Honor crimes (or honour crimes)

The claimants, on behalf of themselves and their two minor daughters, sought residence permits under the Aliens Act 2000. The claimants stated that if they returned to Afghanistan, the mother and daughters would be subjected to inhuman treatment under Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights. The claimants noted that women were systematically disadvantaged and discriminated against in Afghanistan.

D.T., a Christian born in Nigeria, married a Muslim.  Her parents were against the marriage, and when she was pregnant, they threatened to kill the baby.  After her husband died, she was forced to drink the water used to bathe his corpse and to sleep in the room with the corpse for three days.  With help, she escaped and traveled to Canada where she gave birth to her son.  Her son suffers from conditions, including a heart murmur, malformation of his meniscus and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).  D.T.

Ms. Erdogu, a Turkish national, fled to Canada and filed a claim for refugee protection to escape persecution for her political and religious activity in Turkey. Because she was both an ethnic and religious minority (Kurdish/Alevi), she was arrested in Turkey on a number of occasions, during which she was detained, interrogated, beaten, and sexually molested. Further, she claimed to be at risk because a violent ex-boyfriend had informed her father of the former couple’s sexual relationship, leading her father to declare his intent to kill her in order to preserve the family’s honor. Ms.

Mohammad Shafia, his second wife, and his son were convicted of the June 2009 murders of his three teenaged daughters and his first wife. Their bodies were found submerged inside a car in a canal near Kingston, Ontario. The Shafia family was originally from Kabul, Afghanistan, fled to Dubai before moving to Australia, and then finally moving to Montreal, Canada in 2007. The three defendants were found guilty of four counts of first degree murder and each sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility in 25 years.

The Supreme Court for the first time ever approached the issue of honor killings from a victim's rights perspective. The Court found that no one had the right to take law into their own hands to take a life in the name of ghairat.

Murder conviction for father's honor killing of daughter, son-in-law and grandchild upheld on the grounds that an honor killing is murder. The Court found that "[n]o tradition is sacred, no convention is indispensable and no precedent worth emulation if it does not stand the test of civil society's fundamental principles. In particular, the law must reflect changing needs and promote social progress.

The appellant, a Bedouin man, was convicted for murder with malice aforethought for killing his sister after she insisted that she would travel to Egypt alone. The appellant claimed that his charge should be reduced as the killing was the result of provocation. He further argued that the court should take into account that he was defending his family honor, as it was unacceptable in Bedouin culture for unmarried women to travel alone. The court ruled that no argument of “family honor” as a motive for killing someone will be allowed by a court in Israel.

A person who commits murder but does the act in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation is guilty of manslaughter only (Section 213). Provocation is defined to include any wrongful act or insult of such a nature as to be likely to deprive an ordinary person of self-control and to induce such a person to assault the person who committed the act or insult (Section 214). Section 230 addresses women who causes the death of their child under the age of 12 months.

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 establishes the legal framework for the UK’s policy of relocating certain migrants to Rwanda, affirming Rwanda as a "safe country" and limiting legal challenges to removals on safety grounds. The Act mandates that decision-makers, including courts and immigration officials, treat Rwanda as safe, disapplies relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, and restricts judicial review of removal decisions.

Articles 97-98 and 340-341 relate to who may benefit from more lenient sentences for “honour crimes,” such as a person who has witnessed his or her spouse committing adultery. However, Article 345 now excludes honor crimes where the victim is under 15 from qualifying as a mitigating circumstance as enumerated in Articles 97 and 98. Further, Article 308, which allowed a rapist to avoid punishment if they married their victim, was removed in the same 2017 amendment.