The legal and the political...

When the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, establishing that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" and "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status...," the international community didn't imagine that 40 years later women would demand, in their condition as human beings, the eradication of all forms gender-based violence against them- including violence against women occurring in the so called 'domestic' or private sphere.

Despite the strides made since then there still remains a lot to be accomplished before the right to a life without violence becomes the reality for women around the world. On Saturday, February 14, 2004, V-Day and Amnesty International organized a march to commemorate the hundreds of young women who were murdered with impunity in the last decade in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua, Mexico. In spite of constant pressures and denunciations from the victims' families as well as local, national and international nongovernmental organizations to resolve these crimes, Mexican authorities still have not initiated the appropriate actions to investigate them.

Even after the visit of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights' Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women to Ciudad Juarez and her report on the situation of women in this region, the authorities still insist on treating these crimes in an isolated fashion, denying the existence of common characteristics in the disappearances and murders of hundreds of women based on their gender, ethnic, age and socio-economic condition.

The cases in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua are just one painful example of what happens to women on a daily basis in every region of the world. They serve as a testimony of the existing gap between the human rights discourse and its imperfect implementation. In a world where the human rights framework did in reality translate into justice and equality for women, impunity would not be a constant axis cutting across the different forms of violence against women.

From past experience we know that we cannot depend on a singular strategy such as the legal system or the human rights framework to end one of the most extreme manifestations of power inequality between women and men. We need to be ready to move on to other strategies. This does not mean abandoning the rights discourse nor its framework altogether, but rather critically analyzing the mechanisms which after all have arisen from a context of patriarchal domination. Similarly, we need to consider the impact of the more recent phenomenon of neoliberalism and how this factors in the application of the human rights framework.

We are now in a situation where the universality of human rights is being confronted and challenged by the market logic. States and governments that should be first and foremost guaranteeing human rights are instead responding to other external political and economic interests framed in the discourse of neoliberalism which often tends to be antithetical to the concerns and needs of women. Militarization politics, repression, impunity and other forms of human rights violations are mechanisms of social disintegration and political intimidation, the purpose of which is to concentrate social, political and economic power of the corporate elite.

Just as men use violence against women to retain their gender privileges and States exert military violence to affirm their hegemonic place in the world, corporations use economic violence to maintain and accumulate their powers. In other words, the values and attitudes behind violence in the private sphere are the same that can lead to armed conflict or to people's impoverishment.

Conceptualizing the human rights framework as a paradigm that will solve everything as opposed to one indicator of how these mechanisms operate, only serves to divert our efforts to finding more radical solutions. This is because legal advances can only influence social change if they are accompanied by, among other things, the strengthening of Feminist Social Welfare States and the building of a movement that positions itself as one more political actor, with the capacity to negotiate and make agreements with itself and with other legitimate actors.

It is important to re-evaluate the human rights framework to determine how far it has helped advance the struggle against gender based violence, its strengths and limitations in making a contribution to positive change, and determine where the women's movements can focus their efforts in the future. This is more urgent than ever in the present context where the market logic of the capitalist patriarchy underlying neoliberal globalization is undermining and imposing limitations on the institutions responsible for guaranteeing human rights.

Violence advances, and so do human rights...

The three World Conferences on Women's rights held in Mexico City (1975), Copenhagen (1980) and Nairobi (1985), their parallel NGO forums, the Conferences in the 90s and the organizing that took place for these events are all key in understanding the conformation of the international women's movement, the dimensions of its political agency and the legal and political advances that women around the world now enjoy. The issue of violence against women was the entry point which allowed the women's movement to become familiar with and start using the United Nations system, as well as to expand and reconceptualize human rights theory and practice.

The governments' responsibility for the eradication of violence against women was already recognized in the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women. But perhaps the most significant advancement for the protection of women's human rights was the adoption, in November 1979, of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The first international human rights treaty based on women's experiences and needs, CEDAW deals specifically with women's rights. CEDAW defines the concept of discrimination against women in a broad manner and prohibits discrimination regardless of the perpetrator- individuals, organizations or enterprises.

Although the Convention failed to include the right to be free from violence, in 1992 the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women issued its General Recommendation No. 19 requesting States to include in their progress reports information on violence against women and on measures introduced to deal with it. The Recommendation affirms that States which are parties to the Convention should take appropriate and effective measures to overcome all forms of gender-based violence, whether by public or private act.

