“Honor crimes” or “honour crimes” involve acts of violence, including murder, committed to preserve or restore a family's perceived honor, typically targeting women. Resources include case law and legislation on criminalization, and the rejection of cultural justifications in sentencing.
The Federal Supreme Court (STF), unanimously, declared the so-called “honor defense” unconstitutional, holding that it violates the principles of human dignity, the protection of life, and gender equality. The ruling was issued in the context of a Claim of Breach of Fundamental Precept (ADPF) 779, filed by the Democratic Labor Party (PDT), following a preliminary injunction granted by Justice Dias Toffoli in February 2021.
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.
The Guatemalan Penal Code defines parricide as the killing of any ascendant, descendant, spouse, or person with whom the perpetrator has a marital relationship. A conviction for parricide carries a penalty of 25 to 50 years of imprisonment. In cases where the nature of the act, the method of execution, and the underlying motives demonstrate exceptional gravity on the part of the offender, the death penalty may be imposed, as permitted under Guatemalan criminal law.
The 2024 Constitution of Nicaragua establishes a strong framework of fundamental rights, including guarantees relevant to gender equality, family, and women’s protection. Article 27 affirms equality before the law, and Articles 48, 73, and 82 enshrine unconditional equality between men and women, prohibiting all forms of labor and social discrimination based on gender. Article 5 elevates human dignity as a guiding principle, and Article 36 protects physical, psychological, and moral integrity by prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
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.
In KKO 2017:52, the issue was whether the defendant was guilty of preparing an aggravated offense against life or health by preparing a detailed plan to kill his sister. Based on the claims, the defendant found it shameful that his sister was away from home for several nights and he therefore considered multiple ways to kill her. Furthermore, the question was whether the defendant had been instructed by his father, who lived in Iraq, to kill the sister and her friends, if needed, to restore the family honour.
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.
