31st CEDAW Session

Day of General Discussion on the
Proposed General Recommendation on Article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

July 21, 2004

A Case for Inclusion and Elaboration of State Obligations in the Context of Internal Conflict and Sectarian Violence

Madhu Mehra[1]

This is to urge the Committee to specifically mention and elaborate state obligations in protecting women from gender-based violence, its consequences and its impact in the context of mass/large-scale violence perpetrated between communities or groups of people on the grounds of religion, ethnicity, race, gender or any other status.

The Convention and its General Recommendations well recognise that contexts and identities contribute to discrimination in addition to gender. It mentions contexts and identities, such as marital status, age, maternity, prostitution, trafficking and rural contexts which intersect with gender to compound and aggravate the extent of discrimination experienced by different groups of women, because of their status or context. In this regard, the contribution of Articles 1, 4, 6, 11, 14 and 16 have been notable. The General Recommendations to CEDAW have established that contexts and identities differentiate the nature, extent and particularities of discrimination experienced between women in relation to health, education, workplace and the family. In doing so, these General Recommendations have helped delineate the measures corresponding to the specific contexts to guide state parties in fulfilling their obligations. So for instance, the clarification that maternity and pregnancy based impediments require affirmative action that is different from what is required for remedying gender stereotyping in employment.

That status and context, in addition to gender, enhances vulnerability and compounds the discrimination is clearly within the ambit of CEDAW – as demonstrated not just by the Conventions and the General Recommendations, but also through the periodic review process. The process of review itself is one of applying CEDAW to different national contexts under review and to highlight the particularities within each of those national contexts. So for instance, the Concluding Comments have investigated, unpackaged the situation of indigenous, dalit and HIV positive women, making distinct recommendations for each of these contexts.

Part I
Internal Sectarian Conflict: A Subject of State Obligation

Studies show that internal conflict has emerged as one of the biggest human rights challenges in contemporary times. Apart form the extreme forms of violence that define each episode, it results in forced displacement of thousands and consequential vulnerability to a continuous spiral of deprivations and violations. It is estimated that 20 to 25 million persons have been forcibly displaced within their own countries by conflict and human rights violations. Further, that many of them are in acute need of protection and assistance.[2] In fact, internal conflicts have replaced interstate wars as the main source of displacement.

While each of the dimensions of internal conflict, large scale brutality, flight, displacement, are independent areas of concern in international law there is a need to contextualise and recognise gender discrimination in each of these areas because the context produces a qualitatively distinct vulnerability for women. In recognition of the gravity of the problem, international law has moved from ad hoc to institutionalised responses. The move from ad hoc war crimes tribunals to the Rome Statute on International Criminal Court as well as the recent guidelines on, ‘Sexual and Gender-based Violence against Refugees, Returnees and Internally Displaced Persons’,[3] are symbolic of this trend.

Internal sectarian conflict between groups and communities, particularly on grounds of religion and ethnicity is clearly of concern to the Committee. It has recognised and responded to aspects of internal conflict in different ways. The gender-based violations and vulnerability of displacement caused by internal conflict has been recognised General Recommendation 19. At para 16, it notes that war, armed conflict, occupation lead to prostitution, trafficking and sexual assault, to emphasise the need for special protective and punitive measures by the state as part of its obligations to address gender-based discrimination in such contexts. And further, at para 24 it enumerates specific steps and measures required of state parties, such as support services, legal and other measures for effective protection against gender-based violence as well as on reporting to the Committee to enable a review of the subject. With regard to brutality, violence and other gender-based aspects of internal conflict, the Committee has intervened in the cases of Rwanda, Bosnia, Congo and Gujarat with noteworthy force and urgency, through seeking extraordinary reports on the subject or inclusion of additional information in reports overdue. In doing so, the Committee has called attention to the gendered dimension of the genocidal sectarian attacks and conflicts, and the use of women’s bodies as sites of war to inflict disgrace and defeat.