Other treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights, and specifically the opinion issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Velasquez Rodriguez case, establish a framework for the responsibility of States in affirmative duties to protect citizens against violations committed by State or private agents. A State can therefore be held accountable for not implementing appropriate measures to prevent such violations or not responding according to the treaty requirements.

In 1993, the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights recognized that the human rights of women and of the girl-child are an inalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal human rights, and moreover that violence against women is a violation of the fundamental principles of international human rights and humanitarian law. The Conference called for the incorporation of a gender perspective in both the human rights mechanisms and at the international, regional and national levels in order to eliminate violence against women.

In December 1993, the UN General Assembly approved the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women. This instrument expresses the political consensus concerning the States' obligations to prevent gender-based violence and redress the wrongs caused to those women who are subjected to it. Although it didn't clarify the content of the category of violence against women nor did it define the range of the States' obligations, the definition of violence at least specifies the contexts where it may occur. The Declaration also reinforces the commitments contained in the Vienna Declaration by not allowing States to justify human rights violations under the pretext of cultural, religious or historical circumstances.

In 1994, the UN Human Rights Commission adopted a resolution to mainstream gender at all levels of human rights and to implement programmatic activities at the international, regional and national levels. In the same year, the Commission designated Radhika Coomaraswamy as the first Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and its Causes and Consequences. Her mandate allows her to receive complaints and initiate investigations on violence against women in all countries parties to the United Nations.

Also in 1994 the Organization of American States (OAS) approved the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women ("Convention of Belém do Pará"). According to this convention, the Inter-American Commission of Women (ICW) is responsible for adopting positive measures to advance the Convention's implementation. In addition, any person or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member States of the OAS, may lodge petitions with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) containing denunciations or complaints about violence against women. One such case considered by the IACHR in April 2001 was that of Maria da Penha Maia Fernandes, in which the State of Brazil was held accountable for its tolerance and omission with respect to violence against women. The IACHR declared that "...tolerance by the State organs is not limited to this case; rather, it is a pattern. The condoning of this situation by the entire system only serves to perpetuate the psychological, social and historical roots and factors that sustain and encourage violence against women" (par. 55) and that "...society sees no evidence of willingness by the State, as the representative of the society, to take effective action to sanction such acts" (par. 56). ¹

In 1994, the IACHR established its Special Rapporteurship on the Rights of Women. The mandate of this rapporteus is to analyze and report on the extent to which the law and practices of member States affect the rights of women and comply with the broad obligations of equality and nondiscrimination set forth in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the American Convention on Human Rights.

The Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 1994) recognized that reproductive rights are human rights, and that gender-based violence is an obstacle to women's health, to their education and participation in development. It also called States to implement the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women and CEDAW.

Although rape had been cited explicitly by the UN Human Rights Commission as a form of torture since 1992, it wasn't until 1995 that the IACHR, dedicated a section in its "Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti" to the issue of sexual violence perpetrated against women under an illegal regime. For the first time it declared that rape "represents not only inhumane treatment that infringes upon physical and moral integrity under Article 5 of the [American] Convention [on Human Rights], but also a form of torture in the sense of Article 5(2) of that instrument."

The Declaration and Platform for Action of the Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing, 1995) dedicated a whole section to the issue of violence against women, recognizing that its eradication is essential for equality, development and world peace. The Platform also explicitly recognized that "the human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence" (par. 96).

In 1996, the UN Commission on the Status of Women considered the proposal to create an Optional Protocol to CEDAW, a mechanism which was approved in 1999 and entered into force in 2000. The Protocol contains two communication and investigation procedures which allow women to challenge a State's discriminatory policies and practices.

Also in 1996, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia issued its first accusation judging rape and other types of sexual violence as war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture and slavery. Likewise, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda judged rape as genocide. Previously, rape in the context of war was seen as natural and inevitable, and legally it was regarded as a moral offense, not the grave crime it is now considered.

