The authors of the communication are A.M.G.M. (born on 5 December 1985) and F.R.G.M. (born on 15 July 1987), both of whom are Argentine nationals. The authors claim that the State Party has violated their rights under articles 1, 2, 5, 15 and 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women owing to the femicide of their mother, G.M.H., a Uruguayan national born on 15 September 1963. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Argentina on 20 June 2007. The authors are represented by counsel.
On 3 May 2022, the State Party notified the Committee that it had set up a channel for dialogue to explore the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement. On 3 February 2023, the Committee decided to suspend its consideration of the communication.
On 11 December 2023, in the light of the lack of a response from the State Party regarding the friendly settlement agreement, the authors requested that the suspension be lifted. On 21 May 2024, the Committee decided to lift the suspension on the communication.
Facts as submitted by the authors
G.M.H. was in a relationship with W.G.F. for approximately 15 years. In October 2017, W.G.F. left the home that the two shared in the city of Buenos Aires. In December 2017, however, he returned to the apartment, even though G.M.H. had expressly stated that she had decided to end the relationship. He remained there for one week and then, after an argument brought on by jealousy, left the home again.
On 5 January 2018, W.G.F. entered the home using a key that he had kept and left a box containing a necklace and two bracelets belonging to G.M.H., as well as a note that said “happy Three Kings Day, M.”. G.M.H. was afraid that he might attack her because he had exhibited obsessive behaviour and had a history of violence (in the past, he had pointed a gun at a former partner and served eight months in prison for that act).
On 10 January 2018, G.M.H. filed a complaint against W.G.F. with the Domestic Violence Office of the Supreme Court of Argentina, indicating that she was a victim of gender-based violence. She reported that she had endured psychological violence (insults, controlling behaviour, jealousy, harassment, attempts to isolate her and threats) and said that, since their separation, he had stalked her, tracked her and harassed her, threatening to injure her with hot oil or to make her disappear. G.M.H. also explained that she had not been able to definitively end the relationship because she was economically dependent on her abuser. That same day, civil domestic violence proceedings were brought before National Court of First Instance for Civil Matters No. 86, which handed down a restraining order against W.G.F. (who was not notified of the order until 26 January 20181) and arranged for the victim to be given a panic button, although there is no accurate record of the date of receipt. Meanwhile, the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires launched a criminal investigation into W.G.F., but on 12 January 2018, the prosecution unit for the south-east region of the city of Buenos Aires decided to take no further action with respect to the complaint after deeming that the acts did not constitute a criminal offence.
- Pursuant to article 28 of Act No. 26.485, within 48 hours after protective measures are handed down, a hearing must be held with the plaintiff to uphold the alleged victim’s right to be heard. ↩
On 26 January 2018, W.G.F. forcibly entered the apartment where G.M.H. lived in an attempt to remove various household possessions that he claimed were his. In response, G.M.H. sought help from her daughters (A.M.G.M. and F.R.G.M.) and from the police through the emergency number, 911.2 The incident was recorded as a high-priority case of gender-based violence and an officer was immediately dispatched to the scene. Upon arrival, the officer contacted National Public Prosecutor’s Office for Criminal Offences No. 11, whose clerk said that the in flagrante delicto procedure did not apply because, in theory, both individuals resided in the home, and the home contained items belonging to the aggressor. Furthermore, the aggressor had not yet been notified of the restraining order. The clerk said that National Criminal Court No. 37, which was on call, should be contacted. That Court said that G.M.H. should file a complaint of alleged property damage at the police station. Meanwhile, the officer consulted Civil Court No. 86, which was hearing the domestic violence case, about the potential violation of the restraining order already in effect. An official from Civil Court No. 86 said that W.G.F. should be arrested for failure to comply with that order, but that the measure had to be requested by the criminal court that had jurisdiction over the matter. The staff of National Criminal Court No. 37, however, said that it would not be appropriate to arrest him because there was no written record that he had been notified of the restraining order. The officer was also told to note in the record that the aggressor and the victim lived in the same home. Ultimately, the officer personally notified W.G.F. that a restraining order had been handed down by Civil Court No. 86 and ordered him to leave the scene.3 That same day, G.M.H. filed another complaint with the ninth precinct of the Buenos Aires Police for property damage, in which she claimed that the items that her former partner had attempted to take belonged to her. On 7 February 2018, Public Prosecutor’s Office for Felonies, Misdemeanours and Infractions No. 16 upgraded the act to attempted robbery.