The enormity of the crisis wrecked in the wake of internal conflicts makes a strong case for developing state obligations in relation to internal conflict in CEDAW. The following grounds compel a shift from ad hoc responses to inclusion of the subject in treaty law.

A. Why gender-based violence and gender-based impact of internal conflict is a subject matter for CEDAW

i) Gender-based violence in sectarian conflict is not unique to a country or region: Women as bearers and markers of community honour have always been subject to regulation and violence – an aspect well recognised by CEDAW.[4] Social and cultural stereotyping has been the premise for extreme sexual brutality on women in sectarian conflict. As CEDAW’s interventions in conflict situations reflect, gender-based violence in such contexts spans continents and cultural contexts, and therefore is not unique to any part of the world or society. The problem is consequently better addressed through treaty obligation rather than exceptional responses.

ii) Double jeopardy for women: The gender implications of sexual violence compound the gravity of injury and attaches adverse long term consequences for women. Sexual violence to begin with is not intended to inflict just physical injury. It is designed to attack the honour and dignity of the targeted community. Women and their bodies are widely accepted as the markers of the community honour or status in many cultural and social contexts.[5] The underlying gendered notions inform the attack as much as it determines the responses of the community attacked, and the future status of the survivor within her community. It is this circular logic that endorses perpetration and retaliation against women in all conflicts, rendering them particularly vulnerable to injury not just during the attack but for a long time to follow. While sexual crimes against women aid and mobilises greater hatred and perpetuation of hatred amongst communities in conflict, it disadvantages the survivors within their own communities. Survivors of sexual crimes are not accorded the status of martyrs, hero or victims whose stories are re-told, they become part of an amorphous memory of shame and disgrace, and serve to keep hate alive. The restoration of the lives of the survivors ‘after physical recovery’ remains tenuous in the long term within their own families and communities.

This is the double jeopardy that ‘gender’ places women in – and this must inform recognition of the crime, its redress and reparation design. Only a specialised body such as the CEDAW committee, with expertise in the nature and consequences of gender values and stereotypes on women in different situations and contexts can highlight this – draw these considerations into the obligations of the state parties under the Convention.

iii) There is no appropriate remedy or recognition in domestic law, as a result of which impunity is assured for sexual violence in internal conflict. The municipal legal regime on sexual violence is designed for individual cases in ‘peace times’, where the effective functioning and impartiality of the law enforcement machinery is assumed. However, the recorded experiences of sectarian violence have shown a complete breakdown of the law enforcement machinery/the state, and worse, a partisan collusive law enforcement/state. Recent history of sexual violence in sectarian conflict has also shown that the scale and brutality of such violence is far removed from the definitional scope of offences contained in regular ‘penal provisions’ and that in fact there is a legal vacuum in municipal laws. This vacuum extends beyond definition to procedure, court process and remedies offered in municipal laws.

B. Grounds for state obligation and accountability

i) Does not contravene sovereignty: Reporting on internal conflict situations through treaty body procedures does not contravene the principle of state sovereignty. The Special Representative on Internally Displaced Persons, Francis M. Deng, has worked towards reconciling the tension between sovereignty and international intervention by developing the concept of “sovereignty as responsibility” which includes within the definition of sovereignty, the state obligation to provide life supporting protection and assistance for their citizens. It is based on the notion of sovereignty as accountability to one’s citizen’s through compliance with international human rights and humanitarian agreements, and connects this with the responsibility of the international community to enforce such compliance.[6]

ii) Periodic reporting allows early detection of the problem, stems escalation and helps redress: To best protect human rights, the Committee needs to integrate reporting on conflict situations through periodic reviews. This provides early and effective redress when the consequences of the devastation can yet be reversed. The extraordinary situations where the Committee intervened, such as those in Congo, Rwanda and Bosnia, and more recently in Gujarat, India, are examples of two different situations. One, where the state has broken down and the problem so enormous that it is beyond effective redress, and second, where the state is strong but clearly partisan, providing scope for accountability through international pressure that reinforces the institutional and civil society processes for justice. Regular reporting will help surface problems early while the state still has capacity to redress or be guided to take appropriate steps.