In 1998, during the 42nd Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, a resolution was approved to demand that governments modify definitions and legal patterns in order to ensure that these include the defense of all women and girls affected by armed conflicts. In particular, the resolution explicitly stated that systematic rape and sexual slavery in the context of armed conflict constituted war crimes. Governments were further called on to formulate multidisciplinary national plans, programs and coordinated strategies aimed at eradicating all forms of violence against women and girls. Moreover they were required to define objectives and compliance timelines for implementation and other procedures to reinforce the law at the local level.

Also in 1998, the creation of the International Criminal Court was agreed upon and the ICC entered into force in 2001. For the first time ever, the Rome Statute of the ICC codified at the international level that rape constitutes a war crime or a crime against humanity and not merely a crime against personal dignity. Forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution and any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity were also included under crimes against humanity (Article 7). The Statute contemplates "a fair representation of female and male judges"; investigation and prosecution of gender-based crimes against women; the victims' rights to protection and to participate in some stages of the process, and their right to redress, compensation and rehabilitation; the establishment of experts on sexual violence within the Office of the Prosecutor as well as a Victims and Witnesses Unit within the Registry, with gender-sensitive specialists responsible for their protection. The Statute's implementation in the internal penal legislations of each signatory country is of utmost importance, since it contains very progressive substantive and procedural gender norms.

Despite the other difficulties of the Beijing +5 conference, it is fair to mention that for the first time honor crimes were included prominently in the discourse; language was strengthened concerning dowry-related deaths and violence; governments were called on to introduce legislation on marital rape, and racially-motivated crimes as well as acid attacks were included as forms of violence. Finally, governments were required to launch a campaign of zero tolerance towards violence against women.

Feminists from all regions of the world have taken on the task of translating the international advances, frequently of documents which are not legally binding, into legal norms and governmental policies. In Latin America and the Caribbean, for example, 15 countries have passed laws against domestic violence in the last decade. However, most of these laws do not have a more progressive gender-specific language (with the exception of the Dominican Republic), but rather include all family members as potential victims of domestic violence.

The first example of this type of law against domestic violence took place in Puerto Rico in 1989, when the first legal instrument was passed, called Law No. 54 for the Prevention of and Intervention against Domestic Violence. This legislation was a landmark for the classification and sanction of the crimes of mistreatment through threats, restriction of freedom and marital sexual assault, as well as for the establishment of protective orders for victims of domestic violence.

Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay have introduced the concept of sexual harassment in their legislations, whether through the Labor Code or in laws that deal specifically with sexual harassment. And even though the private nature of these acts makes it difficult to prove them in court, the law recognized and transformed, under its framework, an everyday experience of abuse which previously had been considered merely an "office romance", "domestic affair" or similarly disparaged.

The creation of women's institutes, ministries, departments and advocacy offices are other advances resulting from the organizing of an international movement against gender-based violence.

The extralegal, strictu sensu actions which have taken place since the 90s are countless. The International Criminal Tribunals, the tribunals challenging sexual slavery by the military and the processes held in Vienna and Beijing to document and make visible women's human rights violations all help to sensitize public opinion to gender-based violence. Furthermore, they help in establishing the responsibilities of the States, international bodies and civil society. Also contributing to this are the various denunciation and visualization campaigns; the creation of networks and NGOs specialized in prevention, care and visualization of violence at the international and regional levels; tripartite commissions; emergency hotlines; investigations and diagnoses; the elaboration of indicators and the series of policies formulated in several countries stemming from governments' commitments-all of these demonstrate the sizable work and organizing of a movement whose political agency has translated into multiple advancements in several spheres and in the appropriation of a framework which could be the base for a true human rights culture.

Strengths and limitations of the human rights framework

Feminists know that the Law, one of the main institutions of the patriarchy, does not operate in a neutral, ahistorical fashion, or independently from the underlying power relations in society. If we look at the advances achieved so far, in general terms it could be said that these have served to make visible women's experiences, concerns and needs, and sometimes to reveal their unequal position within the different structures of oppression.

The ways in which international law is used to encourage changes in a country's policies and legislations are a determining factor in evaluating the effectiveness and limitations of the human rights framework.

1) The first strength of the human rights framework is that is legitimizes and officially recognizes the experiences of violence suffered by women. This helps to transforms the experience from mere "individual" and "isolated" problem to a human rights violation which governments have the obligation to respond to. Governments must abstain from perpetrating such violations, sanction them and report to the various Committees. One limitation of the framework is that the implementation of human rights ultimately depends on the will of the State, which is responsible for facilitating its exercise.

