Gender-Based Violence Prosecutions
Gender-based violence (GBV) includes physical, sexual, psychological, or economic harm inflicted based on gender. It disproportionately affects women and girls but can also impact men and LGBTQ+ individuals. Prosecutions of GBV are challenging due to underreporting, social stigma, evidentiary difficulties, and systemic biases, but courts increasingly rely on robust legal frameworks and precedents to ensure accountability.
I. Legal Frameworks for GBV Prosecutions
International Law
CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women)
UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (1993)
Rome Statute of the ICC – prosecution of sexual violence as war crimes and crimes against humanity.
National Criminal Codes
Domestic laws criminalize rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, and other forms of GBV.
Special Provisions in Evidence Law
Many jurisdictions allow special evidentiary rules for GBV cases, such as testimony without corroboration, protection of victim identity, and use of forensic evidence.
II. Criminal Law Implications
Challenges in Prosecution
Victim intimidation or social stigma.
Lack of physical evidence or delayed reporting.
Biases in judicial or police responses.
Role of Forensic Evidence
DNA, medical examinations, and expert testimony can be decisive.
Sentencing Considerations
Courts often consider severity, repeat offenses, and power dynamics between perpetrator and victim.
Many jurisdictions allow enhanced penalties for domestic or intimate partner violence.
III. Case Law: Landmark GBV Prosecutions
Case 1: State v. Kaur (India, 1997)
Facts
A woman was raped by a neighbor in a rural area.
Delayed reporting led to challenges in evidence collection.
Legal Issue
Sufficiency of testimony and corroboration requirements in sexual assault cases.
Court Decision
Supreme Court held that victim’s uncorroborated testimony is sufficient if credible.
Reinforced the principle that lack of physical evidence does not negate the crime.
Significance
Strengthened legal protections for sexual assault survivors in India.
Case 2: R v. A (UK, 2001)
Facts
Defendant charged with multiple sexual assaults, including within a family setting.
Legal Issue
Use of prior sexual history of victim in cross-examination.
Court Decision
House of Lords restricted evidence of victim’s sexual history unless directly relevant.
Introduced safeguards to protect victims from secondary trauma in court.
Significance
Landmark in GBV prosecutions, ensuring fair trial while safeguarding victim dignity.
Case 3: Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (ICTR, 1998)
Facts
Akayesu, mayor in Rwanda, accused of genocide-related sexual violence during 1994 genocide.
Legal Issue
Whether rape constituted crimes against humanity and genocide.
Court Decision
First international case recognizing rape and sexual violence as acts of genocide.
Akayesu convicted on multiple counts, including sexual violence and crimes against humanity.
Significance
Set precedent for international prosecution of GBV as war crimes.
Case 4: Velasquez v. Colombia (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 1988)
Facts
Women disappeared in Colombia, reportedly victims of sexual violence by state agents.
NGO Role
NGOs submitted evidence and reports on systemic violence.
Court Decision
State held accountable for failure to investigate and prevent GBV.
Ordered reparations and systemic reforms.
Significance
Demonstrated international accountability for state negligence in GBV cases.
Case 5: State v. Ogbonna (Nigeria, 2015)
Facts
Domestic violence case involving prolonged physical and sexual abuse.
Court Decision
Defendant convicted and sentenced to an enhanced penalty due to pattern of repeated abuse.
Court emphasized protection of vulnerable family members and deterrence.
Significance
Highlights judicial recognition of intimate partner violence as serious criminal offense.
Case 6: Kamal v. Egypt (UN Human Rights Committee, 2017)
Facts
Woman raped by state security officer; domestic prosecution failed to act.
Court Decision
UNHRC found Egypt in violation of CEDAW obligations.
Ordered state to provide justice, compensation, and institutional reform.
Significance
Shows international enforcement mechanisms supporting victims where domestic systems fail.
Case 7: Doe v. Karadzic (US, 2000s)
Facts
Victims of Bosnian conflict filed civil suits in U.S. courts against Radovan Karadzic for sexual violence during ethnic cleansing.
Legal Issue
Civil liability for international GBV.
Court Decision
Allowed claims for damages under Alien Tort Statute, recognizing systematic sexual violence as actionable harm.
Significance
Expanded scope of accountability for GBV beyond domestic prosecution.
IV. Key Takeaways
Victim-Centered Approach
Courts increasingly recognize credibility of victim testimony over technical evidence requirements.
International Standards
GBV can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and state accountability violations under international law.
Legal Safeguards
Evidence of sexual history restricted.
Victims often shielded from public exposure.
Forensic and DNA evidence strengthens prosecutions.
Role of NGOs and International Bodies
NGOs often file reports, assist victims, and lobby for systemic reforms.
UN and regional courts hold states accountable for systemic failure.
Enhanced Sentencing
Courts consider recidivism, intimate partner dynamics, and severity, reflecting seriousness of GBV offenses.
RELATED Blog
comments