), which would allow the assaults to be classified as aggravated violation of the integrity (Sw. grov fridskränkning). However, the Court of Appeal held that the relationship was too short for M.H and A.I. to be viewed as closely related persons and refused to convict M.H. of aggravated violation of the integrity.

The claimant accompanied one of respondents, a co-worker “J.”, on a work-related trip. Throughout the business trip, J. made sexual innuendos towards the claimant and when his advances failed, he physically beat her. He booked a single hotel room, while the claimant believed she would have her own room. As a result, the claimant was forced to sleep on the floor and returned to Kenya two days later, while J. continued to the conference. Upon the claimant’s return, she received multiple threatening emails from J. and her employment was terminated as of May 24, 2010 for alleged “misconduct” for not travelling to the conference. Her salary for May was unpaid. Although there were numerous legal issues decided in this case, including jurisdiction, the key issue was whether the claimant was subjected to gender-based discrimination and thus unlawfully terminated, and what, if any, entitlement is due to her. The Industrial Court determined that J.’s conduct toward the claimant, no matter where it had occurred, clearly amounted to gender-based violence against an employee, and that his conduct “had the effect of nullifying or impairing the equality of opportunity or treatment in employment, based on her sex.” The Industrial Court awarded P total compensation of Kshs 3,240,000, which included general damages for sexual harassment, and unfair and wrongful termination of Kshs 3,000,000. This case is important to demonstrate Kenyan courts afford protection against sexual violence in multiple ways, including equal opportunity and human rights legislation, labor legislation, civil remedies and criminal law. In addition to Kenyan employment law, the Industrial Court also relied on the 1993 UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, the International Labour Organization, as well as other forms of jurisprudence to support eradicating violence and sexual discrimination against women in the workplace. The decision noted that while the Constitution of Kenya was not yet in effect and thus not directly applicable when the case was tried, Articles 1, 3 and 5 of the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights were included in the Kenyan Constitution and thus were applicable at the time the case occurred.

The accused was charged with one count of rape contrary to Sections 132 and 133 of the Penal Code, Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia. The accused denied the charge. However, following the trial (during which the prosecution called five witnesses, and after considering the evidence of the accused which was given on oath), the trial magistrate found the accused guilty and convicted him of the subject offence. The case was then remitted to the High Court for sentencing pursuant to Section 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 88 of the Laws of Zambia. Before passing any sentence, the Court was required to satisfy itself that the relevant legal and procedural provisions had been observed by the trial court. The Court held that there was medical evidence in support of the violent nature of the act as well as other corroborative evidence, such as the distressed state of the victim when she reported the act. Furthermore, the Court concluded there was sufficient evidence in support of the identification of the accused by the victim including the trial magistrate’s finding that the victim was a truthful witness. On the totality of the evidence, the High Court held that the trial judge’s finding of guilt and the conviction was ‘anchored on firm ground’ and, therefore, concluded that it should be upheld. The High Court sentenced the accused to 25 years imprisonment with hard labor effective from the date of arrest.

The respondent, an allegedly homosexual citizen of Pakistan, arrived in Australia on a visitor visa in 2007 and applied for a protection visa. To be recognized as a refugee, the respondent had to show that he had a well-founded fear of being persecuted due to his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The respondent argued that, as a homosexual man, he belonged to a particular social group that was persecuted and subject to harm in Pakistan. The respondent’s protection visa application was initially denied, and the Refugee Review Tribunal (Tribunal) affirmed this decision. The Tribunal found that while homosexuals in Pakistan constitute a protected group, the respondent was not actually a homosexual because he safely make a three-week visit to Pakistan before traveling to Australia and failed to seek asylum on a recent visit to the UK. On appeal, the Federal Court found that the Tribunal’s decision was based on illogical reasoning. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship appealed the Federal Court’s decision to the High Court. In a majority decision, the High Court overturned the Federal Court’s decision, finding that the Tribunal’s reasons for not believing the respondent was actually a homosexual were sound.

Due to the increase of femicide crimes in the Dominican society, the Constitutional Court proclaimed the termination of violence against women in all its forms as it is a violation of the Constitution. The proclamation was made in commemoration of the murder of Mirabal, Minerva, Patria and María Teresa, political opponents of the regime of Rafael Trujillo, and in accordance with the international agreements executed in defense of women's rights, as well as the laws issued against gender violence, sexual violence and femicide.

Debido al aumento de los delitos de femicidio en la sociedad dominicana, el Tribunal Constitucional proclamó el cese de la violencia contra la mujer en todas sus formas, incluyéndolo como una forma de violación de la Constitución. Dicha proclamación se realizó en conmemoración del asesinato de Mirabal, Minerva, Patria, y María Teresa, quienes fueron opositores políticos del régimen de Rafael Trujillo. La proclamación está en conformidad con los acuerdos internacionales celebrados en defensa de los derechos de las mujeres y con las leyes emitidas contra la violencia basada en género sexual, violencia sexual en sí, y femicidio.

Emilio Garay Franco was accused of murdering his mother, María Roque Franco González, in her home on August 3, 1983 at around 11:00 pm. The weapon used to commit the crime was a knife. The accused was sentenced to 30 years in prison. The accused appealed the sentence, but the action was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Court confirmed the sentence, noting “no hay delito más horrendo” ("there is no more horrendous crime”) than patricide.

Emilio Garay Franco fue acusado de asesinar a su madre, María Roque Franco González en su case el 3 de Agosto del 1983 alrededor de las 11 de la noche. El arma usada para cometer el crimen fue un cuchillo. El acusado fue sentenciado a 30 años de cárcel. Él apeló la sentencia pero la acción fue rechazada por la Corte Suprema, la cúal afirmó la sentencia y agregó que, “no hay delito más horrendo” que el parricidio.

L.M.S.V. and W.F.C.M were accused of sexual coercion against the victim L.del R.A., an 18 year old woman, who was sexually coerced by the two accused males with a knife. The accused, who were minors, were sentenced to 3 years in prison. L.M.S.V appealed and the Court of Appeals confirmed the lower court sentence. Finally, L.M.S.V challenged the decision before the Supreme Court which partially overturned the decision. The Supreme Court found that because L.M.S.V. was a minor at the time of the crime and, in order to hold minors criminally responsible, minors must have sufficient psycho-social maturity (“madurez sico-social”) to understand the criminality of their actions, the sentence should be reduced to two years in prison. The court also ordered that during the probation period, L.M.S.V. must live no less than 10 kilometers away from the victim.

L.M.S.V. y W.F.C.M fueron acusados ​​de fuerza sexual contra la víctima L. del R.A., una mujer de 18 años, quien fue forzada sexualmente por los dos hombres acusados ​​con un cuchillo. Los acusados, que eran menores de edad, fueron condenados a 3 años de prisión. L.M.S.V apeló y el Tribunal de Apelaciones confirmó la sentencia del tribunal inferior. Finalmente, L.M.S.V atacó la decisión ante la Corte Suprema que revocó parcialmente la decisión. La Corte Suprema determinó que debido a que L.M.S.V. era menor en el momento del delito y, para responsabilizar penalmente a los menores, los menores deben tener suficiente madurez psicosocial (“madurez psico-social”) para comprender la criminalidad de sus actos, la pena debía reducirse a dos años de prisión. El tribunal también ordenó que durante el período de prueba, L.M.S.V. debía vivir a no menos de 10 kilómetros de la víctima.

In December 2003, members of the Congolese army (FARDC) under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Bokila Lolemi stationed in the village of Songo Mboyo mutinied over unpaid wages. They targeted the local population and committed mass rapes across two nights with as many as 119 victims. Lolemi was charged with crimes against humanity for rape of 32 women by forces under his command and effective control. The court of first instance was the Military Garrison Tribunal of Mbandaka, which found 7 of the 12 defendants guilty, including Lolemi. Lolemi was found to have failed to exercise appropriate control over his soldiers and prevent the mass rapes, which he knew or should have known his soldiers were committing. The decision was appealed to and confirmed by the Military Court of Equateur. Though the defendants denied the rapes, the courts disagreed, citing survivors’ testimony and medical reports. This case is significant because it is one of the first instances of a Congolese Military Court directly applying the Rome Statute (in addition to DRC law n ° 024/2002 of November 18, 2002). The decision was issued by the same court and in the same year as the Mutins de Mbandaka case. The case is also significant because it represented the first time that government soldiers were put on trial for rape as a crime against humanity or war crime, a fact which is significant because the FARDC are believed to be responsible for a large proportion of sexual attacks in the DRC in recent times. The decision therefore struck a blow against military impunity for such crimes. (Lower court decision available at: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/166854/pdf/)

The applicant, Albina Kiyamova, was arrested at Atatürk Airport in Istanbul for infringing an order that prohibited her entry into Turkey. She submitted a complaint to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office (the “CPPO”), asserting that the police subjected her to treatment incompatible with human dignity while she was in custody. Specifically, the applicant said that the police subjected her to a naked body search and other inhuman and degrading treatment charged by race and gender discrimination. The CPPO requested permission from the relevant authority to investigate the officers of the applicant’s treatment. However, the relevant authority denied the CPPO’s request. The applicant appealed the authority’s decision, but her appeal was rejected. She then appealed to the Constitutional Court, claiming that her constitutional right to protection from treatment incompatible with human dignity was infringed. The Constitutional Court partially rejected some of the applicant’s claims due to lack of evidence but accepted her claim that it was unjust for the relevant authority to reject her claims without conducting an investigation.