Feminicides in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua

The cases of Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua are one example of this assertion. According to Lydia Alpízar, the "Stop Impunity" campaign used the human rights framework to pressure government authorities, raise public awareness, mobilize support, underscore the responsibility of the Mexican government and show that the State's inaction is a demonstration of sexism and discrimination. At the same time, the limitation of the framework was revealed, given the lack of political will and due diligence from the State to prevent, investigate and sanction the crimes committed.

Amnesty International's report, "Intolerable Killings: Ten years of Abductions and Murders in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua" (AMR 41/026/2003), deals with the Mexican authorities' failure to take action to investigate the feminicides that have occurred. It exposes the failure of the authorities to treat the cases within a given pattern, denying family members a proper response and an effective judicial remedy. Through concrete cases, the report provides an analysis of the State's lack of will and its blatant indifference, negligence, unjustifiable delays and inability to prevent, investigate and sanction the murders. It also exposes the obligations acquired by the State of Mexico through international human rights standards, and provides a series of conclusions and recommendations which, according to Amnesty International, need to be fully and effectively carried out.

Violence against women, as demonstrated by these cases, not only constitutes a form of discrimination; it also violates the rights to life, to physical integrity, liberty, security and judicial protection enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), among others. These international standards reaffirm the State's obligation to discover the truth and provide justice and redress to the victims, even when their rights have been violated by private parties.

Furthermore, under the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women ("Convention of Belém do Pará"), the State participates in responsibility at the international level when it fails to apply due diligence to prevent, investigate and impose penalties for violence against women perpetrated by private actors.

According to the report by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights' Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women, the vast majority of the murders in Ciudad Juarez are still unpunished; only in approximately 20 per cent of these cases have there been prosecutions and sentences. On the other hand, almost at the same time the number of murders began to increase, some of the officials in charge of investigating them and of prosecuting the perpetrators started using a discourse which definitely blamed the victims for the crimes. According to public statements from certain high-level authorities, the victims wore miniskirts, went out dancing, were "loose" or prostitutes. There have been reports that the response from the competent authorities to members of the victims' families ranged from indifference to hostility.

Moreover, while the murders committed in Ciudad Juarez increasingly attract international attention and have been condemned by many in that city and in all of Mexico (including the President and First Lady, the Congressional Gender and Equity Commissions, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Special Rapporteurs on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions and on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, the Executive Director of the United Nations Fund for Women) but this political condemnation has not been sufficient to revert impunity.

Moreover, with the neoliberal model which is leading societies towards the reduction of their social safety nets, there emerges an institutional pattern, promoted by different types of States, for the discriminatory treatment of women. This pattern means that not even the more well-to-do States are guaranteeing women's rights. And although the problem goes beyond political will -given the complexity of the interrelation of religious, State and corporate powers-, this leads one to wonder which institutions feminism should support or help build so that the protection of women's human rights are not left at the mercy of political, economic or religious will or of a sexist administration of justice. How do we ensure that these become part of a mechanism that at the same time operates with the participation of the various social groups. This question is open for debate.

2) The second strength of the human rights framework has been to apply the principle of indivisibility of human rights in order to break the existing hierarchy between civil and political rights and economic, social, and cultural rights. This is significant because to ensure women's right to be free from violence requires that the State guarantee the eradication of social and economic conditions which maintain and perpetuate women's subordination.

However, in reality civil and political rights continue to receive more importance than economic, social and cultural rights within international law and in governmental budgets. This continues despite the fact that governments are obliged to allocate resources to ensure all the above rights. Moreover, many countries, for example those in Latin America, have compromised their ability to secure economic, social and cultural rights of their population by signing on to a series of free market agreements with the United States. The fatal effects of this free trade model have already been witnessed in Mexico, with signing on to NAFTA a decade ago.

It is important to discuss how a holistic and inclusive development model would function in practice under the feminist principles of equality, empowerment, sustainability, solidarity, cooperation and productivity. And what the role of the State and of civil society would be vis-à-vis the human rights framework.

Still, a differentiation must be made between the use of the framework by women, which has had very positive results as illustrated below, and the actions by the State to guarantee rights to its citizens, something that opens a whole new issue for analysis.

