|
The Committee on
the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, established under article
17 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women,
Meeting on 6 August 2007,
Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 6/2005, submitted to
the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women by the
Vienna Intervention Centre against Domestic Violence and the Association for
Women's Access to Justice on behalf of Banu Akbak, G�len Khan, and Melissa
�zdemir, descendants of Fatma Yildirim (deceased), under the Optional
Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women,
Having taken into account all written information made available to it by
the authors of the communication and the State party,
Adopts the following:
Views under Article 7, Paragraph 3, of the Optional Protocol
1. The authors of the communication dated 21 July 2004 with supplementary
information dated 22 November and 10 December 2004, are the Vienna
Intervention Centre against Domestic Violence and the Association for
Women's Access to Justice, two organizations in Vienna, Austria, that
protect and support women victims of gender-based violence. They claim that
Fatma Yildirim (deceased), an Austrian national of Turkish origin and former
client of the Vienna Intervention Centre against Domestic Violence, is a
victim of a violation by the State party of articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
The Convention and its Optional Protocol entered into force for the State
party on 30 April 1982 and 22 December 2000, respectively.
The Facts as Presented by the Authors
2.1 The authors state that Fatma Yildirim married Irfan Yildirim on 24 July
2001. She had three children from her first marriage, FN1 two of whom are
adults. Her youngest daughter, Melissa, was born on 30 July 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FN1 Signed consent forms from two adult children and one minor represented
by her father have been received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2 Irfan Yildirim reportedly threatened to kill Fatma Yildirim for the
first time during an argument while the couple was on a trip to Turkey in
July 2003. On their return to Austria, they constantly argued. Fatma
Yildirim wanted to divorce Irfan Yildirim, but he would not agree and
threatened to kill her and her children should she divorce him.
2.3 On 4 August 2003, fearing for her life, Fatma Yildirim and her
five-year-old daughter, Melissa, moved in with her eldest daughter, G�len,
at 18/29-30 Haymerlegasse. On 6 August 2003, believing that Irfan Yildirim
was at work, she returned to their apartment to pick up some of her personal
belongings. Irfan Yildirim entered the apartment while she was still there.
He grabbed her wrists and held her - but she managed to escape.
Subsequently, he called her on her cell phone and threatened to kill her
again and she went to the Vienna Federal Police, District Department
Ottakring, to report Irfan Yildirim for assault and for making a criminal
dangerous threat.
2.4 On 6 August 2003 the police issued an expulsion and prohibition to
return order against Irfan Yildirim covering the apartment pursuant to
section 38a of the Security Police Act (Sichersheitspolizeigesetz) FN2 and
informed the Vienna Intervention Centre against Domestic Violence and the
Youth Welfare Office of the issuance of the order and the grounds therefore.
The police also reported to the Vienna Public Prosecutor on duty that Irfan
Yildirim had made a criminal dangerous threat against Fatma Yildirim and
requested that Irfan Yildirim be detained. The Public Prosecutor rejected
that request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN2] This act has been translated as both the Security Police Act and the
Maintenance of Law and Order Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5 On 8 August 2003, with the assistance of the Vienna Intervention Centre
against Domestic Violence, Fatma Yildirim applied on her own behalf and on
behalf of her youngest daughter, to the Vienna District Court of Hernals for
an interim injunction against Irfan Yildirim. The Vienna District Court of
Hernals informed the Vienna Federal Police, District Department Ottakring,
about the application.
2.6 That same day, Irfan Yildirim appeared at Fatma Yildirim's workplace and
harassed her. The police were called in to settle the dispute, but they did
not report the incident to the Public Prosecutor. Later on, Irfan Yildirim
threatened Fatma Yildirim's 26-year-old son, who reported the incident to
the police.
2.7 On 9 August, Irfan Yildirim threatened to kill Fatma Yildirim at her
workplace. She called the police from her cell phone. By the time that the
police arrived at Fatma Yildirim's workplace Irfan Yildirim had left - but
was ordered to return there and the police spoke to him. Fatma Yildirim
reported Irfan Yildirim to the police again after he threatened her and her
son later that night and the police responded by speaking to him on his cell
phone.
2.8 On 11 August 2003, Irfan Yildirim came to Fatma Yildirim's workplace at
7:00 pm. He stated that his life was over, that he would kill her and that
her homicide would appear in the newspaper. When she called the police,
Irfan Yildirim ran away. The police passed on the complaint to police
inspectorate 17.
2.9 On 12 August 2003, a staff member (name is given) of the Vienna
Intervention Centre against Domestic Violence informed the police at the
Vienna Federal Police, District Department Ottakring, by fax message of the
death threats made on 9 and 11 August 2003, of the harassment at Fatma
Yildirim's workplace, and of her application for an interim injunction. The
police were given Fatma Yildirim's new cell phone number so that the police
would always be able to reach her. The police were also asked to pay more
attention to her case.
2.10 On 14 August 2003, Fatma Yildirim gave a formal statement about the
threats made to her life to the police, who in turn reported to the Vienna
Public Prosecutor on duty, requesting that Irfan Yildirim be detained.
Again, this request was refused.
2.11 On 26 August 2003, Fatma Yildirim filed a petition for divorce at the
Vienna District Court of Hernals.
2.12 On 1 September 2003, the Vienna District Court of Hernals issued an
interim injunction pursuant to section 382b of the Act on the Enforcement of
Judgments (Exekutionsordnung) against Irfan Yildirim for Fatma Yildirim
valid until the end of the divorce proceedings and an interim injunction for
Melissa valid for three months. The order forbade Irfan Yildirim from
returning to the family's apartment and its immediate surroundings, from
going to Fatma Yildirim's workplace and from meeting or contacting Fatma
Yildirim or Melissa.
2.13 On 11 September 2003, at approximately 10:50 pm, Irfan Yildirim
followed Fatma Yildirim home from work and fatally stabbed her on
Roggendorfgasse, which is near the family's apartment.
2.14 Irfan Yildirim was arrested while trying to enter Bulgaria on 19
September 2003. He has been convicted of killing Fatma Yildirim and is
serving a sentence of life imprisonment.