The trial court sentenced the 25-year-old Appellant to 17 years in prison after finding him guilty of raping a 70-year-old widow from a neighboring village. The trial court rejected the defense that he was not in her village at the time of the rape. The trial court found that in November 1998 the Appellant broke into the home of the victim, who confronted him with a panga (machete). While raping her after disarming her, the victim called out and the Appellant, worried about being caught, fled with her panga. The police found the panga in his home the next day and he was arrested. The Appellant contested his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly harsh because he has a wife, two children, and two young brothers to care for. The State contended that the sentence was appropriate because of the victim’s age and family circumstances. The standard for appellate court interference is a sentence that is “manifestly excessive or low in view of the circumstances of the case.” The Court noted that the crime of rape, particularly the rape of “grandmothers,” is prevalent in the area and very serious. The Court held “[t]he appellant raped an old lady. That was bad. However, considering all the circumstances of the case, we think that a sentence of 17 years imprisonment was manifestly so excessive as to cause a miscarriage of justice” and reduced the sentence to seven years.

The appellant appeals his conviction for trafficking in persons for the purposes of prostitution in violation of Penal Law sec. 203A(a), pimping for prostitution, and threats and false imprisonment. The appellants’ two co-conspirators reached plea agreements with prosecutors. The appellant generally admits the underlying facts of the case, but argues on appeal that these facts do not amount to trafficking in persons but rather pimping for prostitution, which has a lower sentence. The appellant “acquired” the two complainants in November of 2001 and brought them to a facility in Tel Aviv operated by the first co-conspirator for the purpose of employing them as prostitutes. Appellant “imprisoned the complainants in the facility, took their passports, and abused them physically.” The first co-conspirator supervised the complainants, forced them to work as prostitutes, and collected fees. In or around February 2002, the first co-conspirator transferred the complainants to the custody and supervision of the appellant. The appellant housed the complainants in his apartment and managed all aspects of their work as prostitutes, from arranging clients to fee collection. The appellant made each complainant pay him part of her profits for food and rent. The complainants were not allowed to leave the apartment without the appellant’s permission and supervision. The appellant argued that the lower court erred by not applying a narrow definition of “purchase” as used in property law. The Supreme Court held that section 203A(a) prohibits any deal intended to create a property relationship in which a person acquires rights in another human being. The meaning of the phrases “sale and purchase” in section 203A(a) refer to any deal, in exchange for any consideration, that grants a person any kind of property right in another human being who serves as the object of the deal. It is immaterial whether the business arrangement is under the guise of ownership, rental, borrowing, partnership, or any other means of creating a property interest in a person. The Court held that the appellant’s actions clearly constituted a business arrangement that created a property interest in a human being and that, therefore, these circumstances met the legal criteria for the crime of trafficking in persons.

In this case, the applicant brought an action against the instructor in a vocational course for making, among other things, sexually crude comments to or in the presence of the applicant and incessantly harassing her. Austria’s Equal Treatment Commission (the “Commission”) concluded that this amounted to sexual harassment in violation of Section 6 para. 1 no. 4 of the Federal Equal Treatment Act (Bundesgleichbehandlungsgesetz). This opinion is notable for the Commission’s recognition that the woman’s age is important to the determination of the extent of the harassment because harassed persons deal differently with such treatment and take different lengths of time to process sexual harassment. The Commission considered the practical links between hierarchy, power, and sexual harassment, noting that while the occurrence of sexual harassment is always an unacceptable intrusion into the human dignity of the harassed persons, young people are particularly vulnerable.

Dieser Fall wurde vor die Gleichbehandlungskommission gebracht, nachdem die Antragstellerin bei einer beruflichen Weiterbildung von einem Ausbilder unter anderem sexuell anrüchige Kommentare über sie oder in ihrem Beisein dulden musste und dieser Frau A unentwegt belästigte. Die Österreichische Gleichbehandlungskommission („die Kommission“) gelangte zu der Auffassung, dass dieses Verhalten eine sexuelle Belästigung im Sinne von § 6 Abs. 1 Ziff. 4 des Österreichischen Bundesgleichbehandlungsgesetzes darstellte. Die Feststellung der Kommission ist beachtlich, da sie betont, inwiefern das Alter der Frau bei der Entscheidung, ob eine solche Belästigung vorliegt, eine Rolle spielt. Jede Person nimmt eine solche Behandlung unterschiedlich wahr, geht mit ihr verschieden um und insbesondere dauert es unterschiedlich lang, um damit psychisch umzugehen. In der Feststellung hat die Kommission auch auf die in der Praxis bestehenden Verknüpfungen zwischen Hierarchie, Macht und sexueller Belästigung erwogen. Hierbei hat sie dargelegt, dass eine sexuelle Belästigung zwar immer ein inakzeptables Eindringen in die menschliche Würde darstellt, junge Menschen aber umso verletzlicher sind.

Plaintiff, who was a credit card company’s Branch Head, repetitively committed acts of sexual harassment over 14 times (hugging, calling at night, asking for massage, etc.) against eight female employees who were under his control and supervision. The company terminated Plaintiff from employment on the grounds that he harmed teamwork by sexually harassing the female employees. However, as to Plaintiff's application of remedy for the first disciplinary dismissal, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission acknowledged the first termination as unjust and ordered to restore him in his former position based on the excessiveness of discipline and defect in disciplinary procedure. The company revoked the first termination in accordance with the above remedy order and restored Plaintiff to employment. Thereafter, the company terminated Plaintiff from employment the second time based on additional facts that he hugged a female employee and persuaded female employees to keep his conducts secret and rationalize his conducts against the instruction of the company. The lower court ruled that the company’s termination of Plaintiff’s employment was unjust based on the reasoning that although the plaintiff's above acts could have caused the female employees to be sexually humiliated, some female employees regarded them as mere encouragement. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment below and demanded the lower court for a new trial on the following grounds: (1) A dismissal can be justified if the employee's fault is so serious that employment relationship with him cannot be continued in light of ordinary social norms. According to Article 2 (2) of the former Act on the Equal Employment for Both Sexes (amended by Act No. 7564 of May 31, 2005), the term "sexual harassment on the job" means that an employer, superior or co-worker makes another worker feel sexually humiliated or offended by sexual words or actions by utilizing his or her position within the working place or in relation with duties, or providing disadvantages in employment on account of disobedience to the sexual words or actions and any other demands. The prerequisite of "sexual words or actions" means actions such as sexual relation, or other sexual, oral and visual actions which make an ordinary and average person in the same position with the other party objectively feel sexual humiliation or offensive feelings in light of sound common sense and customs of the community. For the above sexual harassment to be established, the actors do not necessarily have to have a sexual motive or intent, but in consideration of specific relation of the parties, place of actions and circumstances, the other party's explicit or presumed response as to the action, contents and degree of the action, frequency and duration of the action, there must be actions which make an ordinary and average person in the same position with the other party objectively feel sexual humiliation or offensive feelings, and it must be acknowledged that the other party actually felt sexual humiliation or offensive feelings. (2) In a case such as this where a certain sexual harassment was so serious or repeated from the objective perspective of an ordinary and average person in the same position as to aggravate the working condition, the employer may become liable as to the victimized worker. Sexual harassers, if allowed to continue to work without a disciplinary dismissal, could aggravate a work environment to the degree where the victimized worker cannot tolerate it. Therefore if the disciplinary dismissal was imposed upon the worker who was responsible to such degree, it cannot be viewed as an abuse of a disciplinary right unless the disposition is acknowledged as patently unfair from an objective standpoint. (3) Plaintiff committed sexual harassment on the job to eight female employees who were under his control and supervision, repeatedly taking advantage of his superior position over 14 times for a certain period of time. Even if such sexual harassment happened without the female employees’ special awareness as it was triggered from an ordinary daily attitude formed by distorted social customs or culture on the job, such an excuse could not relieve the person from the seriousness of his behavior.