For example, based on her work with refugee women, June Munala explains that people are generally aware of their rights and basic needs. This is the reason why it is easy to speak about female genital mutilation (FGM) in the context of the human rights of women and girls, since this issue is closely linked to women's social and economic disempowerment. In her opinion, the principle of indivisibility of human rights is a starting point to tackle the numerous factors behind this practice. In order for communities to see FGM as a human rights violation, she redefines it as a multiple violation- to the right to health, to nondiscrimination, to life, to be free from torture, to freedom, personal security and privacy.

Moreover, Carrie Cuthbert and other authors who have worked on domestic violence explain how the human rights framework has helped them demonstrate the links between violations; for example, the economic problems facing mothers after a divorce and the multiple forms of discrimination that battered women experience. They have used the human rights principles and standards in the courts in order to connect the economic difficulties related with the high cost of litigation in family courts, the problems of obtaining child support and other issues dealing concretely with children's economic rights.

3) The third strength of the human rights framework has been to challenge, particularly in light of violence against women, the false public/private dichotomy of international law. This has implications at the level of State responsibility, and beyond this should lead us to analyze structural inequality and dichotomic thought. This questioning also demystifies violence as something natural and converts it into a political phenomenon.

However, the limitation is that, in practice, the public/private dichotomy still gives more value to public actions and therefore responds more actively to forms of State violence and to the repression of actors within the public/political sphere. This is why violence against women by private actors is not as present in human rights caselaw and doctrine. It is also the reason why national justice systems frequently don't grant it the seriousness and importance such crimes warrant.

The standard of due diligence to prevent and respond to violence perpetrated by non-State actors was clearly illustrated in the cases of Velasquez Rodriguez and Maria da Penha Maia Fernandes cited above. Using the first case, feminist activists have established parallels between domestic violence and torture to introduce certain grave forms of violence against women in the definition of torture when the State has failed to exercise due diligence. Hence the importance that the women's rights advocates keep insisting, particularly at the local level, that international standards be implemented by national justice systems.

4) The fourth strength of the human rights framework has been to help challenge the traditional concept of human rights and "humanity" to such degree that today we could assert that there can't be human rights without women's rights. The framework's limitation is that sexism, racism, classism and homophobia are still present in human rights interpretation and practice. Those who choose to use the framework should bear in mind that it has failed to incorporate the diverse experiences of gays, lesbians, transgender people, indigenous people, afro-descendants and other groups who are yet to be treated as 'human beings' and on whom the framework's impact is therefore unequal. As long as the human concept fails to integrate all differences in practice, its meaning will continue to be partial and, consequently, the exercise of the rights of numerous people will be limited by subhuman categories.

Human stereotypes are currently exacerbated especially by the media, which reinforces the hierarchy of the human paradigm. We still face the challenge of creating a culture based on the ethics of human rights, the axis of which should be an inclusive humanity. We need to continue making inroads in the traditional mass media in a creative way and at the same time resist the temptation of overusing legal strategies.

The successful dimensions of the human rights framework have generated, within the movement, a strong tendency to legalize women's problems. When it comes to strategies, usually the proposal is to formulate a new national legislation or invest human and economic resources in lobbying for an international document. Often the legislation passed ends up not being legally binding and does not improve women's condition of subordination.

Frequently new laws or litigation on rights under the patriarchy will not change the hierarchical social structure or the structural oppression, since both are systematically reproduced by the major economic, political and cultural institutions. One strong critique within the women's movements is that many activists stopped setting their own independent agendas and were absorbed by the priorities of the UN system or by the work around the human rights framework. This has served to omit analysis and debate about multiple oppressions and domination structures.

This is why the question still is: How can we fight against the different social, political and economic structures of oppression, retain those rights already achieved and use the human rights discourse to help generate social change?

I think we must use the new technologies available to open debates on new paradigms, visions and ethics which will help us build a feminist proposal of what is necessary and possible.

5) Another strength and collateral effect of the use of the human rights framework has been the opening of political spaces within the legal framework. This has been done in order to define, for instance, concepts such as women's sexual and reproductive health free from coercion and violence, or to be able to speak about discriminations against the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people as human rights violations.

