Women and Justice: Keywords

Domestic Case Law

王传宝与瞿勤晨强奸案,安徽省天长市人民法院 (People’s Procuratorate of Tianchang City Anhui Province v. Wang Chuanbao, Qu Qinchen) People’s Court of Tianchang (2014)

Sexual violence and rape, Statutory rape or defilement

The defendants Wang Chuanbao and Qu Qinchen were charged of crime of rape for repeatedly raping the victim, and crime of coercive indecency for violently digging and touching the victim's genitals. The prosecutor alleges that according to Article 25 section 1, Article 236 section 1 and Article 237 section 1 of Criminal Law of PRC, Chuanbao and Qinchen raped and molested the victim “with violence or threats”, constituting the crime of rape and coercive indecency. Chuanbao argues that he did not have sex with the victim, and all the evidences are hearsay evidence, thus is not guilty. Qinchen argues that he did not commit the crime of coercive indecency because taking off the trousers of the victim is to have sex with the victim. After the victim refused to do so, Qinchen stopped raping her and has no mens rea to molest her. The court finds that the fact the Chuanbao and Qinchen raped the victim had also been proved by the testimony of Qinchen’s girlfriend, one of the witnesses, therefore is founded. The act of coercive indecency is regarded as absorbed by the act of rape and thus would not be convicted separately under this crime.


被告王传宝与瞿勤晨因多次强奸被害人王某并暴力扣摸王某的生殖器被控强奸罪和强制猥亵罪。检方称,根据中华人民共和国刑法第二十五条第一款、第二百三十六条第一款和第二百三十七条第一款,王传波与瞿勤晨使用暴力和威胁手段强奸并猥亵了王某,构成了强奸罪和强制猥亵罪。王传宝称,自己并没有和王某发生性关系,所有证据均系传来,自己并没有犯罪。 瞿勤晨称,自己并没有犯强制猥亵罪,因为脱下王某的裤子是为了与王某发生关系。在王某拒绝后,曲停止了强奸行为,并且没有猥亵王某的犯罪意图。法院认为,王传宝与瞿勤晨强奸王某的事实已被曲的女友证实,因此事实确凿。强制猥亵的行为应包含在强奸行为内,因此不应另外定罪。

International Case Law

I.G. v. The Republic of Moldova European Court of Human Rights (2012)

Gender discrimination

A 14-year-old girl was allegedly raped by an acquaintance. She complained that the authorities had failed to investigate her allegations effectively and that the requirement of corroborative evidence of resistance had been discriminatory against her. The Court found a violation of Article 3 on effective investigation and ordered the State to pay the applicant just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and awards the applicant EUR 10,000.

L.C. v. Peru CEDAW Committee (2011)

Sexual violence and rape, Statutory rape or defilement

An 11-year-old girl was repeatedly raped by a 34-year-old man. As a result, she became pregnant and consequently attempted to commit suicide by jumping from a building. She survived the suicide attempt but sustained serious injuries which required emergency surgery. The hospital declined to perform the surgery based on the risk posed to the pregnancy, and refused to perform an abortion despite that therapeutic abortion is legal in Peru and that the pregnancy posed a danger to her physical and mental health. As a consequence, she was completely paralyzed from the neck down. The Center for Reproductive Rights and the Center for the Promotion and Defense of Sexual and Reproductive Rights filed a human rights petition on behalf of her against Peru before CEDAW alleging violations of Articles 1, 2 (c) and (f), 3, 5, 12 and 16 (e) of CEDAW by failing to implement measures that guarantee a woman’s ability to obtain essential reproductive health services in a timely manner. The Committee upheld the claim and asked Peru to provide L.C. reparation, including physical and mental rehabilitation, and issue necessary measures so that no other woman is denied her right to comprehensive healthcare and therapeutic abortion. This decision demonstrate a willingness on the part of the CEDAW to view the denial of reproductive rights as a discrimination issue and is flagged as an innovative juridical resource for reforming abortion laws.

L.N.P. v. Argentina Human Rights Committee (2007)

Gender discrimination, Statutory rape or defilement

A 15-year-old girl, P, was allegedly sexually assaulted by three men. She immediately reported the attack to the police, but was kept waiting for hours at the police station and a medical center before being performed anal and vaginal palpations which caused her intense pain and despite complaining the sole anal nature of the attack. A social worker was sent to interview P's neighbors and relatives about her sexual history and morals during the investigation, leasing aside the three accused. The three accused were acquitted following a trial solely in Spanish despite the first language of P and several of the witnesses was Qom, and in which great reliance was placed on P's sexual history by the prosecution and the judge. P was not notified of her rights to participate in the trial nor of the outcome of the trial and she only became aware of the acquittal after two years and was unable to appeal. The Human Rights Committee found violations of Articles 2(3), 3, 7, 14(1), 17, 24, 26 of the Convention. The Committee found that the police, medical examiner and the court did not provide appropriate protections to P's age, discriminated against her in the emphasis that was placed on her sexual history, and denied her right of access to the courts when she was not informed of her legal rights. It also found that the events at the police station and the medical examination constituted inhumane or degrading treatment, and that the investigation had arbitrarily interfered with P's private life. The Committee called on the State to guarantee access for victims, including victims of sexual assault, to the courts in conditions of equality in the future. However the operative gender stereotypes, including that as a young women from a marginalized ethnic minority group, she was sexually promiscuous, which contributed towards the acquittal of the accused of the rape were unnamed, leaving the role of the stereotypes in discriminating against similar victims and their rights unaddressed.

Una niña de 15 años, P, presuntamente fue agredida sexualmente por tres hombres. Ella informó de inmediato del ataque a la policía, pero se mantuvo esperando durante horas en la estación de policía y en un centro médico antes de que se realizaran las palpaciones anales y vaginales, lo que le causó un dolor intenso, además ella especificó la naturaleza anal única del ataque. Se envió a una trabajadora social para entrevistar a los vecinos y familiares de P sobre su historial sexual y su moral durante la investigación, dejando a un lado a los tres acusados. Los tres acusados fueron absueltos después de un juicio únicamente en español a pesar del primer idioma de P y varios de los testigos era Qom, y en los que la fiscalía y el juez depositaron una gran confianza en la historia sexual de P. P no fue notificada de sus derechos a participar en el juicio ni del resultado del juicio y solo se enteró de la absolución después de dos años, cuando ya era muy tarde para apelar. El Comité de Derechos Humanos encontró violaciones de los artículos 2 (3), 3, 7, 14 (1), 17, 24, 26 de la Convención. El Comité determinó que la policía, el médico forense, y el tribunal no proporcionaron las protecciones adecuadas a la edad de P, la discriminaron por el énfasis que le pusieron en su historial sexual y negaron su derecho de acceso a los tribunales cuando no se le informó de sus derechos legales. También encontró que los eventos en la estación de policía y el examen médico constituían un trato inhumano y degradante, y que la investigación había interferido arbitrariamente en la vida privada de P. El Comité pidió al Estado que garantice el acceso de las víctimas, incluidas las víctimas de agresión sexual, a los tribunales en condiciones de igualdad en el futuro. Sin embargo, los estereotipos operativos de género, incluyendo que como mujeres jóvenes de un grupo minoritario étnico marginado, la tacharon como sexualmente promiscua, lo que contribuyó a la absolución de las acusadas de la violación no fue identificado, dejando el papel de los estereotipos en la discriminación contra víctimas similares y sus derechos no defendidos.