On July 09, 2020, the case was won in the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

Заголовок: On July 09, 2020, the case was won in the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Сведения: 2024-06-08 03:36:57

The case "Promo-lex Organization v. the Republic of Moldova". Opinions of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women dated July 9, 2020. Communication No. 106/2016.

In 2016, the authors of the communication were assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Republic of Moldova.

As could be seen from the text of the Opinions, the author claimed that, by failing to exercise due diligence in protecting V.S. from the detected threat of domestic violence, the State party violated her rights under article 2 (paragraphs "a", "c", "e" and "f"), considered collectively Article 1 of the Convention (paragraph 3.1 of the Opinions).

The issue before the Committee was to determine whether the State party had exercised due diligence throughout its entire structure, including its authorities, officials, institutions, practices and legislation, whether it had adequately considered and investigated V.S.'s repeated complaints of domestic violence and provided She receives effective legal protection, counseling and rehabilitation services. The Committee had to determine whether the State party had fulfilled its positive obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women to protect V.S. from discrimination, understanding domestic violence as one of the egregious and explicit manifestations of discrimination against women.

The Committee's legal position: in accordance with paragraphs "a", "c", "e" and "f" of article 2 of the Convention, the State party is obliged to respect the principle of equality between men and women, ensure effective legal protection for women and take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against them, including by changing or Repealing not only existing laws and regulations, but also customs and practices that discriminate against women. The Committee reaffirms that these obligations are imposed on all public authorities, including law enforcement officials (paragraph 7.3 of the Opinion) (The case "L.R. v. the Republic of Moldova" (CEDAW/C/66/D/58/2013), paragraph 13.6.).

The inability to provide immediate protection, in particular in in the form of temporary shelters, it may constitute a violation of the obligations of the State party under paragraphs "c" and "e" of article 2 of the Convention (paragraph 7.12 of the Opinion) (V.K. v. Bulgaria, paragraph 9.13.).

Gender-based violence against women that impedes or nullifies women's enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with general international law or the provisions of human rights conventions is discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. As part of the obligation to exercise due diligence, States parties should develop and implement various measures to combat gender-based violence against women committed by non-State actors, including the adoption of laws and the establishment of institutions and systems to combat such violence, as well as ensuring their real effectiveness and their support from all public officials and bodies, ensuring proper compliance with the laws. If the State party does not take all appropriate measures to prevent acts of gender-based violence against women in cases where its authorities know or should know about the risk of such violence, or does not investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators and does not compensate the victims and victims of such actions, then it thereby gives tacit consent to the commission of acts of gender-based violence against women or encourages them. Such passivity and inaction constitute violations of human rights (paragraph 7.15 of the Opinion).

The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee noted that the State party had taken measures to ensure protection from domestic violence in accordance with the Law on Domestic Violence, which provides for the possibility of judicial protective orders, but these measures were taken only after the death of V.S. However, despite the existence of the above-mentioned According to the law, V.S.'s repeated appeals to the police during 2013 in order to report physical and psychological violence committed by her husband led only to the fact that the police took out S. a verbal warning and had an informal conversation with him about his "unacceptable behavior." In this regard, the Committee noted that none of these facts had been disputed by the State party (paragraphs 7.4 - 78.5 of the Opinions).

The Committee also pointed out that on January 9, 2014, after a call from V.S. in which she reported ill-treatment by her husband, police officers were sent to her home. As a result, her husband was fined for disorderly conduct, and V.S., fearing violence from her husband, decided to move into a neighboring house. The Committee stressed that the State party did not dispute this observation and did not indicate why at that time the police: (a) did not assess the seriousness of the situation in a timely manner, taking into account V.S.'s previous complaints, which had already been registered in the "other protocols on offenses and incidents" of the Central Police Inspectorate of the Chisinau Police Department, in order to effectively protect V.S., in accordance with the relevant legislation; and (b) did not consider the possibility of requesting an investigation into the allegations against S. in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova, which specifically relate to crimes related to domestic violence, taking into account the repetition of acts of violence committed against V.S. (paragraph 7.6 of the Opinions).