Plaintiff was a transgender woman from Mexico who was subjected to sexual assault and rape by Mexican police and military throughout her life. In 2006, she was arrested in America for driving under the influence. In 2007 she was deported to Mexico. After suffering more mistreatment in Mexico, Avendano-Hernandez returned to the U.S. and appealed for asylum under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. She reentered the United States in May 2008 and was arrested three years later for violating the terms of probation imposed in her 2006 felony offense for failing to report to her probation office. Plaintiff applied for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture but the immigration judge denied her request for failing to show that the Mexican government would more likely than not consent to or acquiesce in her torture, which was confirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision with respect to the Convention Against Torture application because it was enough for Avendano-Hernandez to show that she was subject to torture at the hands of local officials. Additionally, the immigration judge relied on recent anti-discrimination legislation; however, the judge did not consider the legislation’s effectiveness. Therefore, Plaintiff should be given relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Defendant was indicted for photographing a 14-year old girl’s breasts and genitals during video chats under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence Crimes (Taking Pictures by Using Camera, etc.). The court below found Defendant not guilty because the Victim took the video of herself, which the Defendant then saved to his computer against her will. Therefore, the court below ruled in favor of Defendant on the grounds that filming a video containing images of Victim's body, not her body itself, did not constitute a violation of the Act. The Court held that the judgment below was just and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff is a female former cadet at the United States Military Academy at West Point, where she claimed that she was forced to resign after her third year due to rampant sexual hostility. In May 2010, she was raped while at West Point after she took sleeping pills and she also cites several other instances of sexual assault and harassment, claiming that members the Sexual Assault Review Board at West Point failed to punish the perpetrators. The District Court found that the plaintiff had properly stated an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, affording women the same protections under the law as men. The District Court also found that hearing the claim was not precluded by Feres Doctrine, which typically bars tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act and constitutional claims against superior officers incident to military service, since the rape was not a service-related injury and hearing the claim would not compromise the legislative or executive functions of government, including the disciplinary role of the Executive Branch over the nation's military. Therefore, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

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.

Appellant was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for the murder of his elderly aunt and appealed for 10 years of his sentence to be suspended because the appellant believed the victim was a witch and could kill him with the power of witchcraft. The Supreme Court upheld the original sentence and held that a perpetrator’s belief in witchcraft is not a mitigating factor when computing an appropriate sentence for murder. While a genuine belief in witchcraft could be treated as an extenuating circumstance in certain instances, murder committed because of a belief in witchcraft would not be mitigated by the belief.

The appellant was charged and convicted of rape. He was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation to the victim of shillings 300,000 upon completion of his sentence. His first appeal was unsuccessful, so he appealed a second time, claiming that he was not properly identified, breach of criminal procedure and the fact that the court did not allow him to call a defence witness. The Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the conviction. It applied and followed the case of Selemani Makumba versus R Criminal Appeal, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Mbeya 1999 (unreported). The Appellate Court considered whether or not the complainant had been raped by the appellant and concludes that “True evidence of rape has to come from the victim, if an adult, that there was penetration and no consent, and in the case of any other woman where consent is irrelevant, that there was penetration...”

Appellant was convicted of murdering his girlfriend and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. Appellant appealed that the sentence was too harsh and severe and that it induced a sense of shock. Appellant presented mitigating factors that he was married with four minor children to support, the sole breadwinner, a first offender, and deserved to be given a second chance in life. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal after considering the interest of society, the seriousness of the offense, the fact that the crime was premeditated, and the fact that the killing was gruesome and brutal. The Supreme Court further stated that sentence was fair “particularly in the upsurge in the killing of women as well as the need to impose deterrent sentences which would provide the safeguard against this onslaught.”

The defendant pleaded not guilty to one charge of attempted rape of an 11 years and 10 months old female, under section 376(1) of the Penal Code. The court found that the complainant gave different versions as to the events that occurred. It found the complainant’s evidence unreliable. The court concluded that the complainant was the initiator of the events that led to the attempted intercourse. The court found that there was an attempt at sexual intercourse. In view of medical evidence that revealed that the hymen was intact and that ejaculation may have occurred outside the complainant, the court found doubt as to whether penetration occurred. The court highlighted that consent was not a defense to rape as the complainant was under the age of 14 at the time at issue. Nonetheless, consent becomes relevant to punishment, as a minimum sentence is prescribed for rape which occurs “without the consent of the victim”. The court found that the complainant gave her consent to the defendant’s attempt to have sexual intercourse with her and that she gave a real consent, not vitiated by immaturity or by any of the other factors specified in section 90 P.C. The court convicted the defendant of attempted rape and imposed sentences of one year imprisonment and three strokes.

Appellant convicted of murdering a woman and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. Appellant appealed the verdict and sentence, claiming that he did not possess the requisite intent to kill and mitigating circumstances that he was 35-years old, a first offender, gainfully employed and a breadwinner supporting two children should reduce his sentence. The High Court dismissed his appeal finding that the stab wounds to the victim demonstrated intent to kill and that the mitigating circumstances were properly weighed when the sentence was determined. The Court further stated, “Violence against women is a matter of great concern to the community at large and sentences imposed on perpetrators should reflect its rightful indignation at such crimes.”

This case concerns an application for review of a decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board, which had determined a family applying for protection, a mother and two minor children, did not have a “well-founded fear of persecution” and were not persons in need of protection. The family expressed fear of domestic violence upon a return to Mexico. During appeal, the Federal Court held that the Immigration and Refugee Board was in error “when it determined that state protection was available to the minor Applicants in Mexico.” The Court noted that the children’s individual circumstances and fear were not properly assessed and ought to have been taken into consideration by the Board: specifically, “[t]he evidence adduced with respect to the situation of each individual child should have triggered separate analyses of risk.” Furthermore, the Court noted that the Board should have considered “the ability of the Mexican state to protect these children” as individuals. The application for review was allowed to proceed.

Mrs. Yolanda was dismissed from her job post when she was in a situation of temporary incapacity as a consequence of an anxiety disorder due to physical abuse carried out by her husband. The company alleges that during the period of temporary incapacity due to anxiety disorder, Mrs. Yolanda carried out a normal life. This situation may be a cause of dismissal for normal workers, but not when the worker is a victim of gender abuse. Mrs. Yolanda was in a situation of temporary incapacity determined by the Spanish health services. The High Court of Catalonia decided that as Mrs. Yolanda was in a situation of temporary incapacity determined by the health services due to gender based violence she had to be readmitted in her job.

La Sra. Yolanda fue despedida de su puesto de trabajo cuando se encontraba en una situación de incapacidad temporal como consecuencia de un trastorno de ansiedad debido a los abusos físicos cometidos por su esposo. La compañía alega que durante el período de incapacidad temporal debido a un trastorno de ansiedad, la Sra. Yolanda llevó a cabo una vida normal. Esta situación puede ser causa de despido para los trabajadores normales, pero no cuando el trabajador es víctima de abuso de género. La señora Yolanda se encontraba en una situación de incapacidad temporal determinada por los servicios de salud españoles. El Tribunal Superior de Cataluña decidió que, dado que la Sra. Yolanda se encontraba en una situación de incapacidad temporal determinada por los servicios de salud debido a la violencia de género, tuvo que ser readmitida en su trabajo.

SIS Forum (Malaysia) (“SIS Forum”) sought judicial review of the Minister of Home Affairs’ (“Minister”) decision to ban a book published by it, “Muslim Women and the Challenges of Islamic Extremism”. The book was a compilation of essays submitted during an international roundtable discussing challenges faced by Muslim women, including gender discrimination. The book was in circulation for two years before it was banned by the Minister for violating the Printing Presses and Publications (Control of Undesirable Publications) (No 5) Order 2008 (the “Act”). The Act prohibits publication of materials which are “prejudicial to public order”, among other things, and affords the Minister an absolute discretion to prohibit publication of any material contravening the Act. The High Court found that the Minister was unable to provide examples of how the book implicated public order issues by affecting public safety and tranquility of the community. Moreover, the book had been in circulation for 2 years and had not adversely impacted the safety and tranquility of the public. Accordingly, the High Court granted judicial review application for substantive relief to SIS Forum.

