|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Speech by Maud de Boer-Buquicchio
check against delivery Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, On 11 March 2002, Nahide Opuz was on the run to save her life. She was running from her husband who, for more than a decade had made her life and that of her mother, a living hell. For years, the two women from Diyarbakir, Turkey, had been threatened, beaten and attacked with a knife. They had gone to doctors, who certified that they had suffered life threatening injuries. They had gone to the police and started several court cases, but they had all been discontinued because Nahide and her mother had withdrawn their complaints. I think that there is no doubt about the circumstances which led to these withdrawals. In 2001, Nahide was stabbed seven times and her husband was prosecuted. He was sentenced to pay the equivalent of 385€ which he could pay in eight instalments. I believe it was at this point that Nahide and her mother decided the only way to save their lives was to run away. Nahide survived, but her mother did not. The van with which she had been moving daughter’s possessions was forced to stop on the road to Izmir. Her son-in-law opened the door and shot her dead. Nahide lost her mother but it was not the end of her ordeal. Her husband was tried and sentenced to life imprisonment, but he was released pending the appeal. The threats resumed. This is when Nahide applied to the European Court of Human Rights. Last week the Court ruled that the Turkish authorities have violated Article 2, 3 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, by failing to protect Nahide and her mother from domestic violence. Article 2, because it guarantees the right to life, yet Nahide’s mother was killed, in spite of repeated calls for protection and help. Article 3, because it prohibits torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, yet this is exactly what the two victims had been subjected to for years. Finally, Article 14, because it prohibits discrimination, and the Court found that the violence which they have suffered was gender-based. This is a historic judgment, and I use the word advisedly. It has the potential to make a difference for hundreds of thousands of women victims of domestic violence in Europe. But I repeat the word potential because the effect will not be automatic. It is now for the whole of the Council of Europe to make full use of the judgment and step up its work on the protection of women against domestic violence – and this applies to all our member States, not just Turkey. Statistics on violence against women are telling a dramatic story. In 2006, the Council of Europe published a study on violence against women. It shows that across all member states 12% to 15% of all women have been in a relationship of domestic abuse after the age of 16, and that more than 10% of these women have suffered sexual violence involving the use of force. The majority of such violent acts are carried out by men in the immediate social environment of the victims, most often by partners and ex-partners. The Council of Europe has recognised this gendered nature of domestic violence and has, since 1993, dealt with this issue as part of its work on equality. The need for reinforced action by the Council of Europe to prevent and combat violence against women was recognised by the Heads of State and Government at the Council of Europe Summit in Warsaw in 2005. In 2006, the Council of Europe launched a two-year Campaign to Combat Violence against Women, including Domestic Violence. This campaign was without doubt a success. The widespread support it received from key actors in local, regional and national governments as well as parliaments ensured that the messages of the Campaign reached a large and varied audience. 46 governmental focal points/high-level officials and 56 contact parliamentarians were appointed to implement the Campaign at national level. The primary result of the campaign has been the recognition that violence against women, including domestic violence, is a human rights issue – not a private matter. Secondly, the Campaign placed the issue high on the political agenda and not only on the agenda of ministries for gender equality but also ministries of justice. Thirdly, it has shown that joint public action at national and international level is necessary to combat violence against women, including domestic violence. One of the conclusions of the Campaign has been the need for an international and legally-binding instrument to prevent and eradicate violence against women. The Committee of Ministers’ Deputies therefore decided to set up a committee to draw up such text, shortly after the end of our Campaign. This Committee, called CAHVIO in Council of Europe jargon, has already held two meetings so far and has agreed on the scope of application of this Convention. In particular, it agreed that the convention should be a human rights instrument with an independent monitoring mechanism – which, I hope, will be a strong one - and that it should focus on violence against women, including domestic violence. The core of the convention should cover a wide range of forms of violence typically experienced by women, such as female genital mutilation and forced marriages; but I trust it will also address the issue of violence suffered by children who witness violence against women including domestic violence, of which we just had a telling example. As I have already said, violence against women is a violation of human rights. This is why we need legally-binding international standards spelling out states’ obligations to prevent violence against women and domestic violence, protect