Before feminists took on the theory and practice of human rights, violations to these rights had no dimensions of gender, class, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, culture, economic status etc. In other words, the multiple oppressions and violations which combine in individuals due to their diverse conditions were not made visible. Today this is done by feminism, but not by governments.

Perhaps the principle of universality from an approach of diversity, which to this day is not understood nor applied by governments or human rights officials, should be analyzed in connection with the neoliberal mechanism which excludes individuals, groups and social categories. This is particularly necessary since the so-called principle of universality is being reduced to serve elites and therefore threatening to turn rights into one more monopoly of those who concentrate the goods, powers and resources of the world.

Numerous governments still offer up cultural relativism as the only source of moral validity before the principle of universality. Despite the existence of principles and standards and the moral and political legitimacy of international law, women are still victims of multiple violations which prevent them, in the name of culture, traditional customs or religious extremisms, from enjoying their full human rights and liberties.

One interesting position is that of activists such as Ayesha Imam from Nigeria, who states that the human rights concept does not exclude international law nor is it the property of international human rights organizations. According to her, human rights can also be found in Muslim, customary and secular laws. Therefore, she doesn't deem it necessary to always refer to international instruments when speaking of human rights, because she can find them in religious or secular discourses. However, it seems that when there's little space for the universal validity of human rights standards, this may have profound consequences for women's rights. This is because many cultures or religious practices reduce women's social, economic and political status, thus perpetuating their subordination.

Uché U. Ewelukwa, in response to progressive interpretations feminists have made of Sharia law in Nigeria (for example, in Amina Lawal's case), thinks that these should recognize that Sharia legislation violates constitutional standards and international human rights principles. She believes that the human rights framework is an instrument which may be used by local groups because it provides a legal base and moral legitimacy to press governments that have publicly acquired commitments before the international community. Moreover, unlike the Sharia framework, that of human rights allows for transcultural, transnational and transreligious moral judgments in situations where life is being seriously threatened. The characteristics which Uché attributes to the framework could serve as a guide to nurture the human rights culture respecting differences among countries, social groups and people.

6) The human rights framework has also been strengthened by the incorporation of new language in UN documents. This includes the diverse forms of gender-based violence against women and many other terms so far unknown or not translated to other languages, providing a feminist vocabulary which is more inclusive in terms of the rights discourse.

The gender perspective, for instance, is a key concept which has permeated the UN system's documents. There is, however, a reductionist trend concerning the scope of this perspective, as well as numerous distortions. The feminist philosophical and political-theoretical content of a gender perspective, according to Marcela Lagarde, has been distorted by technical uses and, frequently due to institutional obligation, women and men become familiar with it in a superficial and diminished way.

Some human rights bodies within the UN system, which haven't mainstreamed gender, have attempted to pass on their responsibilities to other institutions specializing in women's rights because they consider that these are less important and, after all, women have "particular" rights. Those "specialized" institutions also have fewer resources than others. The same logic may be applied to governments that place "women's issues" in the hands of ministries created to this effect which are equally lacking in budget.

Conclusions

One could write an entire book about the effects the human rights framework has had on the women's movement. It has facilitated opportunities for working jointly to promote common political actions, learning to resolve differences, agreeing upon common objectives, educating governments and the general public, mobilizing and lobbying, using the new technologies to maintain the networks created, documenting cases, going from invisibility to the social problematization of violence and instigating the demand for concrete accountability mechanisms- to name a few- all of which are part of the feminist movement's political capital.

The issue of violence against women is still characterized by two important aspects: the theme of impunity and the implementation of human rights mechanisms. The latter should ultimately be part of a new vision that incorporates, along with the human rights framework, the connections to the issues and to the institutions working for peace, economic justice and security.

The status of women of all regions and the diverse violations to their human rights, which were previously hidden and silenced, have all surfaced, linking local movements to a global women's movement that continues to grow. It is time to close the cycle of victimization and violence, and open one of empowerment. We need to encourage women to recognize themselves as subjects with rights, who have the capacity to confront a justice system which is highly sexist, racist, classist and homophobic.