iii) Gross violations of women’s human rights violations not a subject for selective, ad hoc, extraordinary interventions: Guidelines expanding upon state obligation in internal conflict will make reporting on the subject mandatory. It is important to devise a framework that allows the Committee to guide a state party on gender discrimination in conflict situations through periodic reviews, while corrections can still be made, rather than continue to approach conflict situations on an ad hoc basis. Ad hoc interventions make human rights of women in extremely vulnerable situation like conflict, contingent upon either excessive brutality for it to attract international attention or exceptional civil society mobilisation. Situations of such gross violations should not be dependant entirely the extent of its ‘extra-ordinariness’, making intervention and enforcement of state obligation selective; rather, it must be holistically integrated into the framework for combating discrimination against women.

Against this backdrop it is not just opportune but very critical to elaborate state obligations in relation to gender-based violence and its consequences through the General Recommendation to Article 2 of CEDAW. Its incorporation in the General Recommendation will, as a first significant step to grant recognition to gender-based violence in internal conflict and its long term impact, as sites of widespread discrimination.

Part II
Outlining Areas of State Obligation

A. Scope of state obligation under Article 2

Equality and non-discrimination are the two main principles through which the Convention secures the human rights of women. Article 2 outlines state obligations in relation to eliminating discrimination. The 7 aspects of state obligation for eliminating discrimination against women, listed in the article are as follows:

a) Establishing a normative order upholding women’s equality – Explicit recognition of women’s equality through Constitutional and legislative incorporation, and ensure its realisation

b) Restraining Discrimination – Prohibition through law and other means, including punitive measures, the discrimination against women

c) Legal Rights and Institutional support to secure the rights – Legal protection for women’s rights through law and institutional arrangements, such as tribunals, that effectively protect against discrimination

d) State conformity – Compliance and conformity by State, through the actions of its public authorities and institutions, to the obligations flowing from the Convention

e) Conformity by non state actors - State to be duly diligent in ensuring compliance from non state actors, including individuals, organisations and enterprises

f) Obligation to Change any norm or practice that discriminates – amend, repeal existing discrimination, whether arising from laws, regulations, customs or practices

g) Remove punitive forms of discrimination – Repeal of penal provisions that discriminate against women

A holistic policy of eliminating discrimination is one that combines affirmation of equality with prohibition of discrimination, and concretised through enactment of women’s rights, establishment of institutional mechanisms that secure and protect these rights, compliance by state and non state actors, and a repeal or modification of all offending laws, particularly those that are punitive to women.

When applied to gender-based violence in internal conflict, there is silence in each of these areas in the municipal laws. There is no explicit recognition of sexual violence or gendered impact in municipal law, neither rules guiding what constitutes discrimination. The silence in municipal arena on the sectarian violence is for a variety of reasons: Mass violence has historically been cross border in nature therefore requiring no municipal regulation. The strong assumption that state is non partisan and protects its citizens, across communities and gender, makes it difficult for a state to accept the need for special guidelines; And finally, the false belief that such situations are rare, extra-ordinary or a particular to geopolitical regions and therefore best treated on an ad hoc basis. That these reasons are no longer tenable is clear from the widespread nature of sectarian violence and its astounding casualties. State obligations in relation to it need to be woven into treaty obligations to challenge impunity – that is arguably, most seriously attached to sexual violence and gender-based crimes in internal conflict.

B. Gujarat: A case study for highlighting areas of state obligations

In March 2002 the Indian state of Gujarat witnessed carnage against its Muslim minority population. The use of sexual violence as a weapon in this brutally orchestrated assault made one thing clear – that sexuality and sexual violence were used as part of the project of degrading and decimating the Muslim community.[7] The struggle to bring to justice the scores of wrongs in Gujarat made visible another truth: that there is no clear recognition of gender-based crimes in such a context and as a consequence, no enabling mechanism to allow prosecution for justice. This absence of recognition of the wrongs, more than the wrongs itself, is the real injustice – for it not only condones the injustice that has occurred but secures impunity for such crimes in the future. The impunity together with the genocidal force with which such violence destroys “not just the lives, but also the morale, the spirit and dignity of the community”[8] ensure that this weapon of sectarian war will continue to stay and may even, escalate. In view of this, we cannot afford to postpone steps that compel state parties to correct municipal law and guide state actions to reverse impunity of mass gender-based crimes in internal conflict.

