The problem of gender-based violence in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case-Law

The phenomenon of gender-based violence is far from novel, it has been actively debated in academic and human rights circles for several decades already. However, gender-based violence has only recently become a focus of attention in international inter-governmental organizations and international courts. In the field of international humanitarian law, the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda declared sexualized violence as part of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in the early 2000s, and approximately at the same time international human rights bodies started to examine this problem as well. The UN CEDAW Committee began its first deliberations in accordance with Optional Protocol to the CEDAW Convention (1999), and the Inter-American Commission and Court on Human Rights joined in as an active participant in this global struggle for women’s rights, making an impact on domestic law-making and law enforcement, and setting an important example for human rights groups and political actors. By looking at some of the most important decisions of the IACtHR in the field of combatting gender-based violence, we seek to identify major problem areas and the impact these decisions had in the region.

Keywords

gender-based violence, violence against women, Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Received

20.05.2021

Publication date

02.11.2021

Number of characters

25463

Cite

GOST	Nelaeva G. The problem of gender-based violence in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case-Law // Latin America – 2021. – Issue 11 C. 63-75 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://latamerica-journal.ru/S0044748X0017112-2-1 (circulation date: 04.05.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S0044748X0017112-2
MLA	Nelaeva, Galina "The problem of gender-based violence in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case-Law." Latin America 11 (2021):63-75. DOI: 10.31857/S0044748X0017112-2
APA	Nelaeva G. (2021). The problem of gender-based violence in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case-Law. Latin America (11), pp.63-75 DOI: 10.31857/S0044748X0017112-2

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 557

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Marochkin S., Nelaeva G. Rape and Sexual Violence as Torture and Genocide in the Decisions of International Tribunals: Transjudicial Networks and the Development of International Criminal Law. Human Rights Review, 2014, Vol. 15, N 4, pp. 473-488. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-014-0322-6 (accessed 18.04.2021).

2. Treves T. Cross-Fertilization between Different International Courts and Tribunals: The Mangouras Case. In: Hestermeyer H.P. et al. (eds.). Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, 2012, pp. 1787–1796, 2211 p. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004214828_087 (accessed 18.04.2021).

3. Oberleitner G. (ed.). International Human Rights Institutions, Tribunals and Courts. Singapore, Springer, 2018, 390 p. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5206-4 (accessed 18.03.2021).

4. Von Bogdandy A. Venzke I. (eds.) International Judicial Lawmaking. On Public Authority and Democratic Legitimation in Global Governance. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer, 2012, 516 p. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29587-4 (accessed 18.03.2021).

5. De Albuquerque P.P. Wojtyczek K. (eds.) Judicial Power in a Globalized World. Cham, Springer, 2019, 671 p. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20744-1 (accessed 18.05.2021).

6. Fortes P., Boratti L., Palacios Lleras A., Daly T.G. (eds.). Law and Policy in Latin America. Transforming Courts, Institutions, and Rights. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2017, 372 p. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56694-2 (accessed 19.04.2021).

7. Christoffersen J., Madsen M.R. (eds.). The European Court of Human Rights between Law and Politics. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011, 278 p. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694495.001.0001

8. Madsen M.R., Cebulak P., Wiebusch M., Backlash against international courts: explaining the forms and patterns of resistance to international courts. International Journal of Law in Context, 2018, Vol. 14, pp.197–220.

9. Dzmitryieva A. Becoming a Judge in Russia: An Analysis of Judicial Biographies. Europe-Asia Studies, 2021, Vol. 73, pp. 131-156. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09668136.2020.1860196 (accessed 18.05.2021).

10. Voronina O.A. Post-Pekin: rossijskaya gendernaya politika v mezhdunarodnom kontekste. Zhenschina v rossijskom obschestve. Ivanovo, 2020, № 3, ss. 3-15.

11. Goncharenko O.K. Mezhdunarodnoe i natsional'noe pravo i praktika zaschity zhenschin ot domashnego nasiliya. Zhenschina v rossijskom obschestve. Ivanovo, 2020, №3, ss. 53-64. Available at: https://woman-inrussiansociety.ru/article/goncharenko-o-k-mezhdunarodnoe-i-nacionalnoe-pravo-i-praktika-zashhity-zhenshhin-ot-domashnego-nasiliya-str-53-64/ (accessed 17.04.2021).

12. Gnezdilova O.A. Obyazatel'stva gosudarstva po zaschite ot domashnego nasiliya: kommentarij k postanovleniyu Evropejskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka po delu Volodina protiv Rossii. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie. M., 2020, № 1 (33), cc. 3-10. Available at: https://academia.ilpp.ru/catalog/mp/mp-1-33-2020/obyazatelstva-gosudarstva-po-zashchite-ot-domashnego-nasiliya-kommentarij-k-postanovleniyu-evropejskogo-suda-po-pravam-cheloveka-po-delu-volodina-protiv-rossii (accessed 18.04.2021).

