Domestic Violence

Addressing Officer-Perpetrated Gender-Based Violence and Ending the “Blue Wall of Silence”

/ Tamar Ezer / Leave a comment

Despite the challenges of 2022, it closed with an important milestone for women’s rights. The European Court of Human Rights issues a groundbreaking decision, taking a bold stand to address officer-perpetrated gender-based violence (GBV).

Officer-perpetrated GBV is a major issue across the globe and yet so often invisible and rarely addressed. In many cases, it is met with a “blue wall of silence,” where police departments protect fellow officers from investigation. This completely undermines the state’s response to GBV and is particularly troubling since many states rely on law enforcement as frontline responders to GBV.

At the very least, the justice system should not be a perpetrator of abuse. We need the equivalent of the “first, do no harm” guiding principle we have for physicians.

The European Court of Human Rights acknowledged this in the Case of A & B v. Georgia. In this case, a woman experienced regular physical and psychological abuse by her former partner, a police officer. He threatened to kill her and her family, repeatedly “flaunted his service pistol,” referred to his “official status as a police officer and strong connections within the police,” and threated to bring false charges against her father and brother if she dared to report the violence.

Nonetheless, over the course of three years, the woman and her family made multiple calls  to the police and the woman filed a complaint with various state departments to stop the abuse. However, officers called to investigate interviewed the woman while her former partner was present, mocking and threatening her, and they left together in the same car. Even worse: officers told the woman that “wife-beating was commonplace” and of “not much importance”; and that she should not contact them in the future “without a valid reason or face being fined for wasting police time as they were busy with other, more serious matters.”

In 2014, the former partner tragically shot and killed the woman. Her mother and son brought a case that went before the European Court of Human Rights.

Our Human Rights Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law had the opportunity to collaborate with the European Human Rights Advocacy Center (EHRAC) on this case. We filed an intervention, along with partners, arguing for heightened state responsibility in cases of officer-perpetrated GBV. Officers are uniquely positioned to use their state authority, training, and access to weapons and resources to facilitate abuse in their relationship. Moreover, heightened vigilance by the state is required to prevent impunity and safeguard the justice system’s integrity.

Human rights law has already recognized that officer influence can facilitate GBV in the context of detention and custody. We argued that this also pertains to officers committing private acts of violence within their relationship, which also leverage their official positions. Moreover, human rights law recognizes officers’ particular role and authority with regards to GBV, mandating trainings on professionalism and sensitivity.

: Addressing Officer-Perpetrated Gender-Based Violence and Ending the “Blue Wall of Silence”

The European Court of Human Rights agreed. The Court stated that it “expects Member States to be all the more stringent when investigating . . . their own law-enforcement officers for the commission of serious crimes, including domestic violence and violence against women in general, than they are with ordinary offenders, because what is at stake is not only the issue of the individual criminal-law liability of the perpetrators but also the State’s duty to combat any sense of impunity felt by the offenders by virtue of their very office, and maintain public confidence in and respect for the law-enforcement system.” The Court further referred to a “heightened duty to tackle prejudice-motivated crimes.”

The Court awarded damages to the plaintiffs. While it recognized the need for policy measures, it said it was up to the State of Georgia, supervised by the Committee of Ministers, to determine “the exact means to address gaps and “the discriminatory passivity” of law enforcement.

Our Human Rights Clinic has called for:

  • A “zero-tolerance policy” for GBV perpetrated by officers
  • Internal structures in police departments that:
    • Prevent the hiring of individuals with a history of GBV
    • Monitor current officers for signs of abuse
    • Handle investigation against fellow officers, including the removal of weapons during the investigation
  • Enhanced data collection on officer-perpetrated GBV
  • Online or anonymous reporting to better protect survivor safety
  • Programs supporting officer mental health, including stress managements and confidential crisis counseling.

We have also expanded our analysis of law enforcement responses to GBV in a human rights framework report and case studies focused on Canada and Brazil. The report and case studies address accountability for officer-perpetrated GBV, trauma-informed interactions with survivors, effective investigation of GBV reports, and intersecting discrimination.

As we celebrate another International Women’s Day, let’s take a step closer to addressing GBV, ending state impunity, and ensuring a safe existence for all.

Discussion Friday 3 April: Domestic Violence During COVID-19: Sheltering at Home When Home is the Most Dangerous Place

/ Stephanie Farrior / 1 Comment

The Roosevelt House Human Rights Program of Hunter College and the Sisterhood is Global Institute are hosting a live online discussion on Friday April 3 with frontline women’s rights activists from across the world.

Friday, April 3, 2020 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm EDT (17.00 – 18.00 GMT)

For victims of domestic violence, home is often the most dangerous place on earth. As the world moves towards lockdown to prevent the spread of COVID-19, women may have no safe place to turn. Moderated by Jessica Neuwirth, the discussion will explore current realities of domestic violence victims and solutions for supporting women in this vulnerable moment.

