The case of Sh.T. v. the Russian Federation. Opinions of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women dated February 25, 2019. Communication No. 65/2014.
In 2014, the author of the communication was assisted in the preparation of complaints. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
The national authorities, without providing the author with effective legal protection and without considering her case from a gender perspective, allowed stereotypical representations to influence the motivation of their decision. The Committee concluded that the authorities of the State party had not adequately protected the author from domestic violence and had not adequately punished the perpetrator, thereby violating their obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
The author claimed that the Russian Federation had violated her rights guaranteed under paragraphs "c" and "d" of article 2, read in conjunction with article 1 and paragraph "a" of article 5 of the Convention, because the authorities had failed to prevent and effectively investigate the severe physical and psychological violence committed against her her ex-husband.
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: took note of the State party's argument that the punishment of the author's ex-husband was proportionate to the gravity of the crime committed by him, in particular, the district court found him guilty of causing grievous bodily harm in a state of passion and sentenced him to 9 months and 8 days imprisonment, which corresponds to the penalties established in Article 113 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. He also drew attention to the State party's argument that the court had rejected the author's claims for compensation for moral and material damage under national law (paragraph 9.2 of the Opinion).
The Committee noted that the prosecution proprio motu (On its own initiative) applied to the court for a commutation of punishment, suggesting that the crime charged to the accused should be reclassified from attempted murder to grievous bodily harm in a state of passion, and that the district court preferred the version of events presented by the defense, according to which the author She repeatedly insulted her ex-husband, without paying due attention to the fact that earlier Mr. T. Acts of domestic violence were committed, which was confirmed by witness statements and documents about the injuries sustained by the author. The Court ignored the author's vulnerable position and Mr. T.'s previous conviction for causing bodily harm to the author (paragraph 9.6 of the Opinion).
The Court attached great importance to the statements of defense witnesses that the author had behaved provocatively, insulting her ex-husband, and took into account only the positive description of his character provided by the local administration of the mosque. At the same time, the court did not attach the same importance to the testimony of witnesses confirming the author's version of events, witnesses who lived under the same roof with the perpetrator and the victim (paragraph 9.7 of the Opinions).
The Committee noted that the higher court fully supported the decision of the district court, made only one amendment, namely, deleting the mention of Mr. T.'s previous conviction by the magistrate's court for domestic violence. In addition, the Committee also found that the courts had not ruled positively on any of the author's claims for compensation, although they had discretionary powers to do so. The Committee drew attention to the fact that the author had never had access to shelters, free legal aid and representation, nor could she apply for a restraining order or a protective order, since such measures are not provided for by law (paragraph 9.8 of the Opinion).
The Committee pointed out that none of these facts were disputed by the State party and that, in general, they indicated that the national authorities, by failing to provide the author with effective legal protection and by failing to consider her case from a gender perspective, allowed stereotypical representations to influence the motivation for their decision. The Committee concluded that the authorities of the State party had not adequately protected the author from domestic violence and had not adequately punished the perpetrator, thereby violating their obligations under the Convention (paragraph 9.9 of the Opinion).
The Committee considered that the State party's failure to amend its legislation on domestic violence had a direct impact on the author's right to seek justice and to have access to effective remedies and protective measures. He also concluded that the case showed that the State party had failed to comply with its obligation to take all appropriate measures to change the social and cultural patterns of behavior of men and women in order to achieve the elimination of prejudice and the abolition of customs and all practices that are based on the idea of inferiority or superiority of one of the sexes or stereotypical roles men and women (paragraph 9.11 of the Opinions).
The Committee concluded that, in the light of General recommendation No. 19 and General recommendation No. 35 (2017) on gender-based violence against women, the approach of the State party's authorities to the author's case constituted a violation of her rights under paragraphs "c" and "d" of article 2, considered in conjunction with article 1, and paragraph "a" of article 5 of the Convention. In particular, the Committee recognized that the author had suffered moral damage and harm. Deprived of adequate State protection, she was subjected to severe physical and psychological gender-based violence, while she was constantly subjected to ill-treatment by her [former] husband and suffered repeated trauma when the State bodies that were supposed to be her defenders, in particular the police and the court, failed to prevent the violence and subsequently failed to adequately punish the culprit or provide compensation to the victim (paragraph 9.12 of the Opinion).
The Committee's conclusions: The State party has failed to comply with its obligations and thereby violated the author's rights under paragraphs "c" and "d" of article 2, considered in conjunction with article 1, and paragraph "a" of article 5 of the Convention (paragraph 10 of the Opinions).
The Committee made the following recommendations to the State party:
(a) With regard to the author of the communication: provide the author with adequate financial compensation commensurate with the severity of the violations of her rights;
(b) General provisions:
(i) To fulfill its obligations in the field of respect, protection, promotion and realization of women's human rights, including the right to protection from all forms of gender-based violence, including domestic violence, intimidation and threats of violence on its territory;
(ii) Immediately review its legislation in order to bring it fully into line with the Convention and international standards, ensuring, in particular, that all acts of gender-based violence, including acts of domestic violence, are criminalized and punished with appropriate penalties and that legal instruments such as restraining orders and protective orders;
(iii) Promptly, thoroughly, impartially and seriously investigate all reports of gender-based violence against women, ensure that criminal proceedings are initiated in all such cases, promptly and promptly bring alleged offenders to justice and apply appropriate penalties to them, guided by the principles of justice and impartiality;
(iv) To provide victims of violence with safe and prompt access to justice, including, where necessary, free legal assistance, in order to provide them with accessible, effective and sufficient remedies and rehabilitation in accordance with the methodological guidelines set out in [O]the Committee's general recommendation No. 33, and to ensure that victims of violence in Prompt and appropriate support was provided to the family and their children, including the provision of shelter and psychological assistance;
(v) To offer rehabilitation and non-violent conflict resolution programmes to offenders;
- vi) Sign and ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence;
(vii) Ensure mandatory professional training for judges, lawyers and law enforcement officials, including prosecutors, on issues related to the Convention, its Optional Protocol and the Committee's general recommendations, in particular General Recommendations No. 19, No. 28 and No. 35;
(viii) With the active participation of all stakeholders, such as women's organizations and religious leaders, develop and take effective measures to eliminate stereotypes, prejudices, customs and traditions that justify or condone domestic violence;
(ix) Promptly and immediately take into account the concluding observations of the Committee on the eighth periodic report of the Russian Federation on violence against women and girls.
In accordance with article 7, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, the State party shall give due consideration to the views of the Committee, together with its recommendations, and submit to the Committee, within six months, a written response, including information on any measures taken taking into account the views and recommendations of the Committee. The State party should publish the Committee's views and recommendations and ensure their wide dissemination to all sectors of society (paragraphs 11-12 of the Opinions).