The plaintiff was working as an employee of the defendant and had the power to evaluate whether or not probation employees will be working full-time after the probation period. The plaintiff abused that power by asking his subordinate female employees out and if they did not comply the plaintiff would evaluate such female employees in a negative way. The plaintiff also abused its power by asking out applicants who apply for positions with the defendant during the period of time the defendant has to make decisions whether or not the applicants get the positions. The defendant therefore dismissed the plaintiff, which the plaintiff claimed was an unfair dismissal. The Court held that such actions of the plaintiff constitute sexual harassment. Not only do they contradict public morals and customs which are violations of the plaintiff’s obligations regarding the defendant’s rules and regulations, they were affecting the defendant’s personnel management and growth of business by reducing the morale of female employees who refused and were harassed by the plaintiff. The violations of the plaintiff’s obligations regarding the defendant’s rules and regulations were serious. The defendant had the right to dismiss the plaintiff without having to offer the plaintiff a severance pay according to section 119(4) of the Labor Protection Act, B.E. 2541, or pay in lieu of notice, according to section 583 of the Civil and Commercial Code.

This case concerns charges of assault and rape brought against a husband, the appellant, for the rape of his wife in 1963. In an appeal to the High Court, the appellant sought immunity for the rape of his wife, arguing that marital rape was not illegal at the time the events took place. The appellant argued that his wife gave irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse upon their marriage in 1962 pursuant to the era’s common law. The Court considered existing laws and writings from the time period in question, questioning whether the aforementioned immunity ever actually existed and ultimately deciding that “if it did, it had ceased to do so sometime before 1963.” On the basis of this analysis, the Court dismissed the appeal.

A citizen of Ghana sought protection for fear that she would be subject to arranged marriage and female genital mutilation. The Refugee Review Tribunal found the applicant to be not credible, in part because she could not identify the ethnic group that the proposed husband came from. The court found these factual conclusions satisfactory and affirmed.

A citizen of Fiji sought an extension of time to appeal a decision by a Federal Court Magistrate who affirmed a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal to deny a protection visa. She alleged that she had a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Fiji as a person who had been subjected to domestic violence by her former husband and as a member of the social group of “women at risk in Fiji.” The Tribunal found that while women had historically been at risk in Fiji, recent police forms and judgments suggested that she no longer had a reasonable fear of persecution. On appeal, she alleged that the Tribunal failed to provide her with a copy of certain country information as required by Australian law. The court found that the Tribunal was prepared to accept that the applicant was a member of a protected social group but did not accept that there was a lack of state protection. The court further found that the Tribunal adequately laid out the bases for its decision and that it did not rely on the material not provided to the applicant.

The appellant was convicted on two counts of marital rape. On appeal, the appellant argued that marital rape was not the equivalent of non-marital rape. This was the first documented case on marital rape to reach the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s argument as essentially an attempt to revive old and now rejected standards that a husband could not be convicted of marital rape because of the “implied consent” of his wife. It found that under modern jurisprudence, the appellant’s argument would deny spouses equal protection under the constitution and that the elements and quantum of proof that support a moral certainty of guilt in rape cases should apply uniformly regardless of the legal relationship between the accused and his accuser.

The claimant was born in Somalia and left the country when her home was destroyed and four men attempted to rape her. The claimant sought residence in the Netherlands as a refugee under Immigration Act 2000. She argued that women in Central and Southern Somalia were systematically exposed to inhuman treatment. The claimant submitted reports that abuse and rape of women, by civilians and armed groups, was frequent, and that displaced women were particularly vulnerable during their flight. Gang rape was widespread, and victims (including young girls and boys) were selected at random. Further, rape is almost never prosecuted and the victims are discriminated against because they are seen as “unclean.” The report further stated that women in Somalia do not have access to justice and receive no protection from authorities. Human Rights Watch and UN reports also described women as suffering the brunt of abuse and repression cultivated by al-Shabaab’s decrees, including forced marriage, female genital mutilation (“FGM”) and gender-based violence. The District Court opined that women are in a vulnerable position in Central and Southern Somalia and, therefore, run the risk of suffering violence and human rights violations, and cannot obtain effective protection. They are therefore a group worthy of protection from inhuman treatment and torture.

Following a request to Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal or “STF”) by then-President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the STF reviewed and upheld the constitutionality of the Lei Maria da Penha (“LMP”). The LMP is Brazil’s first law to address the problem of domestic violence against women on a national scale. The law’s provision for the creation of special courts, as well as the law’s differentiated protection of women, had come under scrutiny in many of Brazil’s lower courts as unconstitutional. The STF, however, has previously held that those articles were constitutional. President Silva argued that the LMP was constitutional due to Article 226, § 8 of the Federal Constitution, and Brazil’s ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women. The Justices agreed that the LMP does not create a law of unequal treatment between men and women, but addresses the reality of longstanding discrimination and aggression directed at women, and offers substantive mechanisms to promote equality without infringing on the rights of males. The Court also found that the provision of specialized courts is constitutional and not in conflict with state control of the local courts. Finally, with a majority vote of 10-1, the Justices held that the office of the public prosecutor can prosecute domestic violence cases even when the victim fails to appear or file a complaint against her aggressor. The majority reasoned that state intervention is necessary to guarantee the victim’s protection from the risk of ongoing violence, which may be aggravated by the victim appearing in the action against her aggressor.

O Presidente do Brasil em 2012, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, ajuizou pedido de revisão da constitucionalidade da Lei Maria da Penha (LMP) ao Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF, sob a ótica do tratamento diferenciado conferido pela Lei aos homens e as mulheres. Em breve retrospecto, a LMP é o primeiro dispositivo legal enderençando o problema da violência doméstica sofrida pelas mulheres em nível nacional. Em razão da referida lei prever a instituição de Juizados Especiais de violência doméstica e familiar contra a mulher, bem como diferenciar a proteção conferida às mulheres vítima de violência doméstica, diversas varas de primeira instância passaram a julgar os dispositivos das leis como inconstitucionais, muito embora o STF já tivesse firmado entendimento pela constitucionalidade da LMP. No pedido encaminhado pelo então presidente Lula argumentou que o parágrafo 8º do artigo 226 da Constituição Federal (o qual prevê que o Estado assegurará a assistência à família na pessoa de cada um dos que a integram, criando mecanismos para coibir a violência no âmbito de suas relações), bem como a ratificação do Brasil a Convenção sobre a Eliminação de todas as Formas de Discriminação contra a Mulher (CEDAW) e a Convenção Interamericana para Prevenir, Punir e Erradicar a Violência contra a Mulher garantiriam a constitucionalidade da LMP. Os Ministros do STF, quando da análise do assunto, entenderam a LMP não criou tratamento desigual em relação aos homens e mulheres, tendo endereçado apenas os problemas de discriminação e agressões dirigidas às mulheres, oferecendo, portanto, mecanismos de proteção que auxiliam na promoção da igualdade, sem retirar qualquer direito dos homens. O STF entendeu ainda que as provisões relativas à criação de Juizados Especiais são constitucionais, não havendo conflitos entre o controle jurisdicional estadual e local. Finalmente, a maioria dos Ministros (10-1) entendeu que as Promotorias Públicas têm competência para denunciar casos de violência doméstica, a inda que a vítima desista de aparecer em juízo ou prosseguir com a denúncia contra o agressor. A maioria justificou que a intervenção estatal se faz necessária para a garantia de proteção à vítima em razão do risco iminente de violência, a qual poderia ser agravada caso a vítima denunciasse seu agressor.

The Constitutional Court found that the legislature could take necessary measures to reduce violence within families. Articles 1.1 of the Law on the Protection of the Family allows judges to take measures against one spouse, not both, and not against the children or members of the family, if a spouse has subjected another family member to domestic violence. The Gulyaly Peace Court found that because the Articles did not provide for an injunction or penalty if a child committed a violent act, rather than a spouse or parent, the Articles violated the principle of equality. Relying on Article 41 of the Turkish Constitution, which focuses on the family as the foundation of Turkish Society and gives the legislature the power to protect the family unit, the Constitutional Court found that Article 1.1 does not violate the Constitution because it protects the family unit and ensures peace within a family unit. The Court also found that the provision did not violate the Turkish equality principle, because the legal status of spouses differs from that of other family members and just cause exists to treat such groups differently.

Abraham Alfeus was convicted of murder with direct intent after admitting to shooting his intimate partner twice with a shotgun. The presiding judge, Naomi Shivute, read the ruling citing provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, Act 4 of 2003 and sentenced Alfeus to 30 years in prison. In the ruling Shivute stressed a need for stiffer sentences in response to extremely high levels of domestic violence against women and children in Namibia; including that it was a matter of protecting the constitutional right for human dignity, the rights of the victim, and in the interest of society generally. The judge’s ruling was meant to deter future domestic violence offenders and is an important precedent in Namibia where domestic violence runs rampant but is rarely prosecuted.