The Complaint
3.1 The authors complain that Fatma Yildirim is a victim of a violation by
the State party of articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women because of the
failure of the State party to take all appropriate positive measures to
protect Fatma Yildirim's right to life and personal security. In particular,
the authors allege that communication between the police and Public
Prosecutor did not adequately allow the Public Prosecutor to assess the
danger posed by Irfan Yildirim and that on two occasions the Public
Prosecutor should have requested the investigating judge to order the
detention of Irfan Yildirim under section 180, paragraph 2, subparagraph 3
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung).
3.2 The authors further contend that the State party also failed to fulfil
its obligations stipulated in general recommendations Nos. 12, 19 and 21, of
the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against women, the United
Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, the
concluding comments of the Committee (June 2000) on the combined third and
fourth periodic report and the fifth periodic report of Austria, the United
Nations Resolution on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Measures to
Eliminate Violence against Women, several provisions of the outcome document
of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly, article 3 of
the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 6 and 9
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, several
provisions of other international instruments, and the Austrian
Constitution.
3.3 With regard to article 1 of the Convention, the authors contend that in
practice the criminal justice system predominantly and disproportionately
negatively affects women. They mention in particular that women are far more
affected than men by the failure of public prosecutors to request that
alleged offenders be detained. They are also disproportionately affected by
the practice of not appropriately prosecuting and punishing offenders in
domestic violence cases. Furthermore, women are disproportionately affected
by the lack of coordination of law enforcement and judicial personnel, the
failure to educate law enforcement and judicial personnel about domestic
violence and the failure to collect data and maintain statistics on domestic
violence.
3.4 With regard to article 1 together with article 2 (a), (c), (d) and (f)
and article 3 of the Convention, the authors maintain that the lack of
detention of offenders in domestic violence cases, inadequate prosecution
and lack of coordination amongst law enforcement and judicial officials and
the failure to collect data and maintain statistics of incidences of
domestic violence resulted in inequality in practice and the denial of Fatma
Yildirim's enjoyment of her human rights.
3.5 With regard to articles 1 together with 2 (e) of the Convention, the
authors state that the Austrian criminal justice personnel failed to act
with due diligence to investigate and prosecute acts of violence and protect
Fatma Yildirim's human rights to life and personal security.
3.6 With regard to article 1 together with article 5 of the Convention, the
authors claim that the murder of Fatma Yildirim is one tragic example of the
prevailing lack of seriousness with which violence against women is viewed
by the public and by the Austrian authorities. The criminal justice system,
particularly public prosecutors and judges, consider the issue a social or
domestic problem, a minor or petty offence that happens in certain social
classes. They do not apply criminal law to such violence because they do not
take the danger seriously.
3.7 The authors request the Committee to assess the extent to which there
have been violations of the victim's human rights and rights protected under
the Convention and the responsibility of the State party for not detaining
the dangerous suspect. The authors also request the Committee to recommend
that the State party offer effective protection to women victims of
violence, particularly migrant women, by clearly instructing public
prosecutors and investigating judges what they ought to do in cases of
severe violence against women.
3.8 The authors request the Committee to recommend to the State party, to
implement a "pro-arrest and detention" policy in order to effectively
provide safety for women victims of domestic violence and a
"pro-prosecution" policy that would convey to offenders and the public that
society condemns domestic violence and ensure coordination among the various
law enforcement authorities. They also request the Committee generally to
use its authority under article 5, paragraph 1 of the Optional Protocol
concerning interim measures as it did in A. T. v Hungary (communication No.
2/2003).
3.9 The authors also request the Committee to recommend to the State party
to ensure that all levels of the criminal justice system (police, public
prosecutors, judges) routinely cooperate with organizations that work to
protect and support women victims of gender-based violence and to ensure
that training programmes and education on domestic violence is compulsory.
3.10 As to the admissibility of the communication, the authors maintain that
there are no other domestic remedies that could possibly have been taken to
protect Fatma Yildirim's personal security and to prevent her homicide. Both
the expulsion and prohibition to return order and the interim injunction
proved ineffective.
3.11 In the submission of 10 December 2004 it is said that Fatma Yildirim's
youngest child (represented by her biological father) has brought a civil
action under the Act on Official [State] Liability. FN3 Under this Act the
children are able to sue the State for compensation for psychological
damages, expenses for psychotherapy in order to cope with the death of their
mother, compensation for funeral costs and child support for the youngest
child. The authors contend that this is not an effective remedy for the lack
of protection of Fatma Yildirim and the failure to prevent her homicide.
Suing for omissions and negligence does not bring her back and serves the
different purpose of providing compensation for a sustained loss and
damages. The two approaches, compensation on the one hand and protection on
the other are opposites. They differ in respect of the beneficiary (the
heirs versus the victim), what the intentions are (to compensate for loss
versus to save a life) and timing (after death rather than prior to death).
If the State party protected women effectively, there would be no need to
establish State liability. Additionally, compensation suits entail huge
costs. The authors state that they have submitted the communication in order
to call the State party to account for its omissions and negligence rather
than to obtain compensation for the heirs. Finally, suing the State party
would be unlikely to bring effective relief in accordance with article 4 of
the Optional Protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FN3
The earlier submission of 27 July 2004 states that the children are suing
the Vienna Federal Police and the Ministry of the Interior or the Vienna
Public Prosecutor and the Ministry of Justice, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.12 The authors also state that they have not submitted the communication
to any other body of the United Nations or any regional mechanism of
international settlement or investigation.
3.13 On the issue of locus standi, the authors maintain that it is justified
and appropriate for them to submit the complaint on behalf of Fatma Yildirim
- who cannot give consent because she is dead. They consider it appropriate
to represent her before the Committee because she was a client of theirs and
had a personal relationship to them and because they are special protection
and support organizations for women victims of domestic violence; one of the
two organizations is an intervention centre against domestic violence that
was reportedly established pursuant to Section 25, paragraph 3 of the
Federal Security Police Act. They are seeking justice for Fatma Yildirim and
to improve the protection of women in Austria from domestic violence so that
her death would not be in vain. This being said, the authors have obtained
the written consent of the adult children and of the father of the child who
is still a minor.
The State Party's Submission on Admissibility
4.1 By its submission of 4 May 2005, the State party confirms the facts of
the communication and adds that Irfan Yildirim was sentenced to life
imprisonment by the final judgment of the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht
f�r Strafsachen) of 14 September 2004 on charges of murder and making a
dangerous criminal threat.