13. Ertürk Y. Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Indicators on violence against women and State response. Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural, Including the Right to Development. U.N. Doc. A/HRC/7/6. 2008. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/619912 (accessed 5.02.2021).

14. About UN Women. Available at: https://eca.unwomen.org/ru/about-us/about-unwomen (accessed 29.06.2021).

15. S.T. v. Russia, CEDAW/C/72/D/65/2014, 8 April 2019. Available at: https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/CEDAW/C/72/D/65/2014 (accessed 05.02.2021).

16. A.S. v. Hungary. Communication No. 4/2004, CEDAW/C/36/D/4/2004, 26 August 2006. Available at: https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/protocol/decisions-views/Decision%204-2004%20-%20English.pdf (accessed 05.02.2021).

17. Şahide Goekce (deceased) v. Austria Communication Nº 5/2005, CEDAW/C/39/D/5/2005, 6 August 2007. Available at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/495/ 43/PDF/N0749543.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 5.02.2021).

18. A. T. v. Hungary, Communication No.: 2/2003, CEDAW/C/36/D/2/2003. 26 January 2005. Available at: https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/protocol/decisions-views/CEDAW%20Deci-sion%20on%20AT%20vs%20Hungary%20English.pdf (accessed 5.02.2021).

19. Da Silva Pimentel Teixeira v Brazil, Communication No. 17/2008, CEDAW/11 C/49/D/17/2008. 11-29 July 2011. Available at https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBo-dies/CEDAW/Jurisprudence/CEDAW-C-49-D-17-2008_en.pdf (accessed 05.02.2021).

20. Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 210. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/210/signatures (accessed 05.05.2021).

21. Kontrovà v. Slovakia, Application no. 7510/04, 31 May 2007.

22. E.S. and Others v. Slovakia, Application no. 8227/04, 15 December 2009.

23. D.M.D. v. Romania, Application no. 23022/13, 3 October 2017.

24. A. v. Croatia, Application no. 55164/08, 14 October 2010.

25. ECtHR Factsheet. Domestic violence. November 2020. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Domestic_violence_ENG.pdf (accessed 05.02.2021).

26. List of countries which have signed, ratified/acceded to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s rights on the Establishment on an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. African Union. 15 June 2017. Available at: https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/36393-slprotocol_to_the_african_charter_on_human_and_peoples-rights_on_the_estab.pdf (accessed 05.04.2021).

27. Applications received by the Court. Statistics. Available at: https://www.african-court.org/cpmt/statistic (accessed 05.05.2021).

28. Association pour le Progrès et la Défense des Droits des Femmes Maliennes (APDF) and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) v Republic of Mali, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights Application 046/2016, 11 May 2018. Available at: http://www.african-court.org/en/images/Cases/Judgment/046%20-%202016%20-%20Association%20Pour%20le%20Progr%C3%A8s%20et%20la%20Defense%20Des%20Droits%20Des%20Femmes%20Maliennes%20-%20APDF%20Vs.%20Mali%20-%20Judgement%20of%2011%20Mai%202018%20-%20Optimized.pdf (accessed 05.04.2021).

29. Intersectional feminism: what it means and why it matters right now. UN Women. 1 July 2020. Available at: https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/6/explainer-intersectional-feminism-what-it-means-and-why-it-matters (accessed 05.07.2021).

30. Burgorgue-Larsen L., Ubeda de Torres A. Les grandes décisions de la cour interaméricaine des droits de l'homme. Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2008, 995 p.

31. Binder C. The Prohibition of Amnesties by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In: von Bogdandy A. and Venzke I. (eds.). International Judicial Lawmaking. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer, 2012, pp. 295-328, 516 p.

32. Caso Masacre Plan de Sánchez v. Guatemala. Reparaciones, 19 November 2004. Serie C, No. 116. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_116_esp.pdf, (accessed 04.04.2021).

33. Caso Fernández Ortega y otros v. México. Excepción Preliminar, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, 30 August 2010. Serie C, No. 215. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/CF/jurispru-dencia2/ficha_tecnica.cfm?nId_Ficha=338 (accessed 04.03.2021).

34. Caso Gelman v. Uruguay. Fondo y Reparaciones, 24 February 2011. Serie C, N221. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_221_esp1.pdf (accessed 04.03.2021).

35. Caso I.V. v. Bolivia. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, 30 November 2016. Serie C, N329. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_329_esp.pdf (accessed 04.02.2021).

36. Prandini Assis M., Violence against Women as a Translocal Category in the Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Revista Direito e Práxis, 2017, Vol. 8, N 2, pp.1507-1544. Available at: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S2179-89662017000201507&lng=en&nrm=iso (accessed 04.02.2021).