Mr. Katise was arrested when police were called to his home and found that he had attacked his wife. Charges for domestic violence under South Africa’s Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998 were eventually repealed and after suing for unlawful arrest and detention on the grounds that there was no warrant for his arrest, Mr. Katise was awarded damages. In an appeal, the judge overturned this ruling, citing s 40(1)(q) of the Criminal Procedure Act which allows peace officers to arrest anyone reasonably suspected of violating the Domestic Violence Act of 1998. The judge in this case took an important stand against leniency on domestic violence cases, giving peace officers far more latitude to protect the rights of women and furthering the protection of women’s rights in South Africa, a country marred by sexual violence.

Mnr. Katise is gearresteer toe die polisie na sy huis geroep is en gevind het dat hy sy vrou aangeval het. Klagtes vir huishoudelike geweld onder Suid-Afrika se Wet op Huishoudelike Geweld 116 van 1998 is uiteindelik herroep nadat hy gedagvaar het vir onregmatige arrestasie en aanhouding op grond daarvan dat daar geen lasbrief vir sy inhegtenisneming was nie, is Mnr. Katiseer skadevergoeding toegeken. In 'n appèl het die regter hierdie beslissing omgekeer, met verwysing na 40(1)(q) van die Strafproseswet wat toelaat dat vredebeamptes enige iemand wat redelikerwys verdink word van die oortreding van die Wet op Huishoudelike Geweld van 1998 gearresteer mag word. Die regter het in hierdie geval 'n belangrike standpunt ingeneem teen die toegeeflikheid van sake rakende gesinsgeweld, wat vredebeamptes baie meer ruimte gee om die regte van vroue te beskerm en die beskerming van vroue se regte in Suid-Afrika te bevorder, in 'n land wat deur seksuele geweld gekenmerk word.

On April 28, 1984 four or five men took Ms. Sitarani Jha from a bus stop to a house under construction and two of the men forcibly raped her. The trial court determined that the prosecution had not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The case was appealed and the high court determined that the defendants were guilty under section 376/34 of the India Penal Code. The case was brought before the Supreme Court to determine if the high court erred in finding the appellants guilty of rape, because no physical injuries were found on the private parts of the victim’s body. The Supreme Court determined that the high court did not err. Ms. Sitarani jha was able to identify her attackers, and that a lack of injuries on the private parts of a rape victim were not enough to acquit an identified rapist.

Ms. Joseph is a citizen of Grenada who fled to Canada in order to escape a violent common law relationship she had been involved in for 15 years. During Ms. Joseph’s relationship with her common law spouse, she tried to leave him several times; however, he always found her and the abuse would continue. She applied for protection in Canada pursuant to the Gender-Related Guidelines of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which aids determination of the risk facing women who are fleeing gender-specific persecution. Ms. Joseph based her claim on the ground that there is a substantial risk that she would face torture and cruel and unusual treatment at the hands of her former common law spouse, and there is more than a mere possibility that she would face gender-based persecution, if forced to return to Grenada. Despite the fact that the officer reviewing Ms. Joseph's application found her testimony and evidence to be credible, her application for protection was denied on the ground that she had failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in Grenada. When Ms. Joseph was informed that removal arrangements had been made, she brought a motion for a stay of removal, which was granted. The court ordered that Ms. Joseph’s application for judicial review be allowed, due to “discrepancies in logic” regarding the officer’s estimation of her evidence and his decision on her application, and remitted the matter to a different state officer for redetermination of her application for protection.

The complainant was raped by the accused, a distant relative, while unconscious in her home. Prior to the incident, out of kindness, the complainant had taken the accused to her home and had offered to let him stay with her. Just before the assault, the two were sitting on a bed talking, drinking, and watching television. The complainant then passed out, and she awoke to find the accused having sexual intercourse with her. She pushed him off and brought suit against him for sexual assault. The trial judge found the accused guilty of sexual assault. Although there is a three-year minimum sentence for serious sexual assault, the judge took the recommendation of defense counsel and sentenced the accused to 90 days imprisonment, to be served intermittently, plus three years probation. The State appealed the sentence, arguing that it should have been in the three- to four-year range. In evaluating the appropriate application of the proportionality principle to sentences for sexual assault, the Court of Appeal reasoned that the Supreme Court had never endorsed the concept of a harmless rape or other major sexual assault. The court held that non-consensual sexual intercourse under any circumstances constituted a profound violation of a person’s dignity, equality, security of person and sexual autonomy, and that under the circumstances of the instant case, the offense should have been sentenced as a serious sexual assault. However, the court also ruled that, having regard to all relevant considerations, a downward departure from the three-year minimum sentence is justified. Finding that the original sentence was inadequate, the court granted the appeal and concluded that a fit and proper sentence would be two years imprisonment plus two years probation.

A man convicted in part under § 306 of the Indian Penal Code appealed the charge of abetting his wife’s suicide. There was a history of dowry-related abuse, and the husband demanded another 40,000 rupees from his wife and her family before the she committed suicide by burning herself. The Court held that cruelty alone was not enough to convict the husband for abetment of suicide. Showing abetment requires proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. The man’s conviction was upheld on other grounds.

A mentally handicapped young woman was allowed to have an abortion per article 86 of the Argentinean Penal Code. The woman was impregnated through rape. Because of the woman’s mental disorders and medication issues, it was impossible to ensure a viable child and a healthy mother. This decision also declared that article 86, which allows for abortion in the case of non-viability, can be employed at a doctor’s discretion without formal court proceedings.

A una joven con discapacidad mental se le permitió abortar su embarazo, conforme con el artículo 86 del Código Penal Argentino. La mujer fue impregnada por violación. Debido a los trastornos mentales y los problemas de medicación de la mujer, era imposible garantizar un hijo viable y una madre sana. Esta decisión también declaró que el artículo 86, que permite el aborto en caso de no viabilidad, puede emplearse a discreción de un médico sin procedimientos judiciales formales.

In an application under Article 102 of the Constitution, the Bangladesh National Women's Lawyers Association (BNWLA) petitioned the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) to address the exploitation and abuse endured by child domestic laborers in Bangladesh. The BNWLA argued that child domestic workers are subjected to economic exploitation, physical and emotional abuse, and the deprival of an education in violation of their fundamental constitutional rights. In support of these arguments, it presented multiple reports of extreme abuse suffered by child domestic workers. In deciding this case, the Court reviewed the current laws in Bangladesh, including the Labour Act, 2006, which fails to extend labor protections to "domestic workers," including children, and lacks an effective implementation and enforcement system. The Court directed the government of Bangladesh to take immediate steps to increase its protection of the fundamental rights of child domestic workers including prohibiting children under the age of 12 from working in any capacity including domestic settings; supporting the education of adolescents; implementing the National Elimination of Child Labour Policy 2010 and applying the Labour Act, 2006 to domestic workers. Additionally, the Court directed the government to monitor and prosecute incidents of violence against child domestic workers, maintain a registry of domestic workers and their whereabouts to combat trafficking, promulgate mandatory health check-ups and strengthen the legal framework relating to child domestic workers.

The Court examined whether the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact portions of the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA") of 1994. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact portions of the Act that allowed victims of gender-based violence to sue their attackers in federal court rather than state court. The Court held that Congress could not draw on the Commerce Clause for authority because violence against women was not an activity that substantially affected interstate commerce. The Court also held that the Act did not redress harm caused by state action and therefore did not fall under Congress's 14th amendment power. In his dissent, Justice Souter argued there was sufficient evidence to establish the effect of violence against women on interstate commerce.

The appellant, convicted of hiring two workers to kill her abusive husband, argued for a reduced sentence. The court held that a lesser sentence is permitted only when there are "truly convincing" circumstances or where a life sentence is disproportionate or unjust. Expert testimony regarding battering and its effects showed how her behavior fit a well-known pattern for abused women. The court found this testimony convincing and held that the appellant's use of third parties to kill her husband did not invalidate her claim to be a victim of battering. Additionally, the court held that appellant's failure to testify should have no effect on her credibility. The court reduced her sentence but declined to acquit the appellant because of the premeditated nature of the act.

Die appellant, wat skuldig bevind is aan die huur van twee werkers om haar geweldadige man dood te maak, het aangevoer vir 'n verlaagde vonnis. Die hof het beslis dat 'n verlaagde vonnis slegs toegelaat word as daar 'werklik oortuigende' omstandighede is, of as 'n lewenslange vonnis buite verhouding of onregverdig is. 'n Getuienis van kundiges rakende die geweld en die gevolge daarvan het getoon hoe haar gedrag pas by 'n bekende patroon vir mishandelde vroue. Die hof het bevind dat hierdie getuienis oortuigend was en het bevind dat die applikant se gebruik van derde partye om haar man te vermoor nie die feit ongeldig gemaak dat sy ‘n slagoffer van geweld is nie. Verder het die hof beslis dat haar versuim om te getuig geen effek op haar geloofwaardigheid moes hê nie. Die hof het haar vonnis verminder, maar het geweier om die applikant vry te laat weens die voorbedagte aard van die handeling.