4.2 Melissa �zdemir, the minor daughter of the deceased officially filed
liability claims against Austria, which were, however, rejected because the
Court considered that the measures taken by the Vienna Public Prosecutor's
Office were justifiable. The Public Prosecutor had to consider ex ante the
issue of filing a request for detention and - in addition to examining the
further requirements - had to weigh the basic right to life and physical
integrity of the person filing the complaint against the basic right to
freedom of the suspect, who had no criminal record at the time and did not
give the impression to the intervening police officers of being highly
aggressive. That this assessment later proved insufficient, despite a
comprehensive evaluation of the relevant circumstances, did not make the
Public Prosecutor's action unjustifiable. Melissa �zdemir may still assert
her claims under civil law.
4.3 The State party argues that the Federal Act for the Protection against
Violence within the Family (Bundesgesetz zum Schutz vor Gewalt in der
Familie) constitutes a highly effective system to combat domestic violence
and establishes a framework for effective cooperation among various
institutions. Police officers are able to order a potential offender to
leave (Wegweisung). A prohibition order to enter the common home (Betretungsverbot)
is issued if there are no grounds for detention under the penal code and
"less severe" means are to be used. The law provides for victim support by
intervention centres against violence within the family. Police officers are
obliged to notify such a centre when a prohibition order is issued. The
centre subsequently must support and advise the victim - but does not have
the right to represent the person concerned. These prohibition orders are
usually valid for 10 days. When the person concerned files an application
with a court for an interim injunction the prohibition order is extended to
20 days. In addition to the penal measures, there are a number of police and
civil-law measures to protect against domestic violence. The system is
supplemented by shelters. It is possible to settle disputes in less severe
cases under the Maintenance of Law and Order Act (Sichersheitspolizeigesetz).
Section 382b of the Act on the Enforcement of Judgments (Executionsordnung)
allows courts to issue injunctions against alleged offenders for a period of
three months. The period may be extended under certain circumstances at the
request of the alleged victim.
4.4 The State party also argues that special training courses are held on a
regular basis for judges and the police on domestic violence. Cooperation
between judges and the police is constantly reviewed in order to ensure more
rapid intervention by organs of the State - the aim being to prevent as far
as possible the tragedy that befell Fatma Yildirim without improper
interference into a person's family life and other basic rights. Such
tragedies do not indicate discrimination against women under the Convention.
4.5 The State party suggests that the imposition of detention constitutes
massive interference with a person's fundamental freedoms, which is why
detention may only be imposed as ultima ratio. The proportionality
assessment is a forward-looking evaluation of how dangerous the person
concerned is and whether that person will commit an offence that must be
weighed against a suspect's fundamental freedoms and rights. Moreover, Irfan
Yildirim had no criminal record, did not use a weapon and appeared quiet and
cooperative to the police officers who intervened. Fatma Yildirim had no
apparent injuries. On this basis, and taking into account that a suspect
must be presumed innocent, the Public Prosecutor finally decided in the
concrete case not to file a request to detain Irfan Yildirim because - from
an ex ante point of view - this would not have been proportionate.
4.6 The State party furthermore argues that the persons who are now
intervening on behalf of the victim would have been free to address the
Constitutional Court on grounds that no appeal was available to Fatma
Yildirim against the Public Prosecutor's failure twice to comply with the
request to issue an arrest warrant. Her surviving dependants might be free
under article 140, paragraph 1 of the Federal Constitution to challenge the
pertinent provisions of the penal code before the Constitutional Court. They
could claim to be currently and directly affected, stating that they have a
current and direct interest in the preventive effect of an annulment of the
pertinent provisions for the benefit of victims of domestic violence such as
Fatma Yildirim. This Court would be the competent one to review the relevant
legal provisions and to set them aside, if necessary.
The Author's Comments on the State Party's Observations on Admissibility
5.1 By their submission of 31 July 2005, the authors contend that the victim
and the authors have exhausted all domestic remedies, which would have been
likely to bring sufficient relief. They argue that the fact that the
daughter of the deceased may still bring a civil action should not prevent
them from submitting a communication, and has no legal effect on
admissibility.
5.2 The authors also are of the view that the idea of requiring a woman who
is under threat of death to file an application to the Constitutional Court
was not an argument put forward by the State party in good faith. The
procedure lasts for some two to three years and for this reason would be
unlikely to bring sufficient relief to a woman who has been threatened with
death.
5.3 The authors dispute the State party's interpretation of the fact that
the Public Prosecutor did not order that Irfan Yildirim be detained. He had
been aware of all the violent incidents. The Public Prosecutor would have
reacted differently had a public figure received death threats; the alleged
offender would have very likely been arrested immediately and the public
figure would have had police protection until the arrest. To the contention
of the State party that Irfan Yildirim had not given the impression to the
intervening police officers of being highly aggressive, the authors argue
that his aggression was directed towards Fatma Yildirim and not the police
and that the type of risk assessment used by the authorities was simplistic
and unprofessional. The case of Fatma Yildirim shows that even when the
victim reported all incidents and threats and is willing to authorize
prosecution of an alleged offender, the Public Prosecutor does not offer
effective protection from further violence. The Public Prosecutor had no
contact with the alleged offender and relied on oral reports from a lawyer
in the police department who had no direct experience with the case or
direct contact with the deceased. The evaluation of how dangerous Irfan
Yildirim was had not been comprehensive and important facts had not been
taken into account or taken seriously enough. Irfan Yildirim may not have
had a criminal record, but police reports had mentioned the death threats
that he had made. Hence there was no protection against an alleged offender
who had never been convicted.
Additional Comments of the State Party on Admissibility
6.1 By its submission of 21 October 2005, the State party fully maintains
its previous submission.
6.2 The State party points out that the authors state that it is not
possible to complain against those decisions made by the Public Prosecutor
against detaining alleged offenders or against prosecuting them. They
contend that the measures provided under the Federal Law on Protection
against Domestic Violence are not efficient enough to protect women really
effectively. They also mention that the Public Prosecutor may only request
that a suspect be placed in detention if the Public Prosecutor also decides
to conduct a criminal investigation and prosecute. Hence, the authors refer
to alleged failures of the competent Public Prosecutor and investigating
judge as well as to the law, itself - i.e. to the application of the law and
the legal framework.