On 8 February 2018, W.G.F. waited for the victim at the door of her building, forced her to enter the hallway and stabbed her in the neck, causing her death. At that time, G.M.H. only had a restraining order and a panic button.
After the femicide of G.M.H., a new criminal case was brought before National Criminal Court No. 23. Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 16 and Court No. 19, which were in charge of investigating the acts that had occurred on 26 January 2018, were notified of the incident. Court No. 19 held that it lacked jurisdiction and arranged for the proceedings to be referred to the national courts so that the investigations into the offences of robbery and homicide could be combined. National Criminal Court No. 23 accepted jurisdiction and ordered the joinder of the cases related to the acts of 26 January 2018 and the femicide case.
On 10 March 2018, National Criminal Court No. 23 issued an indictment against W.G.F. for the offence of attempted robbery. On 3 May 2018, the proceedings were referred to Criminal Trial Court No. 12, which had already set a trial date for the femicide of G.M.H. On 5 September 2018, that Court handed down a consolidated sentence for the two cases. The Court found W.G.F. guilty of the offence of homicide with two aggravating factors, because it was committed by a man against a woman, constituting gender-based violence, and because of the existence of a relationship with the victim. The Court acquitted him on the charge of robbery with force, deeming that there was “reasonable doubt” surrounding the ownership of the items that he attempted to take.
During the public trial, the authors, as the plaintiffs in the trial concerning the femicide of their mother, requested that Criminal Trial Court No. 12 launch an investigation into the failure of the officials of National Criminal Court No. 37 and National Public Prosecutor’s Office for Criminal Offences No. 11 to take action on 26 January 2018. The Court rejected the request without providing its reasoning.
On 11 October 2018, the authors filed a criminal complaint with the National Court of Appeals in Criminal Matters of Buenos Aires against the officials involved in the events of 26 January 2018. On 5 December 2018, Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 49 requested that the case be dismissed, with prejudice, in the investigation phase. On 17 December 2018, the authors were notified of that request by email. On 20 December, the authors replied to the message and said that they objected to the case being dismissed and were preparing a rebuttal. Nevertheless, on 21 December 2018, National Criminal Court No. 26 ruled in favour of the request of Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 49 and ordered the case against the officials to be dismissed, without giving the authors the opportunity to submit their rebuttal.
On 27 December 2018, the authors requested that the decision to dismiss the case be reviewed and the Prosecutor’s decision be vacated. On 1 February 2019, National Criminal Court No. 26 denied their request, ruling that the authors lacked the legal standing to appeal.4 On 8 February 2019, the authors filed a petition for review of a denied appeal. On 1 March 2019, the Fifth Chamber of the National Court of Appeals in Criminal Matters rejected the motion, finding that the decision of 1 February 2019 to deny the motion for review had been correct because the Code of Criminal Procedure does not grant victims the right to appeal an order of dismissal handed down in favour of the defendant at the investigation stage.
- Pursuant to article 80 (h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by Act No. 27.372, victims are only allowed to seek a review of a dismissal handed down in the trial phase or handed down without prejudice in the investigation phase; they are not entitled to appeal a decision to dismiss a case, with prejudice, in the investigation phase. ↩
On 21 March 2019, the authors filed a petition for cassation against the decision of 1 March 2019. On 8 April 2019, that motion was ruled inadmissible on the grounds that it did not meet the legal requirements and because the contested decision was not one of the ones eligible for an appeal through that channel pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure of Argentina. On 15 April 2019, the authors filed a petition for review of denial of cassation before the National Court of Cassation for Criminal Matters, in response to the decision of 8 April 2019. On 24 May 2019, the Fifth Chamber of the Court ruled that the complaint was admissible, finding that the authors proposed a broad interpretation of the rules that entailed granting powers to victims that had not been anticipated in those rules. On 24 September 2020, it decided to reject the complaint, reiterating that the authors should have appealed the decision to dismiss the case in the investigation phase and, in order to have done so, should have acquired the status of plaintiffs or, at minimum, alleged plaintiffs, and that the failure to have done so could not be remedied by incorrectly interpreting the rules to the detriment of the defendant.