The accused was convicted of raping an 11 year-old girl. In considering sentencing, the High Court upheld the conviction and, citing South African and English law, noted the presumption that girls under the age of 12 are considered too young to give their consent to intercourse, but in cases involving girls between the ages of 12 and 16 the prosecution must demonstrate that there was non-consent for the accused to be convicted of rape. If a girl of 12 to 16 years old does consent to sexual intercourse with a man, then the man should be found guilty of defilement or statutory rape under the Women and Girls Protection Proclamation No. 14 of 1949. [Note: The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child/minor as any person under 18 years of age in the absence of domestic laws. Generally, minors do not have the capacity to give consent.]

A case of sexual assault where the accused was acquitted. The State appealed and the court determined that lack of physical evidence of rape and previous sexual activity on the part of the victim cannot be grounds for acquittal and the court restored the conviction. Also, the testimony need not be corroborated with additional evidence as long as there is an assurance of veracity.

A case of gang-rape under public law because the accused were employees of the national railway. The case includes a discussion of the application of UN resolutions domestically, including the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Court concludes that the victim can recover under public law due to the violation of her fundamental rights, enshrined in the declarations and the Indian Constitution.

C. was a 13 year-old girl who became pregnant as a result of rape allegedly by a family friend and was now in State care. The health board sought a court order to allow her to travel outside the State to obtain an abortion because abortion was illegal in Ireland except where the pregnancy formed a real and substantial risk to the woman's life. The Court granted the health board's order permitting C. to travel outside the State to obtain an abortion. The Court based its decision on the fact that the girl's risk of suicide presented a real and substantial risk to her life, entitling her to an abortion within Ireland as well.

In this public interest litigation, the case at issue concerned six women who were sexually assaulted and raped on a commuter train. The Court set out new requirements for police dealing with rape victims, including that victims be provided with legal representation, informing the victim of all her rights before questioning her, and protecting her anonymity during trial. The court also ordered that the criminal compensation board consider the totality of the circumstances, ranging from the emotional pain of the act itself to medical costs and emotional pain associated with any child that might result from the rape when setting out compensation to be paid.

The Court ordered the Secretary General of the Court to hold a planning session along with several other governmental and non-governmental entities to address issues of forced displacement of women.

La Corte ordenó al Secretario General de la Corte que realizara una sesión de planificación junto con varias otras entidades gubernamentales y no gubernamentales para abordar los problemas del desplazamiento forzado de mujeres.

The Court was asked to reexamine the domestic implications of Colombia's adoption of the CEDAW. Those opposing the CEDAW argued that its adoption would have grave consequences and be inconsistent with the Colombian Constitution. The Court affirmed the constitutionality of Colombia's participation in the CEDAW.

Se solicitó a la Corte que reexaminara las implicaciones internas de la adopción de la CEDAW por parte de Colombia. Quienes se oponen a la CEDAW argumentaron que su adopción tendría graves consecuencias y sería incompatible con la Constitución colombiana. La Corte afirmó la constitucionalidad de la participación de Colombia en la CEDAW.

The Court ruled that a complete ban on abortion was unconstitutional and legalized abortion in cases of incest, danger to the health of the mother, and rape, involuntary insemination, serious deformity to the fetus, or when the mother is under the age of 14. In instances of deformity to the fetus or danger to the mother, the Court required that medical evidence be provided. The Court relies on its obligations in international law to protect women's rights to health and life, among others.

La Corte dictaminó que la prohibición total del aborto era inconstitucional y legalizó el aborto en casos de incesto, peligro para la salud de la madre, casos de violación, inseminación involuntaria, deformidad grave del feto, y cuando la madre es menor de 14 años. En casos de deformidad para el feto o peligro para la madre, el Tribunal requirió que se proporcionaran pruebas médicas. La Corte se basa en sus obligaciones en derecho internacional para proteger los derechos de las mujeres a la salud y la vida, entre otros.

Therapeutic abortion in cases of rape, incest, and to save the health and life of the woman. The Court reaffirmed that a ban on abortion in all instances would an unconstitutional violation of women's fundamental rights.

Este caso analizó los abortos terapéuticos en casos de violación, incesto y para salvar la salud y la vida de la mujer. La Corte reafirmó que la prohibición del aborto completamente en todos los casos absolutos, sin mirar las circunstancias particulares constituiría una violación inconstitucional de los derechos fundamentales de la mujer.

The Court ordered defendant, a health-care provider, to provide a mentally and physically-disabled woman with an abortion after she became pregnant from nonconsensual sexual intercourse. The Court held that because of her mental disability, the woman's parents could request the abortion, despite the fact that the woman was 24-years old. The Court also held that the rape need not have been reported to the authorities, as was argued by the defendant.

El tribunal ordenó al acusado, un proveedor de atención médica, que le hiciera un aborto a una mujer con discapacidad mental y física después de que ella quedara embarazada en una violación. La Corte sostuvo que dada su discapacidad mental, los padres de la mujer podían solicitar el aborto por ella, a pesar de que la mujer tenía 24 años. El Tribunal también sostuvo que la violación no tenía por qué haber sido denunciada a las autoridades para que se concediera el aborto, como había argumentado el acusado.

Defendant in a criminal prosecution challenged the constitutionality of Articles 22, 25 and 27 of the Criminal Law Against Violence Toward Women, arguing that the law's vague language allowed for arrests and convictions to be made based on vague, non-specific allegations and was thereby inconsistent with the Costa Rican Political Constitution, the American Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Court held Article 22 and 25 to be unconstitutional, but upheld Article 27. The ruling had retroactive power.

El acusado en un proceso penal desafió la constitucionalidad de los artículos 22, 25 y 27 de la Ley Penal contra la Violencia contra las Mujeres, argumentando que el vago lenguaje de la ley permitía que se realizaran arrestos y condenas sobre la base de acusaciones vagas e inespecíficas, lo cual es inconsistente con la Constitución Política de Costa Rica, la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos. La Corte determino que los artículos 22 y 25 eran inconstitucionales, pero mantuvo el artículo 27. Fue decidiso que la determinacion tendría poder retroactivo.

Although the Court found that intercourse was consensual and lacked the requisite forcible element, it stated that evidence from the alleged victim is enough to corroborate a rape allegation.

Plaintiff sought an order requiring a hospital to perform a tubal litigation on her after she delivered her fourth child. Plaintiff lived in poverty and neither she nor her husband was employed. The trial and appellate courts refused to grant the order, but the Supreme Court remanded the case for the lower court, citing the lower court's failure to examine the facts of the case.

La demandante solicitó una orden que requería que un hospital le realizara un litigio tubárico después de que ella dio a luz a su cuarto hijo. La demandante vivía en la pobreza y ni ella ni su esposo estaban empleados. Los tribunales de primera instancia y de apelación se negaron a otorgar la orden, pero el Tribunal Supremo devolvió el caso al tribunal inferior, citando el fallo del tribunal inferior de examinar los hechos del caso.

The South African government released a National Strategic Plan (“NSP”) in response to the 2018 Summit on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide. The Summit identified key interventions and developed strategies regarding gender-based violence and other challenges women and children face in South Africa. The NSP was published as a framework to recognize and affirm the challenges and rights identified at the Summit. The vision of the NSP is “A South Africa free from gender-based violence directed at women, children and LGBTQIA+ persons” and is enacted through six key pillars: 1. accountability, coordination and leadership; 2. prevention and rebuilding social cohesion; 3. justice, safety, and protection; 4. response, care, support, and healing; 5. economic power; and 6. research and information management. The NSP lists specific general strategies and defines the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders to accelerate, advance, and realize the vision and outcomes of the NSP. The NSP outlines the specific short-and long-term goals and which stakeholder is responsible for specific targets under each pillar. It also provides a brief history of gender-based violence and femicide in South Africa, as well as a summary of relevant legislation in South Africa.

The Handbook aims to function as a practice guide for judicial officials and legal practitioners who work in the area of juvenile law. It addresses a range of issues from the constitutional, statutory, and human rights framework of juvenile law, special issues that arise in cases of child sexual abuse, and procedural protections for juvenile witnesses.

The Centre for Applied Legal Studies at the University of Witwatersrand and Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell Law School released a joint report on sexual violence committed by educators against students in South African schools.

Die Sentrum vir Toegepaste Regstudies by die Universiteit van Witwatersrand en Avon Global Centre for Women and Justice by Cornell Law School het 'n gesamentlike verslag vrygestel oor seksuele geweld wat opvoeders teen studente in Suid-Afrikaanse skole gepleeg het.