6.3 Any individual may challenge the constitutionality of legal provisions
so long has he/she alleges direct infringement of individual rights insofar
as the law has become operative for that individual - without the delivery
of a decision or ruling by the courts (Individualantrag). There are no time
limits for filing such an application.
6.4 The aim of the procedure would be to redress an alleged violation in
law. The Constitutional Court only considers the application legitimate if
in repealing the provision at issue, the legal position of the applicant
would be changed to such an extent that the alleged negative legal
implications no longer exist. Furthermore, the legally protected interests
of the applicant must be actually affected. This must be the case both at
the time that the application is filed and when the Constitutional Court
takes its decision. Successful applicants are entitled to compensation.
6.5 Section 15 of the Constitutional Court Act (Verfassungsgerichtshofgesetz)
contains the general requirements as to form when addressing the
Constitutional Court. These requirements include: that the application must
be in writing; that the application must refer to a specific provision in
the Constitution; the applicant must set out the facts; and the application
must contain a specific request. Under section 62, paragraph 1 of the Act,
the application must state precisely which provisions should be repealed.
Moreover, the application must explain in detail why the challenged
provisions are unlawful and to what extent the law had been operative for
the applicant without the delivery of a judicial decision or ruling. Under
section 17, paragraph 2 of the Act, applications must be filed by an
authorized lawyer.
6.6 If the Constitutional Court concludes that the challenged provisions are
contrary to the Constitution, it issues a ruling setting aside these
provisions. The Federal Chancellor will then be under an obligation to
promulgate the repeal of these provisions in the Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt),
which comes into force at the end of the day of its promulgation. The
Constitutional Court may also set a maximum deadline of 18 months for the
repeal - which does not necessarily apply to the applicants, themselves. A
time limit is fixed if the legislature is to be given an opportunity to
introduce a new system that complies with the constitutional framework. In
light of its previous decisions, it can be assumed that the Constitutional
Court would make use of this possibility if the Court were to decide that a
provision should be repealed.
6.7 The State party admits that proceedings before the Constitutional Court
under article 140, paragraph 1 of the Federal Constitution do not provide an
avenue of very rapid redress. However, article 4, paragraph 1 of the
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women prescribes the exhaustion of all available
domestic remedies unless the proceedings would be unreasonably prolonged or
no effective relief could be expected.
6.8 The requirement of exhausting domestic remedies reflects a general
principle of international law and a usual element of international human
rights mechanisms. It gives the State concerned an opportunity to remedy
human rights violations first at the domestic level (subsidiarity of the
international instrument of legal protection).
6.9 In the concrete case, the individual application should state in detail
which elements or words in the legal provision should be repealed. In the
present case, it appears, that the relevant words appear to be "only upon
the Public Prosecutor's request", in section 180, paragraph 1 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung). An application to the
Constitutional Court would need to set out all legal provisions which, in
the applicants' view, are contrary to their interest in asserting their
rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
6.10 The State party maintains that the surviving relatives of Fatma
Yildirim should have made use of the possibility of filing an individual
application before the Constitutional Court before addressing the Committee,
as required by article 4, paragraph 1 of the Optional Protocol. The
proceedings before the Constitutional Court are not unreasonably prolonged.
Moreover, it cannot be said, in light of the case law of the Court, that the
surviving relatives would not be entitled to file an individual application
because - as far as can be seen - no similar cases have been brought before
the Court.
6.11 Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Optional Protocol does not only include
remedies that are always successful. Then again, the authors have not
alleged that the constitutional procedure under article 140, paragraph 1 of
the Federal Constitution is totally unsuitable as a remedy. The authors aim
to bring effective relief with respect to the effective protection of
women's life and personal security. To that end, it would have been possible
to initiate the procedure to amend the problematic legal provisions by
filing an individual application with the Constitutional Court.
6.12 Although it is true that, after her death, there is no effective relief
with respect to the protection of the life and personal security of Fatma
Yildirim, it is Austria's view that this question should not be examined at
the admissibility stage of the proceedings under the Optional Protocol. The
question is rather whether her surviving relatives would have had an
opportunity to make use of a remedy that is suited to repealing legal
provisions at the domestic level in order to realize their aims.
Issues and Proceedings before the Committee Concerning Admissibility
7.1 During its thirty-fourth session (16 January-3 February 2006), the
Committee considered the admissibility of the communication in accordance
with rules 64 and 66 of its rules of procedure. It ascertained that the
matter had not already been or was being examined under another procedure of
international investigation or settlement.
7.2 With regard to article 4, paragraph 1 of the Optional Protocol to the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(the domestic remedies rule), the Committee noted that authors must use the
remedies in the domestic legal system that were available to them and would
enable them to obtain redress for the alleged violations. The substance of
their complaints that were subsequently brought before the Committee should
first be made to an appropriate domestic body. Otherwise, the motivation
behind the provision would be lost. The domestic remedies rule was designed
so that States parties have an opportunity to remedy a violation of any of
the rights set forth under the Convention through their legal systems before
the Committee addresses the same issues. The Human Rights Committee had
recently recalled the rationale of its corresponding rule in Panayote Celal,
on behalf of his son, Angelo Celal, v. Greece (1235/2003), paragraph 6.3:
"The Committee recalls that the function of the exhaustion requirement under
article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol is to provide the State
party itself with the opportunity to remedy the violation suffered ... "
7.3 The Committee noted that in communications denouncing domestic violence,
the remedies that came to mind for purposes of admissibility related to the
obligation of a State party concerned to exercise due diligence to protect;
investigate the crime, punish the perpetrator, and provide compensation as
set out in general recommendation 19 of the Committee.
7.4 The Committee considered that the allegations made relating to the
obligation of the State party to have exercised due diligence to protect
Fatma Yildirim were at the heart of the communication and were of great
relevance to the heirs. Thus, the question as to whether domestic remedies
had been exhausted in accordance with article 4, paragraph 1 of the Optional
Protocol must be examined in relation to these allegations. The allegations
essentially related to flaws in law as well as the alleged misconduct or
negligence of the authorities in applying the measures that the law
provided. With regard to alleged flaws in law, the authors claimed that,
according to the Penal Code, Fatma Yildirim was unable to appeal against the
decisions made by the Public Prosecutor not to detain her husband for making
a criminal threat against her. The State party argued that a procedure, the
aim of which would be to redress an alleged violation in law, was set out
under article 140, paragraph 1 of the Federal Constitution and would have
been available to the deceased and remains available to her descendants. The
State party submitted that the failure of the deceased and her descendants
to use the procedure should have barred the admissibility of the
communication.
