Administration of Justice:
Few people to talk about "Sexual abuses" due to clashes of timetable

This second sessional meeting attracted experts and NGO's representatives who deliberated on the "rules of evidence with regard to rape and sexual assault" and the "privatizations of prisons". The meeting's participants also engaged in a conceptual debate about the evolution of the international penal justice system.

Ms Rakotoarisoa, one of the participants, discussed the meaning of "rape" and "sexual abuse," relying on the concepts of age and absence of consent. Thereafter, she deliberated on the "provision for proof." She highlighted the need for experts (e.g. doctors and social workers) in sexual assault cases. Furthermore, she emphasized the need for protection of witnesses to crimes committed against women.

During the same deliberation, Mr. Guisse emphasized the importance of punishing rich tourists who take advantage of the poor and others who voluntarily transmit the AIDS virus with impunity. Indeed, only one out of ten offenders is prosecuted by the law.

Supplementing Mr. Guisse's statement, a representative from Jamaica, Ms. O'Connor, announced the fact that sexual abuses and exploitation of women in her country occur within poor economic zones. The fact that men often exploit females within the same family further complicates the ability to acquire evidence for a committed crime. "In nine out of ten cases, the complaint is withdrawn because the child and mother are victims of pressure and threats." Ms. O'Connor, however, did express some optimism about this situation: A "special rape unit" of the police force now exists that facilitates procedures and removes some pressure off of the victims.

During a later discussion, a participant, Ms. Hampson, made a distinction between proof attached to evidence and the law of evidence: Proof is vague and subject to interpretation whereas the rules of evidence are related procedures and therefore intangible. In regards to evidence collected from a sexual assault crime, Ms Hampson drew our attention to the state and police in countries such as Belgium, Ireland or United Kingdom (in which "cover up" operations frequently take place). She believed that the police force is often "incompetent, bribed or even directly implicated."

Several speakers addressed the issue of discrimination within legal jurisdiction. Ms. Zerrougui gave three examples of court arbitrary procedures: 1) demanding for "man or eye witnessing"; 2) a medical certificate as a "proof of rape"; and 3) a time limit placed on providing evidence and bringing the case to court. These three procedures are all aggravations that victims must endure within their respective legal systems. Ms. Zerrougui proposed lifting the burden of proof currently placed on victims.
M. Sorabjee concurred with her statement, citing an example from the Indian state of Gujarat. In this state, women are murdered in order to prevent them from testifying as witnesses. These women are also subject to other forms of pressures and threats. Mr. Gujarat concluded that, even though "court experience is sometimes worse than the rape itself," victimized women may not present the case because of a "shame problem".

Ms Hampson highlighted the need to elaborate guidelines in the jurisdiction of international law that would remind states to be more responsible with sexual assault cases. Furthermore, special rapporteurs are needed as intermediaries in order to get government information on sexual assault penal codes. Ms Hampson disclosed the fact that sexual abuses have been steadily increasing for two years. She briefly discussed the continual rape crimes which occurred during World War Two and appealed everyone to deliberate on this issue vigorously in order to achieve progress.

Two more points were used as focal points in subsequent discussions during the meeting:

· Privatization of prisons: Experts claimed that states must be responsible and should protect people within legal systems.
· Current trends in international criminal justice: M. Guisse contributed a historical review of the evolution of international justice bodies since 1945. He emphasized that international justice cannot substitute for national justice. Indeed, international justice aims to prosecute sexual abuses perpetrators just in case the national justice system is ineffective.

By: John Auran-Clapot and Jérôme Gygax

BACK