its victims and prosecute perpetrators – the well-known “3Ps” which are the trademark of most recent Council of Europe conventions. As it is apparent from the judgment I referred to in the beginning of my address today, the legal concept of positive obligations of states’ authorities to effectively guarantee the right to life and the prevention of ill-treatment, and to provide effective remedies to victims, is of particular importance in the context of the fight against violence against women. The excellent report prepared by our host also raises the question of intervention programmes and measures for offenders, in addition to the “3Ps”. Comprehensive intervention programmes are needed in order to deal with offenders who are considered to be violent and represent a risk to their families and in particular to women and children - and to society. These programmes contribute to avoiding recidivism, thereby representing also a form of preventive measures of the highest importance. Such intervention programmes have been developed in some of our member states in recent years with the aim of placing the violent offenders in a position to acknowledge their responsibility and to ultimately change their behaviour. It should not be forgotten that dealing with violent or dangerous offenders may be effectively carried out, not only in closed settings, but also in the community at large. Cases of violence and its causes differ enormously. Careful examination of each individual case is needed in order to design the best suited treatment and care. The interests of the family and especially of women and children should be central as collateral damage is easy to cause and difficult to cure. I fully support the report’s conclusion that the issue of intervention programmes and measures would merit further consideration by the Council of Europe with a view to developing guidelines where necessary. Let me now turn to other issues which are on the agenda of the conference, namely the rule of law and mutual legal assistance. At the Warsaw Summit, the Heads of State and Government called upon the Council of Europe to develop the principle of the rule of law together with democracy and human rights, with a view to ensuring their effective implementation by all member states. In 2008, the Swedish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers encouraged the member states to make better use of the Council of Europe’s potential in enhancing the rule of law. At this Conference, you will be invited to adopt a resolution that will provide a concrete follow-up to the Swedish initiative. The resolution calls for making better use of the existing Council of Europe bodies to review the Rule of law in our member states. The idea is not to “name and shame”, but to be able to better target co-operation activities and the development of standards. We want to achieve concrete results in the member states, for the benefit of everybody. Such action will be crucial for judicial co-operation in Europe, which relies increasingly on mutual recognition of judicial decisions and direct co-operation between judicial and administrative authorities. A prerequisite for such co-operation is trust in each others’ judicial systems. We need to provide a more concrete follow-up to the excellent work of the CEPEJ in evaluating judicial systems. I know that these concerns are particularly important for our partners in the European Union as well. We would therefore invite the European Union to join forces with us to strengthen and promote the Rule of Law all over Europe. It is important not only to avoid duplication of our work but also to ensure consistency in the findings and reinforce credibility of the evaluation process. Finally, this Conference is an opportunity to recall that the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters was opened for signature 50 years ago. Since 16 June this year this convention has been in force for all 47 member states of the Council of Europe and in Israel. The Committee of Ministers has also invited the Republic of Korea, at its request, to accede to the Convention, which proves the continuing worldwide interest in this Convention. In conclusion, I should like to return to Nahide. Today, she is divorced and trying to rebuild her life for her and her children. The European Court of Human Rights granted her 36 500 euros for non-pecuniary damages and legal costs. But this will not compensate for the suffering she has endured and it will not bring back her mother. After serving six years, her husband is free today and Nahide has good reasons to fear that the threats will resume. The only way to bring some sort of change is to use this judgment to change laws, administrative procedures and attitudes to help and to protect Nahide and all other women suffering from violence. This is not only a problem in Turkey but in every single country in Europe and in the world. The work is cut out for national authorities in all these countries, but also for the Council of Europe which has been working for years to help its member states in their fight against violence against women, including domestic violence. The pinnacle of this effort is the Convention which will introduce legally binding standards in this regard. Its purpose is not so much to sanction the violation of human rights once they have occurred but to prevent such violations from taking place at all. We cannot satisfy ourselves to make life easier for the victims, we must make sure that women do not become victims. This is what the Council of Europe can do to help to achieve on the basis of the last week ruling. And this is what we will do. Thank you very much for your attention. |
Print 
Send 