In 2011, the Avon Global Center for Women and Justice hosted a conference in New Delhi, India on the theme “Gender-Based Violence and Justice in South Asia.”

A report by the Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell Law School, Women and Law in Southern Africa-Zambia, and the Cornell Law School International Human Rights Clinic examining the problem of sexual violence against girls in school in Zambia.

Report by Lawyers Collective Women’s Rights Initiative (LCWRI), International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) and UN Trust Fund to End Violence Against Women on the implementation of India’s domestic violence law since its establishment in 2005 (2010).

Human Rights Watch report describing the situation of women with fistula in Kenya, including the increased risk of stigma and violence and the impact of a health system that fails to properly address the problem of fistula. July 15, 2010. Copyright 2010 Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch Report on the Zambian government's failure to meet its international obligations to combat violence and discrimination against women. The report documents abuses that obstruct women's ability to start and adhere to HIV treatment regimens, including violence against women and insecure property rights (2007).

Human Rights Watch Report documenting how girls as young as 8 years old work up to 18 hours a day as domestic workers in Guinea, frequently without pay, and are often insulted, beaten and raped by their employers (2007).

The Government of Nepal declared a state of emergency in response to a rebellion by the Maoist party and granted powers to the Royal Nepal Army to arrest individuals on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities through and to keep them in detention for up to 90 days without charge. The first author, Sarita Devi Sharma, is the sister of Himal Sharma, Secretary-General of a Maoist-affiliated political party in Nepal. Ms. Sharma and her friend B.M. were followed and asked about Ms. Sharma’s brother, then they were handcuffed, placed in a van and taken to Army barracks. She was detained and held from October 2003 through 30 June 2005. Once her husband, the second author, became aware of her disappearance, he submitted an application to the National Human Rights Commission denouncing her disappearance and submitted a writ petition to the Supreme Court of Nepal demanding an order of habeas corpus, which the court rejected, claiming lack of evidence proving her illegal detention. He also informed Amnesty International about her disappearance, but they never received a reply from the Government when they inquired about her. During the first four-five months, she was routinely interrogated, beaten, held underwater for long periods of time and threatened with rape. After that, she suffered ill health and was taken to a hospital. In the hospital, she sent a letter secretly to her husband who, after several months of not hearing any further information, shared it with members of All Nepal National Independent Student Union Revolutionary who included information about her condition in a press release. As a result, Ms. Sharma was interrogated harshly and beaten. Ms. Sharma was then moved to a small, dark room and kept in isolation. Her husband filed a new petition for habeas corpus with the Supreme Court, which ordered her release. The Committee determined that Nepal produced no evidence to show that, while Ms. Sharma was held in incommunicado detention, it met its obligations to protect her life, and that this failure resulted in a violation of article 6(1) of the Covenant. In addition, the Committee found that the enforced disappearance and incommunicado detention of Ms. Sharma, and the acts of torture and conditions to which she was exposed constituted violations of article 7 of the Covenant. Further, the Committee concluded that the enforced disappearance and arbitrary detention of Ms. Sharma amounted to a violation of article 9 (1-4) of the Covenant. The enforced disappearance deprived her of the protection of the law and her right to recognition as a person before the law in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. The anguish and distress suffered by Ms. Sharma’s husband and son, the third author, due to her enforced disappearance also were found to constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee determined that neither Ms. Sharma did not receive an adequate remedy (246,000 Nepalese rupees), in violation of article 2 (3), in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9 (1-4) and 16, and her husband and son received no interim relief, which constituted a violation of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant. Moreover, the Committee stated that Nepal was obligated to provide an effective remedy. This remedy should include: (1) conducting a thorough and effective investigation into the facts surrounding the detention and the treatment suffered in detention; (2) prosecuting those responsible for the violations committed and making the results public; (3) providing detailed information about the results of the investigation to Ms. Sharma and her family; (4) ensuring that any necessary and adequate psychological rehabilitation and medical treatment is provided; and (5) providing adequate compensation and appropriate measures of satisfaction for the violations suffered. Further, in order to prevent the occurrence of similar violations in the future, the Committee stated that Nepal should ensure that its legislation: (1) criminalizes torture and enforced disappearance and provides for appropriate sanctions and remedies; (2) guarantees that such cases give rise to a prompt, impartial and effective investigation; (3) allows for the criminal prosecution of those found responsible for such crimes; and (4) amends the 35-day statutory limit for claiming compensation for torture, in accordance with international standards.

The complainants filed suit on behalf of a 17-year-old girl who was violently attacked and raped by two men. Local police, who allegedly knew the attackers, witnessed the beginning of the attack but did not aid the victim. The complainants further alleged that the Kinshasa police knew that an organized gang had attacked the victim and other girls and the identities of the attackers, but refused to take action to dismantle the gang due to their limited financial resources. The Commission held that the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“DRC”) had violated several articles of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the “Charter”) due to the failure of (i) police to take action to prevent the rape and (ii) competent authorities to provide justice to the victim. The Commission requested the DRC (1) take measures to find and punish the attackers; (2) accord the victim adequate reparation as well as medical and psychological assistance; (3) take measures to prevent sexual violence and rape in the parts of its territory where these offenses are common; (4) take measures to change patterns of behavior linked to violence against women and girls, including sexual violence and rape; (5) establish rehabilitation programs for girls who are victims of sexual violence and rape; and (6) organize training sessions for law enforcement and judges on the treatment of sexual violence and rape, under conditions conforming to the pertinent dispositions of the Charter.

Mr. Jean Paul Akayesu served as the mayor of the Taba commune and was responsible for maintaining law and public order in Taba during the tragic events which took place in Rwanda in 1994. The court held that Mr. Akayesu had knowledge of the killing of thousands of Tutsis in Taba, but did not attempt to prevent such acts even though he had the duty to do so. Moreover, Mr. Akayesu was involved and even took an active role in some instances. In addition, the court held that Mr. Akayesu had knowledge of sexual assaults of civilians who sought refuge at the bureau communal by armed local militia but did not attempt to prevent such acts even though he had the duty to do so. The court found that Mr. Akayesu was guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity. On appeal, the Appeal Chambers dismissed Mr. Akayesu claims and upheld the judgment of the court a quo. This case is important because it established for the first time that sexual violence constitutes a crime against humanity and a tool of genocide by a government official. It is also worth noting that the court’s broad definitions of rape and sexual violence were the first of their kind in international law.

A 20-year-old Y killed himself while performing his compulsory military service after being provoked by Sergeant A’s physical and verbal violence who had been informed of Y’s problems linking to his sister’s marital difficulties. The ECtHR concluded a violation of Article 2 as the authorities failed to effectively protect the victim from the improper conduct of his superiors.

The applicant fled to Turkey from Iran fearing that she would be convicted of having committed adultery, an offence under Islamic law, and sentenced to be stoned to death or flogged. She was arrested at Istanbul airport on the ground that she had entered Turkey using a forged passport. No charges were brought against her on account of the forged passport but she was ordered to be deported. The applicant subsequently lodged an asylum request, which was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the request had not been submitted within five days of her arrival in her Turkey. Later the applicant was granted refugee status by the UNHCR. The Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's petition against the implementation of her deportation on the grounds that there was no need to suspend it since it was not tainted with any obvious illegality and its implementation would not cause irreparable harm to the applicant. The applicant complained that her right not to be subjected to ill-treatment guaranteed under Article 3 ECHR would be breached if she were to be deported to Iran. She further complained that she had no effective remedy in the domestic law of the respondent state to challenge her deportation, in breach of Article 13. The ECtHR was not persuaded that the authorities of the respondent state conducted any meaningful assessment of the applicant's claim, including its arguability. It would appear that her failure to comply with the five-day registration requirement under the Asylum Regulation 1994 denied her any scrutiny of the factual basis of her fears about being removed to Iran. The automatic and mechanical application of such a short time-limit for submitting an asylum application must be considered at variance with the protection of the fundamental value embodied in Article 3 of the Convention. It fell to the branch office of the UNHCR to interview the applicant about the background to her asylum request and to evaluate the risk to which she would be exposed in the light of the nature of the offence with which she was charged. The Administrative Court on her application for judicial review limited itself to the issue of the formal legality of the applicant's deportation rather than the more compelling question of the substance of her fears, even though by that stage the applicant must be considered to have had more than an arguable claim that she would be at risk if removed to her country of origin. It further observed that the government have not sought to dispute the applicant's reliance on the findings of Amnesty International concerning the punishment meted out to women who are found guilty of adultery. Having regard to the fact that the material point in time for the assessment of the risk faced by the applicant was the time of its own consideration of the case, the Court was not persuaded that the situation in the applicant's country of origin has evolved to the extent that adulterous behavior was no longer considered a reprehensible affront to Islamic law. It had taken judicial notice of recent surveys of the current situation in Iran and noted that punishment of adultery by stoning still remained on the statute book and may be resorted to by the authorities. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court found it substantiated that there was a real risk of the applicant being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if she was returned to Iran. Accordingly, the order for her deportation to Iran would, if executed, give rise to a violation of Article 3. The Court held that there had been a breach of Article 13. The notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there exist substantial grounds for fearing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 and the possibility of suspending the implementation of the measure impugned. Since the Administrative Court failed in the circumstances to provide any of these safeguards, the Court was led to conclude that the judicial review proceedings did not satisfy the requirements of Article 13.

