Case Studies On Femicide Prosecutions
1. State v. Enriquez – Mexico (2011)
Jurisdiction: Mexico
Facts:
A woman was brutally murdered by her partner in Ciudad Juárez.
Evidence suggested a pattern of domestic abuse and gender-based motives.
Legal Issues:
Classification of the crime as femicide under Mexican federal law (introduced in 2007).
Determining intent based on gender-based motives versus general homicide.
Judgment:
Court convicted Enriquez of femicide.
Emphasized that targeting women due to gender, domestic violence context, and societal discrimination constitute aggravating factors.
Key Principle:
Femicide laws focus on the gender-based motive, not just the act of killing.
Recognition of systemic patterns of violence against women in sentencing.
2. Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač & Zoran Vuković – International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY, 2001)
Jurisdiction: International
Facts:
During the Bosnian conflict, women were subjected to sexual slavery, rape, and murder.
Multiple cases involved killing of women because of their gender and ethnicity.
Legal Issues:
Classification of femicide under international criminal law.
Linking sexual violence with intentional killing as part of systematic gender-based persecution.
Judgment:
ICTY convicted the defendants of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including killings motivated by gender.
Recognized gender-based targeting in armed conflict as a prosecutable offense.
Key Principle:
Femicide can be prosecuted as part of crimes against humanity in conflict situations.
Gender-motive is a critical element in establishing criminal liability.
3. R v. Sutcliffe – United Kingdom (1981)
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Facts:
Peter Sutcliffe, known as the “Yorkshire Ripper,” murdered multiple women over several years.
Victims were predominantly women, often chosen because of gender.
Legal Issues:
Distinction between serial homicide and gender-targeted femicide.
Consideration of misogynistic motive in sentencing.
Judgment:
Convicted of 13 counts of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Court acknowledged the gendered pattern of killings as an aggravating factor.
Key Principle:
While UK law did not explicitly define femicide, judicial reasoning incorporated gender-motive in sentencing and assessment of danger to society.
4. State v. Oscar Pistorius – South Africa (2014)
Jurisdiction: South Africa
Facts:
Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
Defense claimed it was accidental, but prosecution argued gender-based violence context.
Legal Issues:
Determining intention and whether gender-targeted motives qualified as aggravated murder.
Analysis of patterns of domestic violence in sentencing.
Judgment:
Initially convicted of culpable homicide; later upgraded to murder on appeal.
Court considered the relationship and context of domestic abuse in sentencing.
Key Principle:
Courts recognize domestic femicide as aggravated homicide.
Pattern of gendered abuse influences both conviction and sentencing.
5. Gonzales v. State – Chile (2018)
Jurisdiction: Chile
Facts:
Woman murdered by her intimate partner.
Case investigated under Chile’s femicide law, enacted in 2010.
Legal Issues:
Application of Chilean Law 20,480, criminalizing femicide in domestic or intimate partner context.
Establishing intent to kill because of gender and domestic relationship.
Judgment:
Convicted of femicide; sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
Court emphasized intimate partner relationship and gender-based motive as essential elements.
Key Principle:
Modern femicide statutes explicitly link murder to gender-based motives, often enhancing penalties.
6. State v. Christian Hall – Canada (2019)
Jurisdiction: Canada
Facts:
Indigenous woman killed by intimate partner.
Case highlighted intersection of gender and racial discrimination in femicide.
Legal Issues:
Recognizing femicide in domestic murder cases and intersectionality with systemic oppression.
Use of enhanced sentencing guidelines for gender-motivated killings.
Judgment:
Convicted of second-degree murder, sentenced to life imprisonment.
Court referenced systemic violence against Indigenous women as aggravating factor.
Key Principle:
Intersection of gender and systemic discrimination strengthens the femicide characterization of crimes.
Comparative Analysis
| Case | Jurisdiction | Victim Profile | Legal Instrument | Judicial Principle | Sentencing Focus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enriquez (2011) | Mexico | Domestic female victim | Femicide law (2007) | Gender-based motive critical | Life imprisonment |
| Kunarac et al. (2001) | ICTY | Women in armed conflict | International criminal law | Femicide as part of crimes against humanity | Long-term imprisonment |
| Sutcliffe (1981) | UK | Multiple women | Murder under common law | Gender pattern = aggravating factor | Life imprisonment |
| Pistorius (2014) | South Africa | Girlfriend | Common law murder | Domestic femicide recognized | Murder sentence |
| Gonzales (2018) | Chile | Intimate partner | Chilean Femicide Law | Gender + intimate partner = essential element | 20 years imprisonment |
| Hall (2019) | Canada | Indigenous woman | Criminal Code + sentencing guidelines | Intersectional femicide | Life imprisonment |
Observations:
Legal recognition of femicide varies: explicit in Latin America, implicit in other common law jurisdictions.
Key element across cases: gender-based motive and/or systemic discrimination.
Domestic context dominates: many cases involve intimate partner or domestic settings.
Enhanced sentencing: femicide laws or judicial interpretation often result in longer sentences than ordinary homicide.
International jurisprudence: armed conflict cases demonstrate femicide as crimes against humanity.
RELATED Blog
comments