7.5 The Committee noted that the procedure under article 140 paragraph 1 of
the Federal Constitution could not be regarded as a remedy which was likely
to bring effective relief to a woman whose life was under a dangerous
criminal threat. Neither did the Committee regard this domestic remedy as
being likely to bring effective relief in the case of the deceased's
descendants in light of the abstract nature of such a constitutional remedy.
Accordingly, the Committee concluded that for purposes of admissibility with
regard to the authors' allegations about the legal framework for the
protection of women in domestic violence situations in relation to the
deceased no remedies existed which were likely to bring effective relief and
that the communication in this respect was therefore admissible. In the
absence of information on other available, effective remedies, which Fatma
Yildirim or her heirs could have pursued or still might have pursued, the
Committee concluded that the authors' allegations relating to the actions or
omissions of public officials were admissible.
7.6 The Committee noted that Melissa �zdemir, the minor daughter of the
deceased filed liability claims against Austria, which were, however,
rejected. It noted that the State party argued that claims may still be made
under civil law. In the absence of information on this or any other
available, effective remedies, which Fatma Yildirim or her heirs could have
or still might have pursued, the Committee concluded that the authors'
allegations relating to the actions or omissions of public officials were
admissible.
7.7 On 27 January 2006, the Committee declared the communication admissible.
The State Party's Request for a Review of Admissibility and Submission on
the Merits
8.1 By its submission of 12 June 2006, the State party requests the
Committee to review its decision on admissibility. The State party
reiterates that the descendants of Fatma Yildirim should avail themselves of
the procedure under article 140, paragraph 1 of the Federal Constitution,
because this is the only way within the Austrian system to assert that a
legal provision should be amended. The Constitutional Court might take a
decision that would aim to induce the legislator to enact without delay
another regulation that would conform to the Constitution. Such decisions
are always substantiated and often also contain references to the elements
that a new regulation should contain. Therefore, the State party maintains
that this remedy is quite effective to pursue the aim of the communication
at the domestic level.
8.2 The State party refers to the liability proceedings pursued by Melissa
�zdemir, the surviving minor daughter of Fatma Yildirim. It indicates that,
at the time that the State party submitted its first observations, she had
written a letter to the Austrian authorities asserting that she should be
compensated by the Federal Government, represented by the Attorney General's
Department.
8.3 The State party explains that in civil law, the Federal Government can
be held liable for damage to property or persons when that damage is
inflicted as a result of unlawful conduct. The State party specifies that
the claims of Melissa �zdemir were not recognized by the Government of
Austria because, in the circumstance of the case, the procedure followed by
the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office was considered to have been
acceptable. Melissa �zdemir subsequently filed a court action against the
Government of Austria. The decision dated 21 October 2005 of the first
instance court, the Vienna Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht f�r
Zivilrechtssachen), dismissed her action. The Vienna Court of Appeal
(Oberlandesgericht) confirmed that decision on 31 May 2006.
8.4 The State party revisits the sequence of events leading up to the murder
of Fatma Yildirim. As of July 2003, after Fatma Yildirim stated that she
intended to divorce her husband, Irfan Yildirim, he had threatened her by
phone and later at her place of work; his threats included that he would
kill her. As of August 2003, Irfan Yildirim had also threatened to murder
her son. On 4 August 2003, Fatma Yildirim moved out of the couple's
apartment. Two days later she reported her husband to the police because of
the threats. As a result, the police issued an expulsion and prohibition to
return order against Irfan Yildirim and immediately informed the Public
Prosecutor's Office thereof. The Public Prosecutor's Office decided to bring
charges against him but did not order that he be detained. Subsequently,
upon a request from Fatma Yildirim, the Hernals District Court issued an
interim injunction, prohibiting her husband from returning to the couple's
apartment and the immediate surroundings and her workplace as well as from
contacting her. Despite police interventions and court orders, Irfan
Yildirim made continuous efforts to contact Fatma Yildirim and threaten her.
The Vienna Public Prosecutor instituted charges against Irfan Yildirim for
making a criminal dangerous threat. The State party maintains that, at that
time an arrest warrant seemed disproportionately invasive since Irfan
Yildirim had no criminal record and was socially integrated. Irfan Yildirim
killed Fatma Yildirim on 11 September 2003 on her way from her workplace to
her home.
8.5 The State party further recalls that Irfan Yildirim was sentenced to
life imprisonment on charges of murder pursuant to section 75 of the Penal
Code (Strafgesetzbuch); the final judgment was rendered by the Vienna
Regional Criminal Court on 14 September 2004. He is currently serving his
sentence.
8.6 The State party notes that it is difficult to make a reliable prognosis
as to how dangerous an offender is and that it is necessary to determine
whether detention would amount to a disproportionate interference in a
person's basic rights and fundamental freedoms. The Federal Act for the
Protection against Violence within the Family aims to provide a highly
effective yet proportionate way of combating domestic violence through a
combination of criminal and civil-law measures, police activities and
support measures. Close cooperation is required between criminal and civil
courts, police organs, youth welfare institutions and institutions for the
protection of victims, including in particular intervention centres for
protection against violence within the family, as well as rapid exchange of
information between the authorities and institutions involved. In the case
of Fatma Yildirim, it is evident from the file that the Vienna Intervention
Centre against Domestic Violence was informed by fax two hours after the
expulsion and prohibition to return order against Irfan Yildirim entered
into force.
8.7 The State party points out that, aside from settling disputes, the
police issue expulsion and prohibition to return orders, which are less
severe measures than detention. Section 38a, paragraph 7 of the Security
Police Act requires the police to review compliance with expulsion and
prohibition to return orders at least once in the first three days. In the
case of Fatma Yildirim, the control took place on the evening of the same
day on which the prohibition to return was issued. According to the
instructions of the Vienna Federal Police Directorate, it is best for the
police to carry out the review through personal contact with the person at
risk in the home without prior warning at a time when it is likely that
someone will be at home. Police inspectorates in Vienna must keep a domestic
violence index file in order to be able to rapidly access reliable
information.