The Committee further noted that the State party also did not explain why, by that time, counseling, rehabilitation services, shelter or housing had not been offered to V.S. in order to provide immediate protection, or why S. had not been provided with support and rehabilitation services in connection with his alcohol abuse problem (this is provided for by the State party's law on combating alcohol abuse with domestic violence). The Committee also took note of the author's claim that the police had failed to take measures to protect V.S. and did not inform her about her right to initiate proceedings on her own in order to obtain a judicial protective order in accordance with the Law on Family and Domestic Violence. The Committee took into account the author's statement that the Law does not clearly explain the procedure for obtaining protective orders at the request of the victim or at the initiative of the police, social workers or prosecutors (paragraph 7.7 of the Opinion).

The Committee took note of the State party's assertion that on 10 January 2014, in order to prevent aggressive actions by S. and control his behavior, he was registered and individual preventive measures were taken. However, the Committee noted that the author indicated that the State party had not specified or provided evidence of how these individual measures were implemented in practice, as well as how they were monitored and implemented (paragraph 7.8 of the Opinion).

The Committee took into account that on January 19, 2014, S. committed a brutal attack on V.S., striking her numerous times on the head. As a result, she remained paralyzed and could hardly speak, and died on September 16, 2014 from complications caused by injuries. On January 20, 2014, S. was detained, and on December 30, 2015, he was convicted of murdering his wife and sentenced to eight years in prison. The Committee took note of the State party's statement that on 31 January 2014, the Central District Court of Chisinau ruled against V.S. a judicial protective order, through which he imposed certain restrictions on S. However, the Committee also took into account the author's statement that there was no evidence of the existence of such an order, that there was no copy of the order in the materials of the criminal case S. and that the author was unable to obtain a copy of the order despite the relevant requests, and that even if the order was still issued, it did not serve any practical purpose with considering that With. He has already been arrested and has remained in custody since the day of his arrest on January 20, 2014 (paragraph 7.9 of the Opinion).

In this case, the State party's compliance with its obligations under paragraphs "a", "c", "e" and "f" of article 2 of the Convention should be assessed taking into account the degree of due diligence and attention to gender aspects when considering the V.S. case by the police, as well as the preventive and protective measures applied.

The Committee considered that after V.S., a disabled woman, reported repeated cases of domestic violence, in particular, after the incident on January 9, 2014, the police should have already recognized the risk of continued violence against her. In its submission, the State party itself refers to these incidents as "acts of domestic violence". The Committee drew attention to the following - recognizing these acts as such required the police to understand what exactly domestic violence entails and what their (police) responsibilities are under the Law on Domestic Violence in terms of the risk of further violence, and that police officers should be trained in how to adequately and to respond comprehensively to incidents related to domestic violence (paragraph 7.11 of the Opinion).

The Committee further noted that after the incident on January 9, 2014, S. was only punished for minor hooliganism and that this incident was not considered within the framework of the current relevant legislation on the prevention and control of domestic violence, indicating that police officers lacked the competence to understand the scale and severity of domestic violence in relation to women and act accordingly, providing V.S. with support and rehabilitation services and information on the possibility of obtaining a judicial protective order (paragraph 7.12 of the Opinion).

The Committee agreed with the author's view that the only relevant criminal proceedings against S. began only in connection with the attack on 19 January 2014, that the State party did not take appropriate measures to prevent it and that ultimately this attack led to V.S.'s death, as well as that subsequent prosecution and imprisonment C. did not exclude responsibility on the part of the State party (paragraph 7.14 of the Opinions).

While appreciating the adoption by the State party in 2018 of a new law on combating domestic violence and the efforts made to address the problem of domestic violence, the Committee nevertheless considered that these measures had not been sufficiently implemented in the circumstances (See: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, case "Maria Da Peña Maya Fernandis v. Brazil", case No. 12.051, report No. 54/01 of April 16, 2001, paragraph 57 and the case "Jessica Lenahan (Gonzalez) et al. v. the United States", case No. 12.626, report No. 80/11 of July 21, 2011, paragraph 161.). The reaction of the police throughout the entire period of consideration of the V.S. case did not contribute to the prevention of domestic violence or protection from it. In addition, the Committee indicated that the specific legislation of the State party should be implemented by all State actors, including law enforcement officials, who are bound by the obligations of the State party (paragraph 7.16 of the Opinion).

The Committee's conclusions: The facts presented indicated that the way in which the State party's authorities dealt with V.S.'s case constituted a violation of her rights under articles 2 "a", "c", "e" and "f", considered in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention.



© 2011-2018 Юридическая помощь в составлении жалоб в Европейский суд по правам человека. Юрист (представитель) ЕСПЧ.