Jump to content

Belém do Pará Convention: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 45: Line 45:


== Impact ==
== Impact ==
The Belém do Pará Convention was used alongside the [[American Convention on Human Rights]] when the [[Inter-American Court of Human Rights]] intervened in the [[Feminicides of the cotton field|Cotton Field femicides case]], on requests from victims' relatives, who, motivated by the Mexican authorities' lack of response, filed a complaint against the Mexican state. In its 2009 judgement, the Court found Mexico to be responsible for multiple rights violations, including the State obligations under the Belém do Pará Convention 'to use due diligence to respond to violence against women' according to Article 7, paragraphs b and c.<ref name="Manjoo">{{Cite book |last1=Manjoo |first1=Rashida |authorlink1=Rashida Manjoo |last2=Jones |first2=Jackie |authorlink2=Jackie Jones |date=2018 |title=The Legal Protection of Women From Violence: Normative Gaps in International Law |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=orJSDwAAQBAJ|location=Abingdon |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781351732833 |accessdate=16 March 2020}}</ref>{{rp|p.160}} The verdict caused Mexico to undertake some positive steps to comply with the Court's order.<ref name="Manjoo"/>{{rp|p.160}} However, the case revealed that the [[justiciability]] of the Convention was mostly limited to Article 7, which stipulates the immediate obligations of state parties; Article 8 and 9 are mostly useful for interpreting these obligations, and the obligations of state parties to other conventions such as the American Convention on Human Rights.<ref name="Manjoo"/>{{rp|p.160}}
According to Professor [[Rashida Manjoo]] and Professor [[Jackie Jones]] (2018), the Belém do Pará Convention has significantly contributed to making the 'Inter-American human rights system, while far from perfect, arguably the world's most well-developed and effective human rights system in the violence against women context.' The Convention had been cited in over 20 cases before the [[Inter-American Commission on Human Rights|Inter-American Commission]] and [[Inter-American Court of Human Rights|Court]], and 'helped to further define and give specificity to the norms of the [[American Convention on Human Rights]] and other Inter-American human rights instruments in the VAW context.'<ref name="Manjoo"/>{{rp|p.163–4}}
For example, the Belém do Pará Convention was used alongside the American Convention on Human Rights when the [[Inter-American Court of Human Rights]] intervened in the [[Feminicides of the cotton field|Cotton Field femicides case]], on requests from victims' relatives, who, motivated by the Mexican authorities' lack of response, filed a complaint against the Mexican state. In its 2009 judgement, the Court found Mexico to be responsible for multiple rights violations, including the State obligations under the Belém do Pará Convention 'to use due diligence to respond to violence against women' according to Article 7, paragraphs b and c.<ref name="Manjoo">{{Cite book |last1=Manjoo |first1=Rashida |authorlink1=Rashida Manjoo |last2=Jones |first2=Jackie |authorlink2=Jackie Jones |date=2018 |title=The Legal Protection of Women From Violence: Normative Gaps in International Law |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=orJSDwAAQBAJ|location=Abingdon |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781351732833 |accessdate=16 March 2020}}</ref>{{rp|p.160}} The verdict caused Mexico to undertake some positive steps to comply with the Court's order.<ref name="Manjoo"/>{{rp|p.160}} However, the case revealed that the [[justiciability]] of the Convention was mostly limited to Article 7, which stipulates the immediate obligations of state parties; Article 8 and 9 are mostly useful for interpreting these obligations, and the obligations of state parties to other conventions such as the American Convention on Human Rights.<ref name="Manjoo"/>{{rp|p.160}} Moreover, Manjoo and Jones criticised the fact that the United States and Canada had still not ratified the two Conventions, '[leaving] millions of women and girls without the protections afforded by these treaties.'<ref name="Manjoo"/>{{rp|p.164}}


== See also ==
== See also ==

Revision as of 17:17, 16 March 2020

Belém do Pará Convention
Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women
  Signed and ratified
  Acceded
  Not signed
  No OAS member
Signed9 June 1994
LocationBelém do Pará, Brazil
Effective3 September 1981
Condition2 ratifications
Signatories32
Parties32
DepositaryGeneral Secretariat of the Organization of American States
LanguagesEnglish, French, Portuguese, Spanish

The Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women, better known as the Belém do Pará Convention (or Convention of Belém do Pará), is an international human rights instrument adopted by the Inter-American Commission of Women (CIM) of the Organization of American States at a conference held in Belém do Pará, Brazil on 9 June 1994. It is the first legally binding international treaty that criminalises all forms of violence against women, especially sexual violence.[1]

Background

In the late 1980s use of rape as a tool in war by official regimes in El Salvador, Haiti, Peru, and other places across Latin America was exposed, while the traditional taboo on domestic violence was gradually eroded at the same time, forcing violence against women into the forefront of public discourse.[2] As most military dictatorships fell across Latin America during the Third Wave of Democratisation (1978–1995), women began to pressure their civilian governments to address the systemic violence against women from Brazil to Chile to Mexico.[2]