8.8 The State party indicates that its legislation is subject to regular
evaluation as is the electronic register of judicial proceedings. Increased
awareness has led to significant law reform and enhanced protection of
victims of domestic violence, such as the abolition of the requirement in
section 107 paragraph 4 of the Penal Code that a threatened family member
must authorise the prosecution of a perpetrator who has made a criminal
dangerous threat.
8.9 The State party maintains that the issue of domestic violence and
promising counterstrategies have regularly been discussed at meetings
between the heads of the Public Prosecutor's Offices and representatives of
the Federal Ministry of the Interior, including in connection with the case
at issue. It also maintains that considerable efforts are being made to
improve cooperation between Public Prosecutor's Offices and intervention
centres against violence within the family. The State party also refers to
efforts in the area of statistics made by the Federal Ministry of the
Interior and its subordinate bodies.
8.10 The State party indicates that the Federal Act for the Protection
against Violence within the Family and its application in practice are key
elements of the training of judges and public prosecutors. Examples of
seminars and local events on victim protection are given. Future judges are
provided each year with information on "violence within the family",
"protection of victims" and "law and the family". Programmes cover the
basics of the phenomenon of violence against women and children, including
forms, trauma, post-traumatic consequences, dynamics of violent
relationship, psychology of offenders, assessment factors of how dangerous
an offender is, institutions of support, laws and regulations and the
electronic registers. Interdisciplinary and comprehensive training has also
been carried out.
8.11 The State party recognizes the need for persons affected by domestic
violence to be informed about legal avenues and available counselling
services. The State party reports that judges provide information at
district courts free of charge once a week to anyone interested in the
existing legal protection instruments. Psychological advice is also
provided, including at the Hernals District Court. The State party also
indicates that pertinent information is offered (posters and flyers in
Arabic, German, English, French, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croat, Spanish and
Hungarian) at district courts. A toll-free Hotline for Victims has also been
installed where lawyers provide legal advice around the clock free of
charge. The State party further submits that women's homes act as shelters
where women victims of violence are offered counselling, care and assistance
in dealing with public authorities. In domestic violence cases where an
expulsion and prohibition to return order has been issued, police officers
must inform persons at risk of the possibility of obtaining an interim
injunction under section 382a of the Act on the Enforcement of Judgments. In
Vienna, the person concerned is given an information sheet (available in
English, French, Serbian, Spanish and Turkish).
8.12 The State party submits that the authors of the present communication
give abstract explanations as to why the Federal Act for the Protection
Against Violence in the Family as well as practice regarding detentions in
domestic violence cases and prosecution and punishment of offenders
allegedly violate articles 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention. The State party
considers that it is evident that its legal system provides for
comprehensive measures to combat domestic violence adequately and
efficiently.
8.13 The State party further submits that detention is ordered when there
are sufficiently substantiated fears that a suspect would carry out a threat
if he/she were not detained. It maintains that mistakes in assessing how
dangerous an offender is cannot be excluded in an individual case. The State
party asserts that, although the present case is an extremely tragic one,
the fact that detention must be weighed against an alleged perpetrator's
right to personal freedom and a fair trial cannot be overlooked. Reference
is made to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights that depriving
a person of his or her freedom is, in any event, ultima ratio and may be
imposed only if and insofar as this is not disproportionate to the purpose
of the measure. The State party also contends that, were all sources of
danger to be excluded, detention would need to be ordered in situations of
domestic violence as a preventive measure. This would reverse the burden of
proof and be in strong contradiction with the principles of the presumption
of innocence and the right to a fair hearing. Protecting women through
positive discrimination by, for example, automatically arresting, detaining,
prejudging and punishing men as soon as there is suspicion of domestic
violence, would be unacceptable and contrary to the rule of law and
fundamental rights.
8.14 The State party submits that, when charges were brought against the
husband of Fatma Yildirim, the Public Prosecutor and the investigating judge
were faced with a situation where the reported threat was not followed by
physical force. On the basis of the information available to the
investigating judge, an interim injunction appeared sufficient to protect
Fatma Yildirim. Furthermore, the State party submits that Irfan Yildirim was
socially integrated and did not have a criminal record. It asserts that
Irfan Yildirim's basic rights (such as the presumption of innocence, private
and family life, right to personal freedom) would have been directly
violated had he been detained.
8.15 The State party maintains that it would have been possible for the
author to file a complaint at any time against the Public Prosecutor for
his/her conduct pursuant to section 37 of the Public Prosecutors Act.
8.16 The State party asserts that its system of comprehensive measures FN4
aimed at combating domestic violence does not discriminate against women and
the authors' allegations to the contrary are unsubstantiated. Decisions,
which appear to be inappropriate in retrospect (when more comprehensive
information is available) - are not discriminatory eo ipso. The State party
maintains that it complies with its obligations under the Convention
concerning legislation and implementation and that there has been no
discernable discrimination within the meaning of the Convention against
Fatma Yildirim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FN4
To illustrate the effectiveness of the measures, which are applied, the
State party submits the statistics on prohibition orders to enter the common
home and other legal measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.17 In the light of the above, the State party asks the Committee to reject
the present communication as inadmissible; in eventu, to reject it for being
manifestly ill founded and, in eventu, to hold that the rights of Fatma
Yildirim under the Convention have not been violated.
Authors' Comments on the State Party's Request for a Review of Admissibility
and Submission on the Merits
9.1 By their submission of 30 November 2006, the authors argue that neither
the victim's child nor the authors intended to have statutory provisions
reviewed by the Constitutional Court - a motion that would be deemed
inadmissible. They would have lacked standing to bring such an action before
the Constitutional Court. The authors note that the main focus of the
communication is that legal provisions were not applied - not that those
provisions should be amended or repealed. Furthermore, the authors claim
that their suggestions for improvements to the existing laws and enforcement
measures could never be realized by means of a constitutional complaint.
Therefore, bringing a constitutional complaint should not be regarded as a
domestic remedy for purposes of article 4, paragraph 1 of the Optional
Protocol.
9.2 The authors point out that the State party referred to amendments of
legal provisions that entered into force years after the murder of Fatma
Yildirim.
