London, 22 June 2009
On 9 June 2009, the European Court of Human Rights handed down the decision in the case of Opuz v. Turkey (Application no. 33401/02). In its judgment, the Court found that Turkey violated Article 2, Article 3 and Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case involved the assault of the applicant, Mrs. Nahide Opuz and her mother by her former husband over a number of years, death threats made against them, and the eventual killing of Mrs. Opuz’s mother by the same man. Despite the fact that the violent assaults occasioned serious bodily harm to the applicant and her mother which was drawn to the attention of the State’s authorities, little was done to protect the women. Indeed, the violence was in fact ongoing at the time that the case was brought to the European Court.
The State had discontinued the cases brought against Mrs. Opuz’s former husband because Mrs. Opuz and her mother had withdrawn their complaints under threat and harassment. Mrs. Opuz claimed that she and her mother had been discriminated against by reason of their gender as both the domestic Civil and Criminal Code provided for and perpetuated the subservience of women to men in domestic situations which in turn led to a perceived institutional tolerance towards domestic violence. Such domestic violence, as supported by evidence, has had a vastly disproportionate impact on women.
In finding a violation of Articles 2, 3 and 14 on the part of Turkey, the Court reaffirmed the internationally recognised principle that the State’s failure, even if unintentional, to protect women against domestic violence breaches women’s right to equal protection of the law. It also explained that the failure to prevent violence carried out by private actors, or to investigate, prosecute and punish such violence, may in itself amount to a violation of Convention rights by the State, thereby incurring responsibility. The Court concluded that domestic violence affected mainly women and that the general and discriminatory judicial passivity of the State created a climate that was conducive to domestic violence. Thus, the violence suffered by the applicant and her mother could be regarded as gender-based, which constituted a form of discrimination against women contrary to Article 14.
To read the ERT case summary, click here.
To read the full case, click here.
To VOTE FOR EQUALITY and sign the Declaration of Principles on Equality, click here.