In 1988, CIM strategy followed its model of creating international norms to press for national governmental change.[2] To that end, the women determined to draft an Inter-American Convention focusing on violence against women and scheduled a special consultative meeting in 1990. The 1990 Inter-American Consultation on Women and Violence was the first diplomatic meeting of its kind.[2] At the convention, the women thoroughly evaluated the issue of gender-based violence[1] and then organised two inter-governmental meetings of experts to assist with clarification of issues to draft a proposal. The final instrument,[3] which would become known as the 1994 Belém do Pará Convention, was the first treaty to ever address violence against women.[1] It was presented at a Special Special Assembly of CIM delegates in April 1994, who approved it and endorsed its submission to the General Assembly of the OAS. It was adopted at Belém do Pará, Brazil, on 9 June 1994, and has been endorsed by 32 of the 34 member States of the OAS.[3]

The delegates of the CIM continued to press for international agreements throughout the Americas that effect change and protect women. In 1998, they adopted the Declaration of Santo Domingo, which recognised that women's inalienable rights exist throughout their lifetime and are an "integral, and indivisible part of universal human rights".[4]

Contents

The treaty is written in the four official languages of the Organization of American States; 'each [language version] is equally authentic' (Article 25):

  • English: Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (Belém do Pará Convention)
  • Spanish: Convención Interamericana para Prevenir, Sancionar y Erradicar la Violencia contra la Mujer (Convención de Belém do Pará)
  • Portuguese: Convenção Interamericana para Prevenir, Punir e Erradicar a Violência contra a Mulher (Convenção de Belém do Pará)
  • French: Convention Interamericaine pour la Prevention, la Sanction et l'Elimination de la Violence contre la Femme (Convention de Belém do Pará)

The text defines what violence against women is, establishes that women have the right to live a life free of violence, and that violence against women constitutes a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It calls for the first time for the establishment of binding mechanisms for protecting and defending women's rights as essential to combating the phenomenon of violence against women's physical, sexual, and psychological integrity, whether in the public or the private sphere, and for asserting those rights within society.[5]

State parties

As of March 2020, 32 of the 35 member states of the Organization of American States have either signed and ratified or acceded to the Belém do Pará Convention; only Canada, Cuba and the United States have not.[6][7]

Impact

According to Professor Rashida Manjoo and Professor Jackie Jones (2018), the Belém do Pará Convention has significantly contributed to making the 'Inter-American human rights system, while far from perfect, arguably the world's most well-developed and effective human rights system in the violence against women context.' The Convention had been cited in over 20 cases before the Inter-American Commission and Court, and 'helped to further define and give specificity to the norms of the American Convention on Human Rights and other Inter-American human rights instruments in the VAW context.'[8]: p.163–4 

For example, the Belém do Pará Convention was used alongside the American Convention on Human Rights when the Inter-American Court of Human Rights intervened in the Cotton Field femicides case, on requests from victims' relatives, who, motivated by the Mexican authorities' lack of response, filed a complaint against the Mexican state. In its 2009 judgement, the Court found Mexico to be responsible for multiple rights violations, including the State obligations under the Belém do Pará Convention 'to use due diligence to respond to violence against women' according to Article 7, paragraphs b and c.[8]: p.160  The verdict caused Mexico to undertake some positive steps to comply with the Court's order.[8]: p.160  However, the case revealed that the justiciability of the Convention was mostly limited to Article 7, which stipulates the immediate obligations of state parties; Article 8 and 9 are mostly useful for interpreting these obligations, and the obligations of state parties to other conventions such as the American Convention on Human Rights.[8]: p.160  Moreover, Manjoo and Jones criticised the fact that the United States and Canada had still not ratified the two Conventions, '[leaving] millions of women and girls without the protections afforded by these treaties.'[8]: p.164 

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c Persadie, Natalie (2012). A critical analysis of the efficacy of law as a tool to achieve gender equality. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. p. 199. ISBN 978-0-761-85809-6. Retrieved 16 July 2015.
  2. ^ a b c d Meyer, Mary K. (editor); Prügl, Elisabeth (editor) (1999). Gender politics in global governance. Lanham [u.a.]: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 65–66. ISBN 978-0-847-69161-6. Retrieved 16 July 2015. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)
  3. ^ a b "Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women - 1994". Organization of American States. Inter-American Commission of Women. Retrieved 16 July 2015.
  4. ^ "Inter-American Program on the Promotion of Women's Human Rights and Gender Equity and Equality" (PDF). Organization of American States. Inter-American Program on Women. pp. 1–7. Retrieved 13 July 2015.
  5. ^ "About the Belém do Pará Convention". CIM website. Organization of American States. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
  6. ^ Manjoo & Jones (2012), p. 151.
  7. ^ "Status of signatures and ratifications (Convention of Belém do Pará)" (PDF). CIM website. Organization of American States. Retrieved 14 March 2020.
  8. ^ a b c d e Manjoo, Rashida; Jones, Jackie (2018). The Legal Protection of Women From Violence: Normative Gaps in International Law. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 9781351732833. Retrieved 16 March 2020.