Meanwhile, the Office of the Chief Public Defender notified the Attorney General of the complaint filed against the officials and judges involved in the events of 26 January 2018, who decided to open an administrative inquiry within the Public Prosecution Service. On 25 November 2019, the Attorney General handed down a decision in which he acknowledged that the actions taken by Public Prosecution Service and court officials on 26 January 2018 had been unsatisfactory, noting that the case had not been treated with the seriousness, understanding or importance that it deserved. Nevertheless, the decision stipulated that the proceedings should be closed without launching a formal administrative inquiry to evaluate the potential disciplinary liability of the members of the Public Prosecution Service involved.
Complaint
The authors claim that the State Party is responsible for the violation of their rights under articles 1, 2, 5, 15 and 16 of the Convention due to its failure to take action to prevent the femicide of their mother, or to punish or redress the violations she suffered that led to her femicide.
The authors contend that the State Party failed to fulfil its duty to exercise due diligence in the actions taken by the competent authorities in the civil and criminal proceedings. With respect to the criminal proceedings, they state that on 10 January 2018, G.M.H. reported her situation to the Domestic Violence Office, which referred the proceedings to the Office of the Public Prosecutor for Misdemeanours and Infractions of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires. Two days later, the Office of the Public Prosecutor ordered the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the facts described did not constitute a criminal offence. According to the authors, the decision to dismiss the case was taken without considering the context of abuse and threats or the victim’s vulnerability. G.M.H had experienced intimidation when her former partner had left a package at the door of her home, an act that she had interpreted as a threat given the prior violence. For years, he had harassed and controlled her, including by contacting individuals within her immediate circle. The authors allege that the swiftness with which the case was dismissed reflects a minimization of the facts reported and the persistence of a male-centred perspective in the application of the law, which resulted in a discriminatory outcome on the basis of gender. The failure to examine the violent context impeded the identification of possible gender-related motivations on the part of the aggressor and the provision of adequate judicial protection.
With respect to the civil proceedings, the authors note that following the complaint filed by the victim on 10 January 2018, the authorities initiated domestic violence proceedings and took protective measures in her favour, consisting of a restraining order against W.G.F. – which was not served until 26 January 2018 – and the provision of a panic button. However, at the time of the violent incident on 26 January 2018, those measures had not been implemented effectively. In particular, the hearing provided for under article 28 of Act No. 26.485 had not been held, ex officio judicial proceedings had not been initiated to verify timely notification of the measures ordered, nor had interdisciplinary reports been requested to assess the possibility of physical or psychological harm to the victim.
With respect to the incident of 26 January 2018, the authors allege that the authorities failed in their duty to take adequate protective measures in view of the risk faced by their mother and to conduct a diligent and effective investigation. They note that the police officer who helped the victim communicated multiple times with various authorities to request guidance and action. However, the authorities merely recommended the submission of a complaint for damages and said that the aggressor could not be arrested in flagrante delicto or for failure to comply with the restraining order because there was no record that he had been notified of the order.5 The authorities of National Public Prosecutor’s Office for Criminal Offences No. 11 and National Criminal Court No. 37 failed to assess the actual risk faced by G.M.H., minimized her complaint on the basis of gender stereotypes that cast doubt on women’s credibility in cases of violence, and dismissed the complaint regarding the robbery attempts, giving precedence to the aggressor’s version and classifying the incident as property damage, thereby diminishing the gravity of the case and obscuring the context of gender-based violence. Moreover, they failed to assess the need to strengthen the protective measures in place, such as by assigning permanent police protection at the victim’s residence or by implementing coercive control mechanisms against the aggressor, including electronic monitoring devices or preventive detention. With respect to the duty to investigate, the authors contend that the authorities should have immediately launched a thorough investigation, with a gender-sensitive approach, into the facts reported.