37. Maria da Penha Maia Fernandes v. Brazil, Case 12.051, I. C.H.R., Report No. 54/01, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.111, doc. 20. Available at http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2000eng/ChapterIII/Merits/Brazil12.051.htm (accessed 04.05.2021).

38. Martins Amaral A.P., Rocha Amorim E.C. A Lei nº 11.340/2006 – Lei Maria da Penha – como fruto dos compromissos internacionais assumidos pelo Brasil e sua condenação pela Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, Justiça do Direito, 2015, Vol. 29, N 2, pp.179-197. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.5335/rjd.v29i2.5586 (accessed 5.02.2021).

39. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico Judgment of November 16, 2009. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_205_ing.pdf (accessed 05.02.2021).

40. Ecuador is Responsible for the Sexual Violence Committed by an Educational Authority against the Adolescent, Paola Guzmán Albarracín. IACtHR Press Release: Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/comunicados/cp_79_2020_eng.pdf (accessed 04.05.2021).

41. IACtHR Annual Report. 2020. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/informes_anuales.cfm?lang=en (accessed 04.05.2021).

42. Ecuador’s President Issues Public Apology for Teenager’s Death in Landmark Sexual Violence Case. Center for Reproductive Rights. 12.09.2020. Available at: https://reproductiverights.org/ecuadors-president-issues-public-apology-for-teenagers-death-in-landmark-sexual-violence-case/ (accessed 04.05.2021).

43. Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs). 30 August 2010. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_215_ing.pdf (accessed 04.03.2021).

44. Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs). 31 August 2010. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_216_ing.pdf (accessed 04.03.2021).

45. Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala, Reparations, Judgment (Reparations). November 19, 2004, Series C N116. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_116_ing.pdf (accessed 04.02.2021).

46. “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, Judgment of November 24, 2009 (Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs). Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/corteidh/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_211_ing.pdf (accessed 04.01.2021).

47. Masacres de Río Negro Vs. Guatemala, 4 September 2012. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_250_esp.pdf (accessed 04.07.2021).

48. Indigenous Women. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 44/17 17 April 2017. Available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/IndigenousWomen.pdf (accessed 04.01.2021).

49. Report N71/03[1]. Petition 12.191. Friendly Settlement. María Mamérita Mestanza Chavez v. Peru. 22 October 2003. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/ 2003eng/peru.12191.htm (accessed 5.02.2021).

50. Marin P.C., Compliance of Judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Project: Compliance of judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. May 2020. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342763914_Compliance_of_Judgments_of_the_Inter-American_Court_of_Human_Rights (accessed 7.03.2021).

51. Rapporteurship on the Rights of Women. Thematic Reports. IACHR. Available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/women/reports/thematic.asp (accessed 07.05.2021).

52. Engstrom P. (ed.). The Inter-American Human Rights System. Impact Beyond Compliance. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, 2019, 340 p. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89459-1 (accessed 07.05.2021).

53. Maria da Penha Law: A Name that Changed Society, UN Women, 30 August 2011. Available at https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2011/8/maria-da-penha-law-a-name-that-changed-society (accessed 04.05.2021).

54. Hein De Campos C. Access To Justice And The Permissive State: The Brazilian Experience, University of Miami Law Review, 2011, Vol. 65, N 3, pp. 893-902. Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol65/iss3/7 (accessed 04.04.2021).

55. O’Connell C. Women’s Rights and the Inter-American System In: Reilly N. (ed.). International Human Rights of Women. Singapore, Springer, 2019, pp. 139-154, 480 p. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8905-3_10 (accessed 18.04.2021).

56. Gabyshev V.E., Nelaeva G.A., Sidorova N.V., Khabarova E.A. Rassledovanie genderno-obuslovlennogo nasiliya v ramkakh pravosudiya perekhodnogo perioda: opyt Brazilii. Latinskaya Amerika. M., 2019, № 8, cc.35-46. [Gabyshev, V.E., Nelaeva G.A., Sidorova N.V., Khabarova E.A. Rassledovanie genderno-obuslovlennogo nasiliya v ramkakh pravosodiya perehodnogo perioda: opyt Brazilii [Investigating gender-based violence in transitional justice context: the case of Brazil]. Latinskaya America. Moscow, 2019, N 8, pp.35-46. (In Russ.).

57. COVID-19: The Costly Setback in Latin American Women’s Progress. 4 March 2021. World Bank. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2021/03/04/la-covid19-costoso-retroceso-en-los-avances-de-la-mujer-latinoamericana (accessed 04.05.2021).

58. Policy Brief: The Impact of COVID-19 on Latin America and the Caribbean. UN Women. July 2020. Available at: https://www2.unwomen.org/-/media/field%20office%20americas/documentos/publicaciones/2020/07/sg_policy_brief_covid_lac.pdf?la=en&vs=4011 (accessed 04.05.2021).