Violence Against Women: When the State is the Aggressor

Almost a year into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and amidst mounting international tensions between the United States and China, the region’s ambiguity has it walking on thin ice with the superpowers involved. How long can this troublesome balance go on?

Ilustración: Erick Retana

By Grisha Vera

Almost a century ago, women started claiming their rights and gender equality. March 8th commemorates International Women’s Day, as it was acknowledged by the United Nations in the 70s. 

Although progress has been made, there is still much to be done. Particularly in terms of violence against women and their access to justice. Countries in Latin America have laws and institutions in place to attend to and protect them, but legislative advancement has not been enough to lessen or resolve attacks against women. The main problem is cultural, which explains why officials who are liable for enforcing the law, usually end up breaking it. Thus, turning the states into the victims’ second aggressors. 

The case known as Angulo Losada Vs. Bolivia has become emblematic. A recent judgment by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (I/A Court H.R.) sheds light on women’s revictimization, one of the main causes of impunity in violence against women. 

In July 2002, the father of Brisa de Angulo Losada reported his nephew to the Bolivian justice for repeatedly raping his daughter in a seven month period. The case was reassigned from court to court; the defendant went back to Colombia (his country of origin) and twenty years later the conviction is still pending. So, Brisa, who is now a lawyer and an activist, reported the actions of the Bolivian State pertaining to her case to the I/A Court H.R. in July 2020. In November 2022, the international court ruled in her favor and the judgment became public on January 19th, 2023. 

In it, the I/A Court H.R. leaves no room for doubt about the atrocities committed by judicial officials. “On July 31st, 2002, Brisa (16) underwent a forensic medical exam performed by a male doctor and a group of five (all-male) medical students, in which her parents were not present,” the Court says. It continues: “The Court considers that the use of strength and the total disregard for the victim’s pain and discomfort throughout the exam constituted an act of institutional violence of sexual nature. Additionally, it considers that in this case there was no justification for undertaking a second forensic medical exam in 2008, since it didn’t constitute factual evidence.”

It also stated that officials made Brisa repeatedly narrate the sexual violence that she had endured. In the judgment, “the Court deems that the State became a second aggressor, committing acts of revictimization that constituted institutional violence which shall be regarded as cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, keeping in mind the suffering it caused.”

Tania Sanchez, Executive Director of La Coordinadora de la Mujer (Bolivia) explains that in 2013, Congress passed a law against gender-based violence considering several of the objections made to the country in the judgment of the I/A Court H.R. “Despite this, we believe that much needs to be done to make progress in the care provided by services that are part of the justice system itself.”

Georgia Rothe, consultant in gender-based violence in Latin America for Pro Mujer, Women in Nuclear and the National Democratic Institute, explains that “the situation of Brisa Losada is the same as all women in Latin America.” The expert adds that only 10% of the victims report the fact, and subsequently many of them drop the process because revictimization is commonplace in the judicial system – from police officers to judges and magistrates. “The few that don’t desist and manage to make it to preliminary hearings or oral trials go through a lot because by that point they have been revictimized two or three times by the judicial branch.”

Culture

The rapporteurship on the rights of women who are victims of violence by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) published in 2007 expresses it clearly: “The situation of two girls under 12 is illustrative, they were sexually assaulted by their father for several years. The opinion of the Legal Medical Service expert determined clear signs of sexual activity. The opinion of psychiatrists indicated sexual abuse. The statements of the professionals in the Victims’ Unit concluded severe violence had been used. The defendant was put in preventive custody for a long time, and as months passed and they lacked financial sustenance, the girls took their statements back. The Attorney General’s Office decided not to take the case to trial and to close it based on ‘the power not to persevere’. The rationale was that the girls had lied and couldn’t be taken to trial. The Victim’s Unit differed though, it intended to go to trial, even without the girls, because there was sufficient expert evidence.” 

The rapporteurship concludes that judicial response in these cases is “strikingly deficient and does not match the gravity and incidence of the problem.” It concludes that one of the main irregularities is the inadequate treatment that victims get when they attempt to access justice. 

And there is more: investigation processes are exaggeratedly slow, victims’ dignity and privacy are not respected, women are questioned in public spaces and have to narrate the facts up to six times and to different officials who often delay requests for evidence from authorities while the evidence provided by victims and families is not admissible… The IACHR even explains that in some countries, prosecutors only take assault cases to trial if they are likely to win. 

Between 2007 and 2017, several countries in Latin America built their institutional structure to prevent and attend to violence against women. Nevertheless, sixteen years later, experts consulted point to the same challenges identified by the rapporteurship.

Creating a legal framework is just the beginning. Regarding hurdles to overcome, Sanchez remarks: “We must keep in mind that  a legislative reform must come together with a judicial reform. New agencies have been created but they have the same staff. Laws have to be supported by cultural transformations, because a judge and a police officer don’t change their way of thinking from one day to the next, that is precisely what the plight is about.” 

Rothe explains that despite the legislative advancement, women in Latin America are still exposed to stigma and disparagement when they report their cases. “They have to answer questions about their whereabouts, their outfits, the reason why they were there. There is a dominant religious component that perpetuates the belief that women belong in private spaces… They make the victims distrust the justice system, one that is already troubled with revictimization and ineffectiveness.”

 Training, Imposing Sanctions and Budget 

Experts agree that in order for laws to guarantee the protection and the rights of women who are victims of violence, three fronts need to be tackled: increasing institutions’ budget and capacities; educating and bringing awareness to society regarding the real causes of this kind of violence; and imposing sanctions on officials that engage in revictimizing practices. 

An investigation by CONNECTAS revealed that in many countries in the region, budgets to address gender-based violence are not executed due to institutional incapacity, resources allocated account for tenth-shares of the national budget, and in some countries, they have even been cut. “Whether countries are poor or middle class, the budget almost never exceeds 1%,” the investigation asserts. Peru is the exception, resources have increased sustainedly but aggression statistics remain.

For Sanchez, “More resources are needed, for instance for agencies that fight violence against women. For more prosecutors. We know that a prosecutor has to work on 900 cases a year, at last… There is a whole chain that needs its links strengthened.” The expert adds: “A law doesn’t change the whole system. And change won’t come solely with campaigns or by incorporating them in formal education systems. It has to be a comprehensive effort because the structural foundation of the patriarchy is the exercise of violence.” 

Additionally, Rothe states that legal instruments that address gender-based violence always set forth the principle of non-revictimization. But she highlights that the crime is not defined and there is no specific punishment for this behavior. 

States, Rothe concludes, should avoid victims resorting to international justice as a result of lacking the mechanisms in their countries, as happened in the case of  Brisa. “I think the state ends up being liable for the revictimization inflicted by the judicial branch. But I also believe that the state, to prevent it from happening, needs to put in place specific procedures that officials involved in these topics need to comply with. It doesn’t need to aim at penalizing because it must be hand in hand with permanent education and constant evaluation and training.”

Artículos relacionadosMás del autor

DEJA UNA RESPUESTA

Por favor ingrese su comentario!
Por favor ingrese su nombre aquí