- Pursuant to articles 16 (b) and (e) of Act. No. 26.485, women who report gender-based violence have the right to a prompt response and to receive urgent judicial protection. The authors also indicate that Act. No. 27.371 presumes the existence of danger in offences committed against women that involve gender-based violence (article 8 (e)) and provides that the authorities must offer “specialized support” to victims when there is a relationship of economic or emotional dependency or of subordination with the alleged perpetrator of the offence (article 6 (b)). ↩
The authors allege that the State Party failed in its duty to exercise due diligence by neither adequately investigating nor punishing the public officials who intervened in the incident of 26 January 2018. They state that the investigation was inadequate as it did not consider the context of gender-based violence established in the civil matter, omitted relevant testimonies and focused unduly on formal aspects relating to detaining the aggressor rather than on protecting the victim. Moreover, they claim that they were not permitted to submit observations in response to the request for dismissal and that although the Attorney General’s Office acknowledged the shortcomings in the actions taken by the authorities, it dismissed the case without adopting disciplinary or corrective measures.
The authors request that the Committee order comprehensive reparation measures, including appropriate remedies and guarantees of non-repetition.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
In its observations of 14 April 2023, the State Party contends that the present communication is inadmissible under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol on the grounds that domestic remedies have not been exhausted in relation to the failure to discharge the duties of public officials. The State argues that, with respect to the criminal proceedings, on 21 December 2018, National Criminal Court No. 26 decided to dismiss the case against the officials, taking into consideration that the dismissal of the case against W.G.F. for the crime of attempted robbery by effraction rendered moot the claim regarding the non-application of the flagrante delicto procedure. Moreover, it considered that “it is not possible to establish a link between the conduct under investigation and the incident that occurred on 8 February 2018” (the femicide of G.M.H.), nor is it possible, therefore, to “put forward a hypothesis that a dereliction of duty by the judges who handed down the decisions transmitted by their clerks to the police force directly resulted in the subsequent assault suffered by the victim”.6 Lastly, the Court understands that “there is no evidence that the judicial officers accused sought to evade the duties entrusted to them”.
- Case No. 60158/2018, “Dereliction of the duties of public officials”, p. 106. ↩
The State Party argues that the authors did not pursue the legal remedies at their disposal in an adequate and effective manner. It adds that the victims should have acquired the status of plaintiffs or, at minimum, alleged plaintiffs, in order to have challenged the dismissal decision. The request for a review of the dismissal was filed by the authors in their own right, citing article 80 (h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Argentina.7 However, that article only entitles victims to challenge the dismissal of a complaint or a stay of proceedings. The State Party adds that all instances (first instance, appeals and cassation) had ruled in the same manner. Nevertheless, the authors argued that a broader interpretation should be adopted in the light of the provisions of articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights.
- Article 80 (h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that “[without] prejudice to the provisions of the preceding article, the victim of the offence shall have the right: (…) (h) To request the review of the dismissal or stay of proceedings, even if she has not participated in the proceedings as a plaintiff”. ↩
With respect to the allegations of a failure to take preventive action in connection with the victim’s complaint of 10 January 2018, which led to a restraining order and the provision of a panic button, the State Party maintains that the authors did not file any complaints against the civil authority consulted by the officer, nor did they pursue any remedy to assess whether the decision handed down was accurate and appropriate.