Discussants:
Carmen Espinoza, Executive Director of Manuela Ramos in Peru
Shafiqa Noori, Director of Humanitarian Assistance for Women and Children of Afghanistan
Diane Rosenfeld, Lecturer on Law and Director of the Gender Violence Program at Harvard Law School
Randa Siniora, Executive Director of the Women’s Center for Legal Aid and Counseling in Palestine

Registration is required. You may register here and join at zoom.us/j/580841531. 

Go On! IACHR to hear testimony on domestic violence in United States Monday, Oct. 27

/ Karen Hoffmann / Leave a comment

This coming Monday at 10:15 ET, there will be a hearing on the U.S.’ compliance with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ 2011 decision in Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) v. US, concerning the human rights of domestic violence survivor Jessica Lenahan. Human rights scholars and advocates the country have been integrally involved in this case for nearly 10 years. The hearing is open to the public, and people are encouraged to attend!  It will also be webcast.   More details below.


Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to Hear Testimony on Domestic Violence in U.S. Monday Oct. 27

Human Rights Groups Demand U.S. Govt. Implement Changes to Domestic Violence Policy in Accordance with IACHR 2011 Decision

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY
October 23, 2014

CONTACT: Crystal Cooper, ACLU National, 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON – The Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute, the Human Rights Clinics at the University of Chicago Law School and University of Miami School of Law, the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union will appear before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Monday, October 27 to seek justice for domestic violence survivor Jessica Lenahan and domestic violence policy reforms in the U.S.
In 2011, the Commission decided Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States, finding that the government violated the human rights of Ms. Lenahan and her three daughters. The Commission recommended that the government conduct an investigation into its failure to respond to the 1999 domestic violence incident in Castle Rock, Colorado that resulted in the deaths of the three girls and the circumstances of their deaths. It also recommended that the government adopt reforms at the federal and state levels to ensure domestic violence protections.

The U.S. has made almost no progress in providing justice to Lenahan or implementing systemic reforms since the Commission issued the decision.

The organizations appearing before the IACHR are the Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute, the Human Rights Clinics at the University of Chicago Law School and University of Miami School of Law, the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union.
WHAT
Petitioners will present testimony detailing the United States’ failure to implement changes to domestic violence laws and policies or investigate the failures in Ms. Lenahan’s case in the three years since the IACHR decision. The U.S. government will have an opportunity to respond.

WHO

WHEN
Monday, October 27, 2014 10:15 a.m.EDT

WHERE
Organization of American States, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
1889 F St. N.W., Padilha Vidal Room (TL – Terrace Level), Washington, DC, U.S.A. 20006

The testimony will also be available via webcast at:
http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/coverage.asp

Torture in Kenya: Ending Impunity by Speaking the Victims’ Truth

/ Sari Long / 1 Comment

kenya flagMy heartfelt thanks to IntLawGrrls for the opportunity to contribute this introductory post.

This month, the Committee against Torture will meet in Geneva to conduct a review of Kenya’s progress in meeting its obligations under the Convention against Torture (UNCAT). I worked with Physicians for Human Rights to submit an alternative report in April on Kenya’s efforts to comply with UNCAT. The report highlights Kenya’s inability to address torture stemming from unchecked gang activity, its failure to stop the torture of domestic violence, and its de facto acquiescence to torture in the form of female genital mutilation.

Kenya submitted a report describing its own progress and challenges faced in ending torture. Other nongovernmental organizations submitted reports about Kenya’s efforts to address the insidious, destructive problem of torture within its borders. The independent observations of NGOs are central to the UNCAT reporting process, offering alternative perspectives to the self-serving reports submitted by the states.

PHR, while largely known for its cutting-edge forensic work exposing human rights abuses, is also home to the Asylum Program. The Asylum Program is a unique model that provides direct services to asylum seekers while advocating for improved conditions in immigration detention centers and documenting human rights abuses suffered by immigrants. To document torture suffered by asylum seekers in their home countries, the Asylum Program pairs volunteer physicians and mental health experts with asylum seekers in the U.S. The medical professionals perform evaluations, prepare affidavits based on those evaluations, and submit the affidavits along with the asylum seekers’ applications, providing medical documentation to support claims of torture and abuse.

In writing the report to the Committee on behalf of PHR, I read all the medical affidavits for asylum seekers from Kenya since 2008, written by professionals affiliated with the Asylum Program. (2008 was the last time Kenya participated in the reporting process to the Committee; the Committee had been requesting a report from Kenya for each of the preceding nine years, and the country finally complied for the first time in 2008).

The affidavits make up a stark narrative of torture and ill-treatment suffered by Kenyans at the hands of the mungiki, a criminal gang that has terrorized the country with impunity for decades. Rape, genital mutilation, and beheadings characterize its violence. Despite its status as an illegal organization, Kenya has been powerless to put a stop to the mungiki’s torture and has even harmed innocent civilians in its efforts to address mungiki violence. The government allegedly formed a secret police force to kill members of the mungiki on sight. When Kenyan activists began to investigate these extrajudicial killings, the police then began targeting the activists to silence their investigations. Staff of human rights organizations faced threats and beatings from police for their work in exposing the execution-style murders of suspected mungiki members.

Continue reading →