The applicant, who was born to a mother in slavery, was sold to a local chief at age 12. For the next nine years she was subjected to rape, violence, and forced labor without remuneration. When Niger’s Supreme Court failed to convict her "owner" under Article 270.1-5 of the Nigerien Criminal Code, which made slavery illegal in 2003, the applicant brought her case before the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice under Article 9(4) of the Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05. The court ruled that the applicant had been a slave under the definition in Article 1 (I) of the Slavery Convention of 1926 and that in failing to convict her former "owner," Niger had not upheld its legal responsibility to protect her from slavery under international law. This case was the first ECOWAS ruling on slavery and only the second conviction made under Niger’s 2003 anti-slavery law. The case gained a high level of publicity, setting the precedent for women to fight back against the traditional slavery practices common to Niger and other ECOWAS nations. As of 2009, there had been approximately 30 more cases upholding the prohibition of slavery in Niger.

Ms M.V. (the claimant) was sterilized while giving birth to her second child. She was informed that sterilization would be performed on her shortly before delivery by C-section, to which she did not give her written consent. The day after giving birth, while inquiring about her own health and that of her child, she was informed that sterilization was performed due to health reasons, as another pregnancy could be dangerous. She was given a form to sign for the “sake of her health,” which she did without reading or inquiring due to her concerns about the well-being of her newborn child. The claimant only later found out that sterilization was not a “life-saving” procedure after speaking with a representative from a non-governmental organization. Her claim was dismissed by the district and regional courts based on hospital records which contained her written consent and the testimonies of the doctors and other staff members. She filed a claim with the Constitutional Court which held that the decisions of the district and regional courts did not sufficiently address the claimants claims, in breach of the claimants' right to a fair trial. The Constitutional Court awarded the claimant EUR 1,500 damages and ordered the re-examination of the matter by the district court.

The IACHR submitted an application to the Court to determine whether Peru violated Articles 1(1), 5, 8 and 9 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Berenson-Mejia in relation to proceedings that took place against her before both military and civil courts, as well as to the inhumane conditions of detention to which she was subjected. The Court held that Peru violated Berenson-Mejia's right to humane treatment (Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 5(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights) due to the conditions she faced while incarcerated, violated Articles 1(1), 2, 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b)-(d), (f), and (h), 8(5) in relation to her military trial, but not to her civil trial. The Court ordered Peru to provide Berenson-Mejia with adequate medical care, to discharge the reparation established against her in favor of the State in her civil trial, to improve the conditions at the prison in which she was detained to meet international standards, and to pay costs and expenses.

T.A. and her husband are Bangladeshi citizens and members of the Jatiya party. After T.A. was arrested for participating in a political demonstration and released, the police, accompanied by members of an opposing political party, arrested T.A. and her four-year-old daughter. At the police station, T.A. endured torture including repeated rape until she confessed to the crime of illegal arm trading. She was released after she signed a document stating that she would not take part in any further political activity. T.A. fled to Sweden with her daughter where she applied for refugee status. The Migration Board that received her application did not contest her allegations of rape and torture, but concluded that these acts could not be attributed to the State; rather, they were to be regarded as acts of individual policemen. T.A. appealed to the Alien Appeals Board, submitting medical certificates that supported her account of torture and the traumatic experience it had on her daughter. The Alien Appeals Board upheld the Migration Board’s decision and stated that because of a political change in Bangladesh since the incident, T.A. would not be subjected to further torture if she returned. In her complaint to the Committee, T.A. argued that given the medical evidence of the case, a deportation order would in itself constitute a violation of article 16 of the Convention under which State parties are obliged to prevent cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment conducted by the State or its public officials. The Committee considered T.A.’s complaint in regards to a State’s obligation under article 3 not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of torture. The Committee noted that T.A. belonged to a political party in opposition to the current ruling party in Bangladesh, and that torture of political opponents was frequently practiced by state agents. Taking into account the Bangladeshi police’s ongoing search for T.A. because of her political affiliations, the Committee concluded that T.A. would be exposed to a serious risk of torture if she returned to Bangladesh, and therefore her forced deportation would violate article 3 of the Convention.

States are responsible for private acts of violence (duty to investigate, prosecute and punish).

HRC held that Peruvian government violated Article 7 (the right to be free from cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment), Article 17 (the right to privacy) and Article 24 (special protection of the rights of a minor) when it denied 17 year-old the right to a legal therapeutic abortion.

Vaginal inspections for visits to family inmates. A complaint was brought against Argentina by a woman and her 13-year old daughter who were routinely subjected to vaginal inspections when they would visit the woman's husband (and girl's father) at a prison. The complaint alleged that such inspections violated the "American Convention as it offends the dignity of the persons subjected to such a procedure (Article 11), and is a degrading penal measure which extends beyond the person condemned or on trial (Article 5.3) and, furthermore, discriminates against women (Article 24), in relation to Article 1.1." Argentina argued that such inspections were reasonably necessary and conducted with as little intrusion as possible by female guards. The Commission opined that such an inspection should not occur unless absolutely necessary. In this case, the Court found that the procedure was not absolutely necessary as there were alternatives that could achieve the same objective. The Commission also held that in cases where such an inspection was absolutely necessary, they should only be carried out by pursuant to a judicial order, and by qualified medical personnel. The Commission found the inspections in this case to violate Articles 5, 11, 17, 19 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

Inspecciones vaginales para visitas a familiares de internos. Una mujer y su hija de 13 años de edad fueron sometidas de forma rutinaria a una inspección vaginal cuando visitaban al marido de la mujer (y al padre de la niña) en una prisión, por lo cual demandan a Argentina. La queja alegó que tales inspecciones violaron la "Convención Americana, ya que ofende la dignidad de las personas sometidas a tal procedimiento (Artículo 11), y es una medida penal degradante que se extiende más allá de la persona condenada o enjuiciada (Artículo 5.3) y además, discrimina a las mujeres (artículo 24), en relación con el artículo 1.1 ". Argentina argumentó que tales inspecciones eran necesarias y que se llevaron a cabo con la menor intrusión posible de las guardias. La Comisión opinó que tal inspección no debería ocurrir a menos que sea absolutamente necesario. En este caso, el Tribunal consideró que el procedimiento no era absolutamente necesario ya que había alternativas que podrían lograr el mismo objetivo. La Comisión también sostuvo que en los casos en que dicha inspección fuera absolutamente necesaria, solo deberían llevarse a cabo de conformidad con una orden judicial y por personal médico calificado. La Comisión consideró que las inspecciones en este caso violan los artículos 5, 11, 17 y 19 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos.

This memorandum discusses the strategies courts employ around the world to treat child victims and witnesses and their evidence when giving testimony. International and regional human rights standards have highlighted good practices in the treatment of vulnerable young child witnesses, centering on the foundational principle of the best interests of the child. In turn, domestic courts and legislatures worldwide have created and employed a broad range of judicial approaches to the admissibility of child witness testimony; the reliability of child witness evidence, and the procedures that should be employed to facilitate child witness testimony.

With the goal of assessing the impact of mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offences in Tanzania, this memorandum provides a comparative study with a small sample of jurisdictions – including Canada, Kenya, Lesotho, Zambia, South Africa and Tanzania - to showcase how different countries have utilized mandatory minimum sentences to address sexual offences. It also explores whether imposing mandatory minimums has resulted in a reduction of the commission of the sexual offences they target.

This memorandum provides a brief overview of the issue of gender based violence in Sub-Saharan Africa with relevant statistics.

This memorandum examines the particular problems that women and children confront as vulnerable victims and witnesses in sexual offenses cases in Tanzania.

This memorandum presents information about the caseload of courts in the United States. The memorandum discusses the structure under which the judicial caseload is broken down and provides the most currently available case statistics for both federal and state court systems. Appendices and references to supplemental resources are included and provide more extensive caseload information and statistics.

This memorandum examines the rules governing forfeiture of proceeds of crime in Tanzania.

This memorandum briefly outlines the history and structure of problem-solving courts in New York state, with a special focus on New York's Integrated Domestic Violence Court System.