The Committee deliberated on Gujarat in its July 2003 session. It may be useful to recapitulate briefly the gaps and the lessons from Gujarat for the purposes of identifying weaknesses that need to be corrected. The scale of violence, its intensity, the ideological demonisation and economic boycott of Muslim community, essentially define the carnage. And significantly, state inaction and collusion – not just in the period of violence, but to this day – 2 years after the carnage. This, despite expression of outrage by the National Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Court of India and the civil society. One of the significant reasons is the absence of established standards to guide state responses. Attempts at delivering justice for mass scale violence through contextually different standards of normal times are bound to fail.

This gap needs to be urgently corrected through efforts at the international level so that the experiences and best practices from across the world can feed into setting standards that provide substantial guidance to state parties in both, surfacing the extent and dimensions of the problem through its reporting obligations and to address the problem through law and other measures. The broad gaps identified in the case of Gujarat are discussed with a view to outlining the areas for developing guidelines for state obligation in terms of Article 2.

i) Definitional challenges: The sexual violence against women was planned – as evident from the pattern followed across different towns that were engulfed by the carnage. The description of the violence defies definitional scope of the existing penal provisions. The sexual violence across Gujarat reflected prior planning, was carried out on a large scale and was public in nature. The following elements were part of the entire sequence of sexual violence: forced nudity, mutilation, insertion of objects into genitalia, engraving religious symbols on bodies of women, mass rapes, gang rapes and burning of the body.[9] This composite crime is not presently within the scope of the provisions on sexual assault in the penal code. For one, studies on the sexual assault provisions of the penal code have shown that the definitions of these provisions are wholly inadequate even for offences between individuals during ‘peace’ times. The definition is limited and the terminology reflects a focus on protecting morality, as a result lends itself to judging the woman rather than protecting bodily integrity. Even if the existing limitations of definition are removed, the ‘peace time’ sexual crimes are fundamentally distinct from those in conflict situations. The sexual crimes perpetrated in Gujarat, and indeed contexts similar to Gujarat, are qualitatively different crimes and cannot be encompassed even within a cluster of existing penal provisions. For instance, it would be grossly unjust to prosecute for rape [as is currently being done for Gujarat cases], merely because rape was one of the elements of the compounded assault that was inflicted. Neither would the application of multiple provisions, such as criminal restraint, grevious injury, assault to outrage modesty, rape and attempt to murder [or indeed murder itself] capture the nature of crime committed. The sexual assault inflicted in conflict situations is in intent and execution, designed not merely to kill and destroy the women, but designed to inflict acute suffering, in public gaze, even before killing. The public execution and display of violence is intended to inflict hurt beyond the individual – to the community. The intention is to destroy not just lives, but also the morale, spirit and dignity of the community.[10] Sexual violence is a tool to scar the community dignity, etching the degradation in public memory to sustain the status quo between the ‘victor and the vanquished’ communities. It is a crime against humanity, genocidal in intent, and cannot be encompassed within existing penal provisions of municipal jurisdictions. Defining the special nature of crime in relation to the context is the first step towards facilitating justice at the municipal level.

ii) Legal process: A report on sexual violence in Gujarat conservatively estimates([on the basis of death toll) that about 333 women and girls were subjected to sexual assault of various kinds before being killed. Among the living far too many testimonies abound to hazard an estimate. Social workers working with women survivors, in a few areas in Gujarat have recorded 45 cases. The formally registered cases with the police are 6.[11] And more shockingly, or perhaps inevitably, of these 6, the strongest case was closed by the magistrate’s court twice – and has now been reopened under directions of the Supreme Court. The fate of the other 5 cases is not known, and it is likely that they will fail well before completion of the legal process.