9.3 The authors argue that the State party has not taken responsibility for
the failures of the authorities and officers. The State party remains of the
view that it would have been a disproportionate violation of Irfan
Yildirim's rights to arrest and detain him because he had no criminal record
and was socially integrated. The authors assert that the State party should
have conducted a comprehensive assessment of how dangerous Irfan Yildirim
would become and considered the numerous threats and attacks that he had
made. As to his being socially integrated, the authors note that Irfan
Yildirim was not an Austrian citizen and he would have lost his residence
permit if he were no longer married to Fatma Yildirim. Furthermore, the
State party should have considered the social and psychological
circumstances of the case.
9.4 The authors dispute the State party's contention that there was no
adequate reason to detain Irfan Yildirim. The authors submit that the risk
that he would commit the same or a similar offences would have justified
detention. This case shows that any place may become a crime scene when a
dangerous offender is involved. The authors consider that the exclusive use
of civil remedies was therefore inappropriate because they do not prevent
very dangerous violent criminals from committing or repeating offences.
9.5 The authors draw attention to the fact that a spokesperson for the
Minister of Justice said in a television interview in June 2005 that "in a
retroactive view" the Public Prosecutor assessed the case wrongly in failing
to request that Irfan Yildirim be placed in detention.
9.6 The authors draw attention to flaws in the system of protection. One
such flaw is that the police and public prosecutors are unable to
communicate with each other rapidly enough. Another such flaw is that police
files regarding domestic violence are not made available to the officers who
operate the emergency call services. The authors also complain that
systematically coordinated and/or institutionalized communication between
the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Family Court does not exist. They
also maintain that government funding remains inadequate to provide
extensive care for all victims of domestic violence.
9.7 The authors argue that it would not be reasonable to expect victims of
violence to provide in an emergency all information that may be relevant
considering their mental state. Furthermore, regarding the instant case,
German was not Fatma Yildirim's mother tongue. The authors maintain that the
authorities should gather data about dangerous violent offenders in a
systematic manner that can be retried anywhere in an emergency.
The State Party's Supplementary Observations
10.1 By its submission of 19 January 2007, the State party submits that on
21 October 2005, the Vienna Regional Civil Court dismissed the liability
claim of Melissa �zdemir (represented by her father Rasim �zdemir), minor
daughter of Fatma Yildirim. The Court found no unlawful or culpable action
on the part of the competent State organs. The Vienna Court of Appeal
confirmed the decision on 30 May 2006 and the decision thus became final.
10.2 The State party states that Fatma Yildirim would have been entitled to
bring a complaint under section 37 of the Public Prosecutor's Act
(Staatsanwaltschaftsgesetz) to either the head of the Public Prosecutor's
Office in Vienna, the Senior Public Prosecutor's Office or the Federal
Ministry of Justice, had she considered the official actions of the
responsible Public Prosecutor to have been unlawful. There are no formal
requirements and complaints may be filed in writing, by e-mail or by fax or
telephone.
10.3 The State party indicates that an interim injunction for protection
against domestic violence may be sought by persons who live or have lived
with a perpetrator in a family relationship or a family-like relationship
under section 382b of the Act on the Enforcement of Judgments, when there
have been physical attacks, threats of physical attacks or any conduct that
severely affects the mental health of the victim and when the home fulfils
the urgent accommodation needs of the applicant. The perpetrator may be
ordered to leave the home and the immediate surroundings and prohibited from
returning. If further encounters become unacceptable, the perpetrator may be
banned from specifically defined places and given orders to avoid encounters
as well as contact with the applicant so long as this does not infringe upon
important interests of the perpetrator. In cases where an interim injunction
has been issued, the public security authorities may determine that an
expulsion order (Wegweisung) is also necessary as a preventive measure.
10.4 The State party states that interim injunctions can be issued during
divorce proceedings, marriage annulment and nullification proceedings,
during proceedings to determine the division of matrimonial property or the
right to use the home. In such cases, the interim injunction is valid for
the duration of the proceedings. If no such proceedings are pending, an
interim injunction may be issued for a maximum of three months. An expulsion
and prohibition to return order expires after 10 days but is extended for
another 10 days if a request for an interim injunction is filed.
Review of Admissibility
11.1 In accordance with rule 71, paragraph 2 of its rules of procedure, the
Committee has re-examined the communication in light of all the information
made available to it by the parties, as provided for in article 7, paragraph
1, of the Optional Protocol.
11.2 As to the State party's request to review admissibility on the grounds
that Fatma Yildirim's heirs did not avail themselves of the procedure under
article 140, paragraph 1 of the Federal Constitution, the Committee notes
that the State party has not introduced new arguments that would alter the
Committee's view that, in light of its abstract nature, this domestic remedy
would not be likely to bring effective relief.
11.3 As to the State party's reference to the liability proceedings pursued
by Melissa �zdemir, the surviving minor daughter of Fatma Yildirim, the
Committee notes that both the decision of the First Instance Court of 21
October 2005 and the decision of the Appeals Court of 31 March 2006 were
taken after the authors submitted the communication to the Committee and the
communication was registered. The Committee notes that the Human Rights
Committee generally makes an assessment of whether an author has exhausted
domestic remedies at the time of its consideration of a communication in
line with other international decisionmaking bodies, save in exceptional
circumstances, the reason being that "rejecting a communication as
inadmissible when domestic remedies have been exhausted at the time of
consideration would be pointless, as the author could merely submit a new
communication relating to the same alleged violation".FN5 In this
connection, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
draws attention to rule 70 (inadmissible communications) of its rules of
procedure, which allows it to review inadmissibility decisions when the
reasons for inadmissibility no longer apply. Therefore, the Committee on the
Elimination of Discrimination against Women will not revise its
admissibility decision on this ground.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FN5
See communication No. 1085/2002, Abdelhamid Taright, Ahmed Touadi, Mohamed
Remli and Amar Yousfi v. Algeria, views adopted on 15 March 2006, para. 7.3,
and communication No. 925/2000, Kuok Koi v. Portugal, decision of
inadmissibility adopted on 22 October 2003, para. 6.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.4 As to the State party's contention that it would have been possible for
Fatma Yildirim to bring a complaint under section 37 of the Public
Prosecutor's Act, the Committee considers that this remedy - designed to
determine the lawfulness of official actions of the responsible Public
Prosecutor - cannot be regarded as a remedy which is likely to bring
effective relief to a woman whose life is under a dangerous threat, and
should thus not bar the admissibility of the communication.