With regard to the allegations on the merits, the State Party recalls that, in the context of another communication (127/2018),8 a friendly settlement agreement had been signed and that the reparations sought in the present case, relating to prevention, protection and non-repetition of gender-based violence, are part of the commitments made by the State Party in that agreement. The agreement was signed on 23 October 2019 and the State Party fully discharged its obligations on 15 September 2022. The actions taken include the creation of a public registry of complaints against judges and the incorporation of gender assessments in competitive judicial exams; the preparation of the general principles of action in cases of domestic violence against women for the appropriate implementation of Act No. 26.485; training for judges and police personnel on prevention and gender stereotypes; inter-agency coordination by means of a protocol and shared access to civil and criminal case files; and the strengthening of the Gender Violence Victims’ Attorneys Corps.
- Olga del Rosario Díaz v. Argentina (CEDAW/C/86/D/127/2018). ↩
Authors’ comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
In their observations of 13 March 2025, the authors contend that the decision to dismiss the case was handed down without the examination of any relevant evidence, thereby denying them access to justice. The authors contend that the State Party has had the opportunity to examine the conduct reported and that both the internal complaint filed against the officials and the subsequent submissions constitute suitable avenues for redress.
The authors add that the duty to investigate lies with the public authorities and cannot fall to the victims, and that their complaint should have triggered a diligent, ex officio investigation aimed at clarifying the facts, determining responsibility and imposing any potential sanctions. However, the lack of due diligence was evident in the absence of a thorough investigation by the authorities and the failure to substantiate relevant evidence prior to the dismissal.
The authors allege that G.M.H. made use of the appropriate channels – civil and criminal – and that the State Party had full knowledge of the facts. Nevertheless, the State Party was not sufficiently effective in preventing her femicide.
With regard to the duty to prevent gender-based violence, the authors allege that the measures implemented in response to communication No. 127/20189 do not exempt the State Party from responding to the femicide of G.M.H. or from strengthening the measures imposed to prevent recurrence of such violence, specifically with regard to negligence in providing access to protection measures, the qualification of punishable conduct, the failure to initiate proceedings ex officio and the determination of the responsibility of the public officials.
- Ibid. ↩
Consideration of admissibility
In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee must decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol.
Pursuant to article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee requires the exhaustion of all domestic remedies, unless the application of such remedies is unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief, and recalls that the authors must use the remedies available to them under the domestic legal system that would enable them to obtain redress for the alleged violations.10
- Reyna Trujillo Reyes v. Mexico (CEDAW/C/67/D/75/2014), para. 8.3. ↩
The Committee notes the State Party’s argument that the authors did not exhaust domestic remedies in relation to their complaint concerning the failure to adequately investigate the femicide against their mother because they did not pursue the legal remedies available to them adequately and effectively. It also notes that, according to the authors, both the internal complaint filed against the officials and the successive submissions were suitable avenues for redress; moreover, they claim to have had the legal standing to request a review of the dismissal as, given the failure to hold sufficient evidentiary proceedings, the procedural act should have been interpreted as a withdrawal and not as a definitive closure of the case. However, the Committee notes that, according to information provided by the State Party and confirmed by all domestic judicial bodies, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the only way for the authors to reverse the dismissal was to file a motion as plaintiffs. The Committee notes that the authors have not explained their failure to file as plaintiffs, as required by domestic procedural rules. Accordingly, the Committee considers that, having failed to file an appeal as plaintiffs, the authors have not met the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, set forth in article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol, and declares this part of the communication inadmissible under that article.11
- Ibid., para. 8.6. ↩
Regarding the authors’ allegations concerning the failure to prevent and protect G.M.H. from the gender-based violence that resulted in her death, the Committee notes that on 12 January 2018, the Office of the Public Prosecutor rejected the complaint filed by G.M.H. on 10 January 2018. The Committee further notes that G.M.H. was killed by her former partner on 8 February 2018, less than a month after the decision to reject her complaint and before she had had the opportunity to file an appeal. Therefore, in the absence of information from the State Party on other available, effective remedies that G.M.H. could have pursued, the Committee concludes that the authors’ allegations concerning the State Party’s actions or omissions in relation to prevention and protection measures for G.M.H. are admissible under article 4 (1) of the Optional Protocol.12
- Goekce v. Austria (CEDAW/C/39/D/5/2005), para. 7.5. ↩
The Committee considers that the authors have not sufficiently substantiated their allegations based on article 2 (a) and (b), article 15 (1) and article 16 (1) of the Convention with regard to equality of men and women before the law and discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations, and declares them inadmissible for lack of substantiation under article 4.2 (c) of the Optional Protocol.