The regular criminal procedure assumes that the victim and the witnesses are secure and will not be open to manipulation, intimidation and pressure in pursing legal redress. Further, the peace time procedure makes credibility of the victim contingent upon corroboration and her previous sexual history. The victim has to mobilise her own resources, both material and psychological, to prove her case against all odds. The consequence of no witness and victim protection, a very demanding legal process and gender bias is an abysmally low conviction in sexual assault cases in normal times. In many cases in Gujarat, the victims and witnesses have been pressurised to not assist the legal proceedings. Particularly in cases of sexual violence, the pressure on the victim and witnesses is not just external, but from within - the families and communities that are grappling with survival find it easiest to put a closure to women’s problems, problems that surface shame and dishonour.

In recognition of the limitations of the criminal legal procedure in relation to Gujarat, the Supreme Court has ordered for provision of security for victims and witnesses in the two landmark cases before them.[12] Justice cannot be served through such belated, selective and discretionary directions, however welcome they may be in the present context. The decision of the Supreme Court in these cases underscores the absence of appropriate legal process for Gujarat – and attributes the failure of justice delivery not just to inaction and collusion of the state, but also to the absence of procedures that facilitate justice in conflict situations. The lack of procedures appropriate for conflict situations and recognition of rights of victims and witnesses is an impediment to facilitating justice. The international standards established for similar or analogous situations, as in the ICC Statute, need to be incorporated into domestic law rather than remain in a more distant and secondary realm of international law.

iii) In transit/flight/relief camps: This section uses Gujarat to highlight some of the issues of transit and does not therefore comprehensively cover all issues of being in a relief camp/transit. A more comprehensive framework is available in the UNHCR guidelines.[13]

As the Gujarat government did not set up any relief camp or provide safe locations to survivors of the carnage and those fleeing to safety, safe spaces provided by the Muslim community itself, either in Muslim dominated areas or in towns where attacks were less probable. Many of the camps were not granted official recognition by the government, and those that were recognised, the official figures of inmates were less than the actual. This reduced the already meager rations supplied by the state. There was overcrowding, no adequate roof or floor cover, severely inadequate toilets and sanitation, and in many cases no toilets at all. Medical services for injuries were inadequate and no trauma services were available.

For women, this meant lack of private and secure space, specialised support and health services to aid recovery from physical, sexual and psychological violence. The lack of toilets and enclosed bathing facilities for women meant continuing physical exposure resulting in ongoing insecurity and indignity. In Shah Alam relief camp, one of the largest in Ahmedabad city, where some facilities were available, there was one mobile toilet with 4 chambers to serve nearly 9000 people. The severe inadequacy of toilets posed health and sanitary risks – particularly for women. The government did not ensure provision of basic needs such as sanitary towels, special provisions for pregnant and lactating women, infants, or fresh clothing. A large majority of Muslims without alternative refuges [often homes of relatives in safe places] stayed in relief camps for 5 months under these conditions. Eventually, the government ordered forcible closure of relief camps to project a return of normalcy. The closures once again displaced people without ensuring conditions for their safe return or rehabilitation.[14]

iv) Short-term and long-term consequences for women and girls:[15] The gendered impact of the violence and devastation in Gujarat affected women physically, mentally, impacted their long term life choices and economic survival. A framework addressing conflict would not be complete without covering aspects of the impact that affect women disproportionately.

The impact on physical health covers sexual, reproductive and nutritional health as well as general well being. The survivors of sexual violence received no counselling on issues relating to their sexual and reproductive health and rights. There was no attention paid to issues relating to pregnancy, abortions and sexually transmitted infections as consequences of sexual violence. In the days following the carnage there were no services that acknowledged women’s specific health needs, including provision of sanitary napkins. In the relief camps, the lack of privacy prevented women from seeking treatment for many of the gynaecological problems that they were suffering from. Many women had to give birth in the camps, assisted largely by local volunteers, without the necessary facilities, expertise or environment. Women at the camps, as well as those in curfew-bound areas, were not mobile or in a position to access specialised health services outside. There were no separate toilets or bathrooms for pregnant women or new mothers. The severe psychological and physical stresses which women had undergone resulted in physiological and reproductive problems.

