The case of H.H., I.H. and Y.H. v. Georgia. Opinions of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women dated October 25, 2021. Message No. 140/2019.
In 2019, the authors of the communication were assisted in preparing complaints. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Georgia.
Failure to conduct an effective investigation into the death of a woman who suffered as a result of domestic violence. The facts presented testified to a violation of the rights of a victim of domestic violence under articles 2, 5, considered in conjunction with articles 1 and 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, in the light of General Recommendations No. 19 and No. 35.
As seen from the text of the Opinions, the authors, among other things, claimed a violation of article 2 (paragraph "b") Conventions. They argued that the Law on the Suppression of Domestic Violence, Protection and Assistance to Victims of Domestic Violence of 2006 did not cover violence against women by members of the extended family during the period when D. was beaten and died. The authors also claimed a violation of paragraphs "c" and "e" of article 2 of the Convention, since the law enforcement authorities of the State party did not take reasonable measures to protect Ms. D. The authors also claimed a violation of paragraphs "c" and "e" of article 2 of the Convention, referring to the fact that the investigation, prosecution and punishment of the persons who beat D. had not been carried out.
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it took note of the State party's claim that its law enforcement agencies did not know about the collusion of D.'s relatives against her, but nevertheless, on September 16, 2014, they took her to the village headman's house, from where, after talking with her mother, she returned to her parents' house on the condition that stated in writing that no one would offend her there. The police also came to check on her condition. The Committee noted that, according to the case file, D.'s mother indicated in her testimony that the village head had not translated D.'s question. to the police about why they didn't arrest those who beat her. In addition, the village head testified that D. told him that her relatives advised her to take rat poison and commit suicide. She asked him to take her away from her relatives' house so that she would not be killed. When she was brought to his house, there was a "major quarrel" between her and her mother. Then the headman instructed the police to return D. to her relatives on the condition that no one would touch her, since these relatives had called him. The Committee noted: These facts indicated that D. She was in extreme danger, which persisted due to the decision of the authorities to return her to her relatives, who, as is known, had told her to commit suicide the night before. Thus, the Committee considered the following - the authorities of the State party failed to ensure effective protection of D. from discrimination on the basis of sex and to take all necessary measures to eliminate such discrimination. He noted with regret that the authorities of the State party proceeded from considerations of protecting "honor" and considered that they had failed to protect her right to life (paragraph 7.4 of the Opinion).
The Committee noted the authors' allegation of a violation of paragraphs "b", "c" and "e" of article 2 of the Convention on the grounds that the State party had failed to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the beating and death of D. The Committee also drew attention to the State party's comment on the complexity of the case and the reasons for the refusal from conducting a forensic medical examination. The Committee considered that the State party's reference to the involvement of several persons could not justify a lengthy investigation, especially given that the identities of those involved never seemed to be disputed. The Committee pointed out that the need to translate the case file cannot be considered an excuse for the fact that the investigation has been underway for more than six years. The Committee further noted that after the death of D. The authorities decided not to conduct a forensic examination due to the objections of her relatives, who, as they knew, told her to commit suicide. The Committee found that: the State party did not dispute - the Law on the Suppression of Domestic Violence, Protection and Assistance to Victims of Domestic Violence of 2006 did not cover violence against women by members of the extended family during the period when D. was beaten and died. It was also not disputed that there was no legislative provision allowing not to conduct a forensic medical examination on such a basis, or the need for such an examination to determine when D. had suffered bodily injuries - before her death or at the time of her death. In view of these circumstances, and recalling its recommendation to the State party to ensure effective investigation of cases of gender-based violence against women, to prosecute and punish perpetrators with penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, and to provide victims with adequate compensation for the damage caused, the Committee considered that the authorities of the State party had failed to fulfill their obligation to investigate and punish the circumstances persons responsible for the ill-treatment to which D. was subjected and for her death (paragraph 7.5 of the Opinion).
The Committee took note of the authors' allegation of a violation of articles 2 (f) and 5 (a) of the Convention, considered in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention, and in the light of General recommendations No. 19 and No. 35. The Committee noted that the State party had not explained how the measures taken had helped D. He considered that the ill-treatment of D., the refusal to conduct an autopsy due to the objections of her relatives, who, as is known, posed a threat to her, the prosecutor's qualification of her behavior as "shameful" and the decision to terminate the investigation based on the conclusion that she committed suicide because of her "shameful" behavior and infidelity, confirmed - D. was the victim of intersecting discrimination related to her ethnicity and stereotypical attitudes of the police and judicial authorities (paragraph 7.6 of the Opinions).
The Committee's conclusions: the facts presented indicated a violation of D.'s rights under articles 2, 5, considered in conjunction with articles 1 and 3 of the Convention, in the light of General Recommendations No. 19 and No. 35.