Uruguay

The Trial Court sentenced the accused (AA) to two years in prison for aggravated domestic violence.  The court considered the aggravating circumstances to be the accused’s recidivism and the use of his strength to overpower his female victim.  AA had a history of domestic violence against his wife (BB).  Even though he had repeatedly assaulted BB and stabbed her once, BB refused to file a complaint against him.  A family court judge imposed a restraining order against AA pursuant to which he could not get closer than 300 meters to BB and her children.

The Trial Court of Tacuarembó sentenced AA to 12 months in prison for domestic violence, deemed as aggravated because the victim was a woman. AA and the victim had been living together in a common law marriage since 2000. In 2002 the victim reported on several occasions multiple instances of physical abuse and of psychological violence. In September 2003, the victim filed a complaint against AA for injuries inflicted to her neck and arm, which were verified by a public health doctor. The couple reconciled, but thereafter got separated again.

The Trial Court sentenced the 28-year-old accused (AA) to seven years and six months in prison for the crimes of rape, kidnapping and robbery. On March 27, 2011, AA approached the 18-year-old victim (BB) at a bus station and threatened her with a knife. BB offered him money, but AA put a knife to her throat and took her to a nearby field where he sexually assaulted her several times during the night, hit her repeatedly, and videotaped the sexual assault with his cellphone.

The Trial Court sentenced the accused (AA) to four years in prison for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor (BB). AA and the mother of BB had a common law marriage. AA had been sexually abusing BB since she was eight years old and started raping her when she turned 11.  At age 14, BB became pregnant as a result of rape committed by AA.  BB’s mother discovered AA’s abuse and filed the criminal complaint.

The Trial Court sentenced the accused (AA) to 20 months in prison for crimes of domestic violence against his wife (BB). AA filed an appeal to the Appeals Court arguing that the scope of the law against domestic violence applied only to victims that were deemed to be defenseless. AA argued that the victim, BB was a member of the military and as such could not be deemed a defenseless person. The Appeals Court dismissed the appeal affirming the decision of the Trial Court.

The Trial Court sentenced the accused (AA) to 10 months with a suspended sentence for the crime of domestic violence against his wife (BB). AA intimidated and committed continuous acts of violence against BB. The Trial Court deemed the continuous and manipulative nature of this violence to be an aggravating circumstance. AA appealed, arguing that the Trial Court had improperly analyzed the evidence and that there was not enough evidence to convict him. The Appeals Court determined that the evidence on file should be analyzed in the context of the contentious relationship between AA and BB.

The Trial Court sentenced the accused (AA) to three years and six months in prison for the kidnapping and continuous sexual abuse of a 15-year-old girl (BB). AA had been sexually abusing BB once a week since she was 11 years old.

The plaintiff sued the defendant in Civil Labor Court for damages suffered because of sexual harassment in the workplace. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant for 13 years, always received good performance reviews, and was promoted. One of the company’s directors continuously harassed her in the workplace for over two years even though the plaintiff rejected his propositions. Over the course of those two years, the director sent several inappropriate text messages and emails to the plaintiff, to which she never responded.

A company fired an employee on the basis of notorious misconduct. The employee had been accused of having committed acts of workplace violence against a female coworker. The court highlighted the need to strike a balance between protecting victims of violence and protecting employees. In reconciling this tension, the court noted that the rules of evidence established in article 46 of law 19,580 and law 18,561 on sexual harassment call for the employer to have the burden of proving that there was notorious misconduct.

Law No. 10783 of September 18, 1946 enshrines certain civil rights to women in Uruguay. The law provides that men and women have equal civil capacity (Article 1), and a married woman may freely administer and dispose of her own property (Article 2). In the event of a dissolution of marriage, marital property shall be divided equally between spouses or their respective heirs (Article 2). Real estate that constitutes marital property acquired in the name of one spouse may not be alienated without the express consent of both spouses (Article 5).