Destruction of livelihoods, premature closure of the camps and the lack of employment for many violence-affected families resulted in a food crisis. Given that in many cultural contexts women eat after the rest of the family, and only the leftovers, this situation disproportionately cut back the daily diets of women as compared to men.

The mental health consequences are hard to quantify. For women who were either directly violated or whose family members were, the denial of redress and even absence of public acknowledgement of the violence has exacerbated the trauma of violation. In many cases, women have been forced into silence about rape/sexual violence because that is the price their community agreed to pay for returning to their homes, villages and neighborhoods. Some women chose silence given the shame of disclosure. Young girls were forcibly married. The silence was reinforced by a the state’s refusal to even listen or take action, let alone provide a gender sensitive support system that would encourage women to come forward. So while some married women spoke about their violation, in the case of unmarried girls the silence was absolute. The widespread ‘silence’ also reflected in gross under-reporting of cases of sexual crimes, even to social workers and volunteers.

The silence meant repression of pain by women with immense consequences for their mental health. There was no acknowledgement of the need to provide treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a known consequence of such situations, and a serious public health concern. Many women and young girls affected by severe mental stress disorders, veered between depression and anger, often unable to do even basic household tasks.

Life choices for women were disproportionately impacted. There were mass panic marriages of young and unmarried girls, permanently altering their educational and developmental opportunities. With the public space no longer seen as a safe for young women and girls, mobility became restricted. Many girls were pulled out of schools; their life choices compromised forever. More women were pressurised to wear the veil. Since they were attacked precisely because of their identity (as Muslims), the symbols and traditional gender roles associated with that identity, many of which enact themselves on women and girls in particular, were revived, with increasing conformity pressures on the women by the community.

There has been economic destitution and creation of female-headed households with the loss of breadwinners in the violence. Many women were rendered destitute or forced to eek out a living with no experience or skill in employment outside the home. Economic destitution has made them entirely dependant either on charity from community patriarchs or the goodwill of NGOs. In most cases economic destitution is coupled with the scars of violence, trauma of displacement and relocation, and the sole burden of managing children and a household.

Displaced without option of safe return, the Muslim community has built housing colonies for permanently displaced Muslims. However, these colonies are ‘illegal’ and as a consequence without any civic amenities like water, electricity or sanitation. Many families are compelled to maintain two establishments. Too scared to stay in their villages at night they live in the nearby colonies/town and return to their villages during the day to check on their property. In a situation where livelihoods have been destroyed the burden of two establishments is crippling.

v) Reparations: Prosecution against perpetrators is partial justice which does not help restore the victim back into society. Municipal laws need to incorporate the concept of reparations to wholly deliver justice for sexual violence. In Gujarat, while compensations (albeit inadequate) were announced for injuries, death and loss/destruction of property – there was silence on compensation for sexual violence. It was neither acknowledged as a specific casualty that merited compensation independently nor was it incorporated within the generic category of injury.

CEDAW’s General Recommendation 19 at para 9 holds state parties 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.” Gujarat government failed to recognise sexual violence, influenced and obstructed investigation and fair prosecution.[16] Clearly Gujarat state [and India] failed to meet the standards of due diligence under CEDAW – both in preventing the crimes and in delivering justice. However inadequate the compensation be, it would at least amount to recognition of the crimes against women. State obligations should be expanded to include reparations. It is critical towards restoring the victim to the situation she was in prior to the series of wrongs committed, towards reparation of the consequences/long-term impact of the violations, including damages for emotional harm. Reparations is a valuable principle of international law, supported by statutes and case law, that makes the state responsible for substantially addressing long term harm in mass violations.[17] The process of delivery – whether through state policy or the legal process should be contingent on the context, individual and political injury caused, and the financial capacity of the state – along with other factors that have been considered in international law and in the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. What must be underscored however, is that the reparations for sexual violence needs to address itself to bringing justice to the individual victim – taking into account the harm caused and most importantly, to focus on the future rather than be reduced to setting a price on the victim’s life.