11.5 The Committee will proceed to consideration of the merits of the
communication.
Consideration of the Merits
12.1.1 As to the alleged violation of the State party's obligation to
eliminate violence against women in all its forms in relation to Fatma
Yildirim in articles 2 (a) and (c) through (f), and article 3 of the
Convention, the Committee recalls its general recommendation 19 on violence
against women. This general recommendation addresses the question of whether
States parties can be held accountable for the conduct of non-State actors
in stating that " ... discrimination under the Convention is not restricted
to action by or on behalf of Governments ... " and that "[U]nder general
international law and specific human rights covenants, States 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".
12.1.2 The Committee notes that the State party has established a
comprehensive model to address domestic violence that includes legislation,
criminal and civil-law remedies, awareness raising, education and training,
shelters, counselling for victims of violence and work with perpetrators.
However, in order for the individual woman 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
that is expressed in the aforementioned comprehensive system of Austria must
be supported by State actors, who adhere to the State party's due diligence
obligations.
12.1.3 In the instant case, the Committee notes the undisputed sequence of
events leading to the fatal stabbing of Fatma Yildirim, in particular that
Irfan Yildirim made continuous efforts to contact her and threatened by
phone and in person to kill her, despite an interim injunction prohibiting
him from returning to the couple's apartment, the immediate surroundings and
her workplace as well as from contacting her, and regular police
interventions. The Committee also notes that Fatma Yildirim made positive
and determined efforts to attempt to sever ties with her spouse and save her
own life - by moving out of the apartment with her minor daughter,
establishing ongoing contact with the police, seeking an injunction and
giving her authorization for the prosecution of Irfan Yildirim.
12.1.4 The Committee considers that the facts disclose a situation that was
extremely dangerous to Fatma Yildirim of which the Austrian authorities knew
or should have known, and as such the Public Prosecutor should not have
denied the requests of the Police to arrest Irfan Yildirim and place him in
detention. The Committee notes in this connection that Irfan Yildirim had a
lot to lose should his marriage end in divorce (i.e. his residence permit in
Austria was dependent on his staying married) and that this fact had the
potential to influence how dangerous he would become.
12.1.5 The Committee considers the failure to have detained Irfan Yildirim
as having been in breach of the State party's due diligence obligation to
protect Fatma Yildirim. Although, the State party maintains that, at that
time - an arrest warrant seemed disproportionately invasive, the Committee
is of the view, as expressed in its views on another communication on
domestic violence that the perpetrator's rights cannot supersede women's
human rights to life and to physical and mental integrity. FN6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FN6See
paragraph 9.3 of the Committee's views on communication No. 2/2003, A.T. v.
Hungary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.1.6 While noting that that Irfan Yildirim was prosecuted to the full
extent of the law for killing Fatma Yildirim, the Committee still concludes
that the State party violated its obligations under article 2 (a) and (c)
through (f), and article 3 of the Convention read in conjunction with
article 1 of the Convention and general recommendation 19 of the Committee
and the corresponding rights of the deceased Fatma Yildirim to life and to
physical and mental integrity.
12.2 The Committee notes that the authors also made claims that articles 1
and 5 of the Convention were violated by the State party. The Committee has
stated in its general recommendation 19 that the definition of
discrimination in article 1 of the Convention includes gender-based
violence. It has also recognized that there are linkages between traditional
attitudes by which women are regarded as subordinate to men and domestic
violence. At the same time, the Committee is of the view that the
submissions of the authors of the communication and the State party do not
warrant further findings.
12.3 Acting under article 7, paragraph 3, of the Optional Protocol to the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,
the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women is of the
view that the facts before it reveal a violation of the rights of the
deceased Fatma Yildirim to life and to physical and mental integrity under
article 2 (a) and (c) through (f) and article 3 of the Convention read in
conjunction with article 1 and general recommendation 19 of the Committee
and makes the following recommendations to the State party:
(a) Strengthen implementation and monitoring of the Federal Act for the
Protection against Violence within the Family and related criminal law, by
acting with due diligence to prevent and respond to such violence against
women and adequately providing for sanctions for the failure to do so;
(b) Vigilantly and in a speedy manner prosecute perpetrators of domestic
violence in order to convey to offenders and the public that society
condemns domestic violence as well as ensure that criminal and civil
remedies are utilized in cases where the perpetrator in a domestic violence
situation poses a dangerous threat to the victim and also ensure that in all
action taken to protect women from violence, due consideration is given to
the safety of women, emphasizing that the perpetrator's rights cannot
supersede women's human rights to life and to physical and mental integrity;
(c) Ensure enhanced coordination among law enforcement and judicial
officers, and also ensure that all levels of the criminal justice system
(police, public prosecutors, judges) routinely cooperate with
non-governmental organizations that work to protect and support women
victims of gender-based violence;
(d) Strengthen training programmes and education on domestic violence for
judges, lawyers and law enforcement officials, including on the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, general
recommendation 19 of the Committee, and the Optional Protocol thereto.
12.4 In accordance with article 7, paragraph 4, the State party shall give
due consideration to the views of the Committee, together with its
recommendations, and shall submit to the Committee, within six months, a
written response, including any information on any action taken in the light
of the views and recommendations of the Committee. The State party is also
requested to publish the Committee's views and recommendations and to have
them translated into the German language and widely distributed in order to
reach all relevant sectors of society.
* The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of
the present communication: Ms. Ferdous Ara Begum, Ms. Magalys Arocha
Dominguez, Ms. Meriem Belmihoub-Zerdani, Ms. Saisuree Chutikul, Ms. Mary
Shanthi Dairiam, Mr. Cees Flinterman, Ms. Naela Mohamed Gabr, Ms. Fran�oise
Gaspard, Ms. Violeta Neubauer, Ms. Pramila Patten, Ms. Silvia Pimentel, Ms.
Fumiko Saiga, Ms. Heisoo Shin, Ms. Glenda P. Simms, Ms. Dubravka Simonović,
Ms. Anamah Tan, Ms. Maria Regina Tavares da Silva and Ms. Zou Xiaoqiao
|
|