The experience of the movement for women's rights demonstrates not only its community possibilities but also the limitations of a political strategy focused on those rights. The demands for rights are not the answer to social change; at the same time the human rights framework cannot be abandoned, since it is one more instrument in the fight against patriarchy if used creatively. It is through the human rights framework that women can articulate new and different social and political worlds. This is possible if we analyze and use rights in connection with other social, political, economic and cultural relations that occur in our societies and as long as we know how to identify the conditions that allow us to multiply the strengths of the human rights framework.

The human rights framework is one aspect of the daily lives of women, one dimension of their social relationships and multiple identities. Human rights have meanings which link women to each other and may, at the same time, oppress or empower them. Basing the human rights culture on the ethic of respect, interdependency, and egalitarian human relationships could be a key in deconstructing the mechanisms that threaten to put an end to our planet.

Additional Resources

Facts and Figures

• At least 60 million girls who would otherwise be expected to be alive are "missing" from various populations, mostly in Asia, as a result of sex-selective abortions, infanticide or neglect. (UN Study On The Status of Women, Year 2000)

• Globally, at least one in three women and girls has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime by a member of her family; for the majority of women the abuse is repeated over months or years. (Women in the World Atlas, 2003)

• In a recent survey by the Kenyan Women Rights Awareness Program, 70% of the men and women interviewed said they knew neighbors who beat their wives. Nearly 60% said women were to blame for the beatings. Just 51% said the men should be punished. (The New York Times, 10/31/97)

• Four million women and girls are trafficked annually. (United Nations)

• An estimated one million children, mostly girls, enter the sex trade each year. (UNICEF)

• In Bangladesh, 47% of adult women report physical assault by a male partner. (UNFPA)

• In a study of 475 people in prostitution from five countries (South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, USA, and Zambia):
  - 62% reported having been raped in prostitution.
  - 73% reported having experienced physical assault in prostitution.
  - 92% stated that they wanted to escape prostitution immediately.
  (Melissa Farley, Isin Baral, Merab Kiremire, Ufuk Sezgin, "Prostitution in Five Countries: Violence and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder." 1998, Feminism & Psychology 8 (4): 405-426)

• In Pakistan, 80% of women say that they have experienced physical abuse by a male intimate. (Women in the World Atlas, 2003)

• So-called "honour killings" take the lives of thousands of young women every year, mainly in North Africa, Western Asia and parts of South Asia. In 1999, more than 1000 women in Pakistan were victims of honour crimes. (UNFPA)

• In South Africa, it is estimated that a woman is raped every 83 seconds: only 20 of these cases are ever reported to the police. (Vetten: 1996, Tribune: 1991)

• More than 90 million African women and girls are victims of female circumcision or other forms of genital mutilation. (Heise: 1994)

• In Uganda, HIV infection rate is six times higher in young girls than in boys, with a difference in rates that starts even at nine years of age and reaching a peak between the ages of 12 and 19 years. This is due to the fact that older men, convinced that young girls are HIV-free, seek them out for sexual exploitation. (Uganda Ministry of Health)

• Canadian data on solved crimes indicate that 52% of all female homicide victims in 2001 were killed by someone with whom they had an intimate relationship at one point in time, either through marriage or dating - compared to 8% of male victims. (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada)

• In Brazil, 72% of women murdered where killed by a relative or friend. ((Women in the World Atlas, 2003)

• In Zimbabwe, domestic violence accounts for more than 60% of murder cases that go through the high court in Harare. (Zimbabwe Women's Resource Centre and Network -ZWRCN-)

• A 1998 study in Zaria, Nigeria, found that 16% of female patients seeking treatment for sexually transmitted infections were children under the age of 5. (UNFPA).

• According to the World Health Organization, between 12% and 25% of women around the world have experienced sexual violence at some time in their lives.

• Laws in many countries, such as India, Papua New Guinea and Malaysia, have explicit exceptions for marital rape. Laws in countries such as Uruguay and Ethiopia allow rapists to marry their victims in order to escape punishment.

• In situations of armed conflict and civil war, an increasing use of rape as a war weapon has been observed in approximately 100 countries.

• In some countries, women and girls are attacked with acid as a result of family disputes for rejecting sexual relations or marriage. A growing number of such acid burns have been reported in Bangladesh, Nigeria and Cambodia. Survivors are permanently disfigured and/or blinded.

• The World Health Organization estimates that violence is the leading cause of death for women between the ages of 15 and 44, more than cancer, traffic accidents and malaria combined.

• Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women ("Convention of Belém do Pará")

• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

• Beijing Declaration

• Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

• Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women

• Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict

• UN documents on violence against women

• UN documents on girl children

• Report of the International Conference on Population and Development

• The Human Rights of Women - A Reference Guide to Official UN Documents

• Other Treaties (in Spanish)

• Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

• Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its Causes and Consequences

• Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions

Alpízar, Lydia, "Impunity and Women's Rights in Ciudad Juarez," Human Rights Dialogue, Violence against Women, Series 2, Number 10 (Fall 2003).
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php/prmID/1056
http://www.vday.org/contents/action/juarez

Amnesty International, "Mexico: Intolerable Killings. Ten years of Abductions and Murders in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua" (2003).
http://www.amnestyusa.org/spanish/mujeres/juarez/summary.html

Bunch, Charlotte, "From Ciudad Juarez to the World," Human Rights Dialogue: Violence against Women, Series 2, Number 10 (Fall 2003).
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php/prmID/1057
http://www.vday.org/contents/action/juarez

Cuthbert Carrie, Kim Y. Slote, Jay G. Silverman, Monica Ghosh Driggers, Lundy Bancroft, and Cynthia J. Mesh, "Battered Mothers vs. U.S. Family Courts," Human Rights Dialogue, Violence against Women, Series 2, Number 10 (Fall 2003).
http://www.cceia.org/media/1061_hrd2-10.pdf

Dauer, Sheila, "Indivisible o invisible. Los derechos humanos de las mujeres en las esferas pública y privada", artículo tomado de: Margoire Agsin (ed). Women, Gender, and Human Rights. A Global Perspective. Rutgers University.
http://www.laneta.apc.org/cgi-bin/WebX?230@@.ee6f030

Ewelukwa, Uché U., "Small Victories, but the War Rages On," Human Rights Dialogue, Violence against Women, Series 2, Number 10 (Fall 2003).
http://www.cceia.org/media/1061_hrd2-10.pdf

Facts about violence
http://www.feminist.com/antiviolence/facts.html

Gender and Women's Health (GWH)
http://www.who.int/gender/violence/en/

Human Rights Dialogue, Violence against Women, Series 2, Number 10 (Fall 2003).
http://www.cceia.org/media/1061_hrd2-10.pdf

Human Rights Dialogue, "Working within Nigeria's Sharia Courts," An Interview with Ayesha Imam, Violence against Women, Series 2, Number 10 (Fall 2003).
http://www.cceia.org/media/1061_hrd2-10.pdf

IIDH, "Diversidad en Beijing. Una experiencia de participación", San José, IIDH, 1996.

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 12.051, Maria da Penha Maia Fernandes, Report No. 54/01, April 16, 2001.
http://www.cidh.org/women/brazil12.051.htm

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, "The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico: The Right to be Free from Violence and Discrimination" (2002).
http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2002eng/chap.vi.juarez.htm

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, No. 4, Resolution of July 29, 1988.

International Planned Parenthood Federation, "The Facts about Gender-Based Violence", 1998.
Available at http://www.ippf.org/resource/

Lagarde, Marcela, "Género y feminismo. Desarrollo humano y democracia", Editorial horas y HORAS, Madrid, 1996.

México: Marcha sobre Ciudad Juárez
http://www.losverdesdeandalucia.org/noticia.php?id=6285

Google News media watch in the Ciudad Juarez case.
http://www.codas.com.mx/pornuestrashijas/

Munala, June, "Combating FGM in Kenya's Refugee Camps", Human Rights Dialogue, Violence against Women, Series 2, Number 10 (Fall 2003).
http://www.cceia.org/media/1061_hrd2-10.pdf

Obando M., Ana Elena y María Suárez Toro, "Logros de los movimientos de mujeres por los derechos de las humanas en el siglo 20".
http://www.reddesalud.org/espanol/sitio/028.htm

Obando M., Ana Elena, "Feminismo(s) y derecho(s)", speech delivered at the "Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Action" seminar, Profamilia, September 12-16, 2001, Colombia.

Obando M., Ana Elena, "Legislating Equality from Difference: A sexual Harassment Draft Bill for Costa Rica", Thesis for Masters Degree, Arizona State University, May 1994.