Women and Justice: Keywords

Legislation

قانون الحماية من العنف الأسري (Protection from Domestic Violence Law No. 15 or 2017) (2017)

Domestic and intimate partner violence

Article 4 (A/1) requires education, health, and social service providers (whether private or public sector) to report known or reported cases of domestic violence to the Juvenile and Family Protection Department. The obligation to report such cases (regardless of the consent of the victim) is in part mitigated by Article 4 (B) which guarantees the protection of victims by forbidding disclosure of their identities unless required by judicial procedures. The Law goes on to grant the police rights in relation to actual or suspected cases of violence or abuse. Additionally, Article 6 (A) obligates the Family Protection Department to act on every report or request of assistance in relation to domestic violence promptly. Article 7 (B) prohibits the Family Protection Department from settling a felony case; instead, such cases shall be referred to the Public Prosecutor for further legal action. Articles 16 further entails multiple measures the court may take including a restraining order from approaching the victim or any of the family members or to provoke another person to do so.

تفرض الفقرة (أ) من المادة 4 على كل من مقدمي الخدمات الصحية أو التعليمية أو الاجتماعية في القطاعين العام والخاص التبليغ عن أي حالة عنف أسري واقعة على فاقد الأهلية أو ناقصها حال علمه أو إبلاغه بها، ونصت الفقرة (ب) من المادة 4 أنه لا يجوز الإفصاح عن هوية مقدمي البلاغ في قضايا العنف الأسري إلا إذا تطلبت الإجراءات غير ذلك. والفقرة (أ) من المادة (6) ألزمت إدارة حماية الأسرة بالاستجابة لكل شكوى أو إخبار أو طلب مساعدة أو حماية تتعلق بالعنف الأسري بالسرعة القصوى، كما ألزمت جميع الجهات حال تلقيها أي شكوى عن أي حالة عنف أسري تحويلها إلى إدارة حماية الأسرة لاتخاذ الإجراءات اللازمة بشأنها. يمتنع على إدارة حماية الأسرة إجراء التسوية في حال كان الفعل يشكل جناية وعليها في هذه الحالة إحالته إلى المدعي العام المختص لإجراء المقتضى القانوني وفقًا للفقرة (ب) من المادة 7. وأشارت المادة 16 إلى أنه للمحكمة المختصة أن تصدر حال قناعتها بضرورة حماية المتضرر وأي من أفراد الأسرة وبناء على طلب أي منهما وفي غياب أو حضور مرتكب العنف الأسري عدة إجرائات ومنها أمر حماية بعدم التعرض للمتضرر.

Domestic Case Law

Kaliyati v Republic High Court of Malawi (2020)

Statutory rape or defilement

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to eight years imprisonment including hard labor for defilement of an11-month-old girl. On appeal, the appellant’s primary argument was that the testimony of the child’s mother was not sufficiently corroborated and therefore the conviction was not supported by the evidence. He also argued that the sentence was excessive. Regarding the corroboration rule in sexual violence cases, the court announced that it was a longstanding practice based on blatant discrimination against women, who are the predominant victims of such offenses and assumed to be unreliable witnesses. The court found the corroboration rule unlawful under existing constitutional (article 20), evidence, and criminal laws. Instead, the court held that courts should take caution basing convictions on uncorroborated evidence to ensure satisfaction of the burden of proof. Regarding the appellant’s arguments, the court found that there was not sufficient evidence of penetration to sustain the defilement conviction, thus acquitting the appellant of defilement. Instead, the court found that the evidence supported a conviction for the lesser offense of indecent assault, for which the court imposed a sentence of three years of imprisonment out of a maximum of 14 years. The court chose a substantially lower sentence than the maximum due to what it described as mitigating factors, including that: (i) the appellant was a first-time offender; (ii) the child was largely unharmed physically according to the medical report; (iii) there was no evidence that the child would subsequently suffer an STI or psychological impacts; and (iv) the crime was not premeditated in the court’s view, but a crime of opportunity.

Sentenza N. 10959/2016 Corte di Cassazione: Sezioni Unite (Supreme Court: Joint Sections) (2016)

Domestic and intimate partner violence, Femicide, Gender-based violence in general, International law, Sexual harassment, Sexual violence and rape, Stalking, Statutory rape or defilement

The Supreme Court, in deciding upon the applicability of certain procedural rules, confirmed the main international definitions of violence within relationships. Particularly, the local court dismissed the case against a man charged with the crimes of stalking and mistreatment in the family pursuant to articles 612-bis and 572 of the Italian Criminal Code, without giving any notice of the motion to dismiss to the person injured by the crime in accordance with Article 408 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. The injured person appealed the decision of the local court and requested that the Italian Supreme Court declare the dismissal of the case null and void. In deciding the procedural issue at hand, the Italian Supreme Court pointed out that the Italian criminal law has drawn the definitions of gender violence and violence against women mainly from international law provisions, which are directly enforced in the system pursuant to Article 117 of the Constitution. In this decision the Italian Supreme Court gave all the definitions of violence within gender relationships in consideration of international conventions and specifically European law, and concluded that such definitions, even if not directly included in domestic regulations, “are fully part of our national system through international law and are therefore enforceable.” According to this interpretation, the definitions of gender violence given by the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence are directly applicable in the Italian legal framework. On this basis, the Court ruled that notice of dismissal of the case must always be served on the person injured by crimes of stalking and mistreatment in the family pursuant to articles 612-bis and 572 of the Italian Criminal Code, as those provisions relate to the gender violence notion set forth under the international and EU provisions applicable in the Italian legal framework.