However, the Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated, for admissibility purposes, their allegations based on article 2 (c), (d), (e) and (f) and article 5 (a) of the Convention, concerning the failure to follow up on the protection measures and the lack of due diligence in the investigation into gender-based violence. Accordingly, in the absence of any other issue relating to the admissibility of the communication, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits.
Consideration of the merits
The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the authors and by the State Party, as provided for in article 7 (1) of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee takes note of the authors’ allegations that the State Party breached its duty of due diligence in the measures taken during the civil and criminal proceedings initiated following the complaint filed with the Domestic Violence Office of the Supreme Court of Argentina on 10 January 2018, which they claimed were based on stereotypes, discriminated against their mother on the basis of her gender, and resulted in her femicide.
The Committee recalls its general recommendation No. 35 (2017) on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19, according to which discrimination against women within the meaning of article 1 encompasses gender-based violence, which is defined in paragraph 6 of general recommendation No. 19 as “violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately. It includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion and other deprivations of liberty”.13 The Committee reiterates that “gender-based violence, which impairs or nullifies the enjoyment by women of human rights and fundamental freedoms”, constitutes discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.14 Such discrimination is not limited to measures taken by or on behalf of States Parties. Rather, pursuant to article 2 (e), States Parties may also be responsible for private acts, if they fail to act with due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate and punish acts of violence, and for providing compensation to victims.15
In relation to the authors’ claim that the decisions of the authorities were based on gender stereotypes, the Committee recalls that full implementation of the Convention requires States Parties not only to take steps to eliminate direct and indirect discrimination and improve the de facto position of women, but also to modify social and cultural patterns and transform gender stereotypes, which are a root cause and a consequence of discrimination against women.16 Those gender stereotypes are perpetuated through various institutions, including legal systems, and can be perpetuated by State actors at all levels and by private actors.17 The Committee underscores that the State Party has an obligation to modify or abolish discriminatory laws, norms, customs and practices, and highlights that stereotypes affect women’s right to a fair trial. Accordingly, the judiciary must avoid applying inflexible criteria on the basis of preconceived notions of what constitutes domestic or gender-based violence, as noted in its general recommendation No. 33 (2015) on women’s access to justice.18
- Belousova v. Kazakhstan (CEDAW/C/61/D/45/2012), para. 10.10. ↩
- S.T. v. Russian Federation (CEDAW/C/72/D/65/2014), para. 9.4; R.K.B. v. Turkey (CEDAW/C/51/D/28/2010), para. 8.8. ↩
- S.T. v. Russian Federation (CEDAW/C/72/D/65/2014), para. 9.5; L.R. v. Republic of Moldova (CEDAW/C/66/D/58/2013), para. 13.6. ↩
The Committee also recalls that, in accordance with its general recommendation No. 28 (2010) on the core obligations of States Parties under article 2 of the Convention, States Parties have a due diligence obligation to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish such acts of gender-based violence. Where discrimination against women also constitutes an abuse of other human rights, such as the right to life and physical integrity, for example, in cases of domestic and other forms of violence, States Parties are obliged to initiate criminal proceedings.19 The Inter-American Court determined that “States must adopt comprehensive measures to comply with due diligence in cases of violence against women. In particular, they should have an appropriate legal framework for protection that is enforced effectively, and prevention policies and practices that allow effective measures to be taken in response to complaints. The prevention strategy should also be comprehensive; in other words, it should prevent the risk factors and, at the same time, strengthen the institutions that can provide an effective response in cases of violence against women.”20
In the present case, the compliance of the State Party with its obligations under article 2 (c) and (d) and article 5 (a) of the Convention, to ensure effective legal protection of women against any act of discrimination and to eliminate gender prejudices and stereotypes, needs to be assessed in the light of the level of gender sensitivity applied in the judicial handling of the case of the authors’ mother. In that regard, the Committee notes that the Office of the Public Prosecutor rejected the complaint without considering the history of previous mistreatment and threats, minimizing the seriousness of the facts and closing the case without having taken any investigative action. Furthermore, the Office disregarded the vulnerable situation of the authors’ mother, her economic dependence and her fear owing to the fact that W.G.F. had previously been deprived of his liberty for threatening a former partner with a weapon.