Conclusion

Justice for gender-based crimes during internal conflict is arguably the weakest area in municipal law and therefore needs to be developed through expansion of treaty obligations. This paper foregrounds the urgency of integrating the subject through treaty obligations. Further, the paper has used the Gujarat experience to outline critical gaps in normative and processual law and policy in recognising and addressing gender-based crimes in conflict. The gaps discussed are only indicative of the vacuum in the municipal arena and are not intended to comprehensively present all areas of state obligation. Additionally, the Gujarat case study shows a correspondence between the vacuum in municipal law and the areas of state obligation delineated under Article 2. The subject is therefore clearly within the mandate of the Committee’s forthcoming General Recommendation on Article 2. The description of definitional challenges, inadequate legal procedure, transit/relief camp stage relates to state responsibility to prevent further violations, provide support services and make reparations. Each of these areas falls within the scope of Article 2. As a consequence, the General Recommendation provides an opportunity to recognise gendered aspects of conflict and provide a gender sensitive framework for justice for women. In doing so, the General Recommendation would substantially assist state parties in responding to gendered crimes, impact and consequences in internal conflict.

Notes
[1] The author is the Executive Director of Partners for Law in Development, New Delhi, India. This paper was presented at the Day of General Discussion on General Recommendation to Article 2 with the CEDAW Committee on July 21, 2004, during the 31st CEDAW session in New York.
[2] Roberta Cohen, “Some Reflections on National and International Responsibility in Situations of Internal Displacement”.
[3] Guidelines for Prevention and Response, UNHCR, May 2003.
[4] Article 5 of CEDAW.
[5] Hanna Papanek, “Ideal Woman and the Ideal Society: Control and Autonomy in the Construction of Identity” in Identity Politics and Women: Cultural Reassertions and Feminisms in International Perspective, Valentine M. Moghadam (ed.) (1993), argues how all societies and communities tend to define themselves through control over women, through examining regulations of women’s autonomy in Hitler’s Germany, Khomeni’s Iran and the United States.
[6] Francis M Deng, “Frontiers of Sovereignty in Africa”, in Deng and Lyons (eds.), Africa Reckoning: A Quest for Good Governance.
[7] The findings of the International Initiative for Justice in Gujarat, see report: “Threatened Existence: A Feminist Analysis of the Genocide in Gujarat”, (December 2003).
[8] Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T
[9] Survivors Speak: How the Gujarat massacre affected minority women. A fact finding by a women’s panel sponsored by the Citizen’s Initiative, Ahmedabad (August 2002).
[10] Akayesu case, ibid.
[11] The Citizen’s Committee for Extraordinary Report on Gujarat, “Submissions to the CEDAW Committee for Seeking Intervention on Gender-based Crimes and the Gendered Impact of the Gujarat Carnage (May 2003).
[12] The Best Bakery case and the Bilkees case are two cases have been re-opened under orders of the Supreme Court and are currently being prosecuted through innovative procedures established individually for each case.
[13] Sexual and gender-based violence against Refugees, Returnees and IDPs: Guidelines for Prevention and Response, UNHCR (2003).
[14] See footnote 10 ibid.
[15] Extracts from the report to CEDAW, See footnote 10 ibid.
[16] The Best Bakery case was transferred outside the jurisdiction of Gujarat by the Supreme Court on grounds that the state and the judiciary were partisan and incapable of conducting a fair trial.
[17] See for instance the Rome Statute on the ICC and the Velasquez Rodriguez case (IACHR, 1989).

Back to top

This page was last updated on August 4, 2004

“IWRAW Asia Pacific is an independent, non-profit, NGO in Special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.”
©IWRAW Asia Pacific
Contact Us | Site Map