La Corte di Cassazione, in una decisione riguardo all’applicabilità di alcune regole procedurali, ha confermato l’applicabilità delle principali definizioni internazionali in tema di violenza di genere. In particolare, il Tribunale ha archiviato un caso contro un uomo accusato di aver commesso i reati di stalking e maltrattamenti in famiglia di cui agli articoli 612 bis e 572 del codice penale italiano, senza aver dato avviso della richiesta di archiviazione alla parte offesa secondo quanto disposto dall’articolo 408 del codice di procedura penale italiano. Il difensore della persona offesa ricorreva per cassazione e chiedeva alla Corte di Cassazione di dichiarare nullo il provvedimento di archiviazione. Nel decidere la questione procedurale, la Corte di Cassazione evidenziava che il diritto penale italiano ha tratto le definizioni di violenza di genere e violenza contro le donne principalmente dalle disposizioni di diritto internazionale, che sono direttamente applicabili nel sistema ai sensi dell’articolo 117 della Costituzione. In questa decisione la Corte di Cassazione ha fornito tutte le definizioni di violenza di genere in considerazione delle convenzioni internazionali e in particolare del diritto europeo, e ha concluso che tali definizioni, anche se non direttamente incluse nelle normative nazionali, “per il tramite del diritto internazionale sono entrate a far parte dell’ordinamento e influiscono sull’applicazione del diritto”. Secondo questa interpretazione, le definizioni di violenza di genere previste dalla Convenzione di Istanbul sulla prevenzione e la lotta contro la violenza nei confronti delle donne e la violenza domestica sono direttamente applicabili nel quadro giuridico italiano. Sulla base di ciò, la Cassazione ha ritenuto che l’avviso della richiesta di archiviazione debba sempre essere notificato alla persona offesa nel caso in cui si proceda per i reati di stalking e maltrattamenti in famiglia di cui agli articoli 612 bis e 572 del codice penale italiano, in quanto queste disposizioni si riferiscono alla nozione di violenza di genere sancita dalle disposizioni internazionali e comunitarie applicabili nel quadro giuridico italiano.

Constitucionalidade da Lei Maria da Penha (ADC 19 e ADI 4424) (Constitutionality of Lei Maria da Penha (Federal Domestic Violence Law) Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (2012)

Domestic and intimate partner violence, Gender discrimination, Gender-based violence in general, International law

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.

Reports

Посебан протокол о поступању центара за социјални рад-органа старатељства у случајевима насиља у породици и женама у партнерским односима (Special Protocol For Action of The Centre for Social Work) (2013)

Domestic and intimate partner violence

The Special Protocol is founded on the respect for fundamental principles laid down in the Law on Social Protection, including principles of respect for the integrity and dignity of the beneficiary, principle of prohibition of discrimination, principle of acting in the best interest of the beneficiary, and principle of the least restrictive environment. The person suffering domestic and intimate partner violence has the right to information, to participate in decision-making, to freely choose family law and protection services, to confidentiality and privacy, and to file a complaint. (Official English translation available through External URL.)

Мултисекторска сарадња – институционални одговор на насиље над женама (Multisectoral Cooperation – Institutional Response to Violence against Women) (2013)

Domestic and intimate partner violence

This publication aims to present together the institutional solutions for coordinating cooperation between government and other stakeholders in service of victims of domestic and intimate partner violence. The adoption of the general and the special protocols by the Serbian Government helps achieve the objectives of Strategic Area 3: International Cooperation of the National Strategy for Prevention and Elimination of Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence adopted in April 2011. (Official English translation available through External URL.)

International Case Law

Y. v. Slovenia European Court of Human Rights (2015)

International law, Sexual violence and rape, Statutory rape or defilement

Applicant is a citizen of Ukraine who came to Slovenia as a teenager with her family. Applicant alleged that when she was 14 a family friend repeatedly sexually assaulted her. The police investigated and an expert in gynecology examined the applicant. After complaints and a letter from the State Prosecutor’s Office to the local police a criminal complaint was issued. The ensuing investigation and trial extended over a period of eight years. During that time the defendant was allowed to repeatedly cross examine the applicant. Moreover, a lawyer with whom the applicant had shared confidential information about the case was allowed to represent the defendant. The defendant was acquitted, the applicant was referred to civil court for damages, and the applicant received a settlement from the government for the undue delays in the proceedings. The Court found that Slovenia violated the European Convention of Human Rights in two ways. Slovenia violated Article 3 when it failed to promptly investigate and prosecute the complaint of sexual abuse. Furthermore, Slovenia violated Article 8 because it failed to sufficiently protect the applicant’s personal integrity and privacy in the proceedings.