The Committee notes that National Civil Court of First Instance No. 86 issued a restraining order but did not convene a hearing within the 48-hour window and did not notify the aggressor until 16 days later, during which time a new instance of violence occurred at the victim’s home. The Committee also notes that no steps were taken to follow up on the protection measures and no other possible measures were offered, and that an additional procedural burden was imposed on the victim, who had to file a new complaint for damages and request the panic button.
The Committee notes that none of these facts has been disputed by the State Party and that, read as a whole, they indicate that, by failing to provide effective legal protection to the author and by failing to address her case in a gender-sensitive manner, the national authorities allowed their reasoning to be influenced by stereotypes, minimizing the complaint and failing to treat the situation with the required urgency. The Committee therefore concludes that the State Party’s authorities failed to act in an adequate manner to protect the author from domestic violence and adequately punish the perpetrator, in violation of its obligations under the Convention.21
- S.T. v Russian Federation (CEDAW/C/72/D/65/2014), para. 9.9. ↩
In addition, the Committee notes that various measures have been adopted in the State Party to combat violence against women and gender inequality, in particular under the friendly settlement agreement concerning communication No.127/2018.22 The Committee notes that the State Party has established a comprehensive model to address domestic violence, which includes the following measures: the creation of a public registry of complaints against judges and the incorporation of gender assessments in competitive judicial exams; the drafting of the general principles of action in cases of domestic violence against women for the appropriate implementation of Act 26.485; training for judges and police personnel on prevention and gender stereotypes; and inter-agency coordination by means of a protocol and shared access to civil and criminal files. However, in order for a woman who is a victim of domestic violence to enjoy the practical realization of the principle of equality of men and women and of her human rights and fundamental freedoms, the political will expressed in the comprehensive system must be supported by State actors who adhere to the State Party’s due diligence obligations.23
In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the actions taken by the State Party’s authorities in the case of the authors’ mother, especially in terms of preventive measures, were deficient. In particular, the authorities rejected the complaint concerning threats without taking the history of intimate partner violence into account, failed to follow up on the protective measures, did not convene a timely hearing with the aggressor within 48 hours of the complaint being filed and, in addition, imposed an excessive procedural and bureaucratic burden on the victim. The Committee considers that this constituted a violation of her rights under article 2 (c), (d), (e) and (f), read in conjunction with article 1, and article 5 (a) of the Convention. The Committee recognizes that the authors suffered moral damages and prejudice as a result of the fact that their mother was subjected to severe physical and psychological gender-based violence when she was left without adequate State protection, culminating in her femicide.24
- S.T. v. Russian Federation (CEDAW/C/72/D/65/2014), para. 9.12. ↩
Acting under article 7 (3) of the Optional Protocol and in the light of the above considerations, the Committee is of the view that the State Party has failed to fulfil its obligations and has thereby violated the author’s rights under article 2 (c), (d), (e) and (f), read in conjunction with article 1, and article 5 (a) of the Convention, and taking into consideration general recommendations No. 19 and No. 35.
In the light of the above conclusions, the Committee makes the following recommendations to the State Party:
(b) General:
In accordance with article 7 (4) of the Optional Protocol, the State Party must 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 action taken in the light of the views and recommendations of the Committee. The State Party is requested to publish the Committee’s views and recommendations and disseminate them widely in order to reach all relevant sectors of society.