Reparations for Women Subjected to Violence

In her opening remarks, Rashida Manjoo stated that sexual violence was a pervasive manifestation of gender based violence, both in the public and private spheres and is deeply rooted in a global culture of gender discrimination that legitimises the appropriation and control of women's bodies by men.

Ms Manjoo reiterated that under International Human Rights law, the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, States have the obligation to criminalise acts of torture and violence against women and address the issue of sexual violence.

Ms. Ruth Rubio Marin from the European University Institute, highlighted the four principles for reparation: (1) acknowledgement by the State and the international community that sexual violence during war is a crime against humanity and a violation of women's human rights; (2) justice for the victim; (3) symbolic reparation through public and private apology; and (4) financial compensation and a guarantee of an end to such acts.

The need for clarity between services and reparations was pointed out. Building a hospital to address the consequences of sexual violence, for instance, is collective reparation and not considered adequate to address individual pain. Even in stable democracies, there are challenges: very few women work in judicial institutions; gender bias in the law only recognises an economic loss and considers spouses as one, which makes it difficult to sue a partner for reparation.

On a more hopeful note, she related two landmark cases at the European Court, one of which, resulted in the State being obliged to pay 30,000 Euros, apologise and provide the victim with protection. The Council of Europe is using this case to review and develop a more responsive framework.

A representative from Mexico shared a case taken to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Organisation of American States-OAS) which led to a more gender responsive framework that has since helped member states to review their judicial systems and develop gender responsive jurisprudence. Problems addressing violations committed by State agents and cases filed after the process of transitional justice still persist.

The current recommendation by experts of transitional justice for the use of community mechanisms was challenged by panellists, who felt that the, in many instances, women’s voices were muffled in the interest of national peace. Examples were given of the Gacaca process , where many survivors preferred to simply move on with their lives rather than complicate issues by lobbying for reparations. It was noted that human rights advocates should lobby for a budget for reparations for women survivors of sexual violence to be included in post conflict reconstruction funds. Women’s capacity to tell their stories and participate in the dialogue on reconstruction, as well as the constitutional process, must also be developed.

Malia, a survivor of multiple rapes during the 2004 political crisis in Haiti, and more recently, during the earthquake, presented a moving case, which left the room speechless.

Fiona McKay, Chief, Victims Participation and Reparation Section, International Criminal Court, emphasised the importance of including victims in developing the framework for reparation, and acknowledged that the 2007 Nairobi Declaration on women and girls’ rights to remedy and reparation has greatly contributed to their work.

Hendrica Okondo explained the work of the World YWCA in promoting young women leaders as a key strategy for building the confidence of women to engage in the various processes, especially at community level.

Rashida Manjoo, concluded that there is a strong need to encourage women to take their cases to regional levels where there is no framework at local level. Another recommendation was a focus on community initiatives as an entry point to mobilise women's voices to advocate at international level.