Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The traditional meaning of self-defense covers the masculinity version of defending one‟s right to life by excluding the distinguishing criteria of the domestic ...
Typology: Exams
1 / 24
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Spring Semester 2020 Independent Written Essay within the Field of Constitutional law and Human Rights, 15 hp[Master‟s Programme in Constitutional Law and Human Rights, 60 hp] Supervisor: Therese Enarsson
Tarikawit Fikadu Mamo
Abbreviation
1 Introduction
Domestic violence is a worldwide problem that most women undergo in their lifetime,^2 which ranges from physical to psychological.^3 This problem affects women more than any other group and contributes to the cause of “illness, poverty, homelessness, and disability in women around the world.”^4 In Europe, the problem is widespread and more likely violates four articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), article 2- right to life, article 3- Prohibition of torture, article 8- right to respect for private and family life, and article 14- Prohibition of discrimination.^5 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) by breaking the dichotomy of the private/ public sphere established a comprehensive jurisprudence to address domestic violence.^6 Accordingly, the ECtHR developed principles in its case law that address domestic violence that will contribute toward the criminal justice system.^7
In domestic violence cases, “Homicide is emphatically gendered.”^8 Women are more likely to be victims of homicide and killed by a former or current partner.^9 Conversely, where women kill their former or current partners, the history of domestic violence is often a reason, and they claim to have acted in self-defense. 10 The reality of the women who endures domestic violence and kill their former or current partners have different view and experience of their household from other (non-victim‟s) women who does not experience domestic violence in their households. However, Courts tend to view the self-defense claim as unreasonable 11 and assess the domestic violence “victim‟s reality of violence with non- victim‟s view.”^12 In doing so, this understanding of Court‟s interpretation of self-defense in
(^2) Carline A., & Am, P. E. (2014). Shades of Grey – Domestic and Sexual Violence Against Women: p. 63. See Mclean, M. (2005). Domestic Violence and Repeat Victimization. International Review of Victimology 3 , 12 (1), p.1. Harne, L., & Radford, J. (2008). Tackling domestic violence: theories, policies and practice. Maidenhead: Open University Pres. p. 1-7. 4 Meyersfeld, B. (2012). Domestic Violence and International Law. Oxford; Portland, OR: Hart Publishing. p. 1. 5 McQuigg, R. J. A. (2011). International Human Rights Law and Domestic Violence: the Effectiveness of International Human Rights Law. London: Routledge. p. 48. See art. 2- right to life, art. 3- Prohibition of torture, article 8-right to respect for private and family life, and art. 14- Prohibition of discrimination. See the discussion in chapter 2. 6 7 Ibid., p. 43-44. 8 Ibid 9 Carline and AM,^ op. cit., p. 128. 10 Ibid 11 Ibid 12 Ibid., p. 130-137. Ibid., p. 153.
The paper explores the relation between domestic violence and self-defense claim raised by women who kill their abuser in non-confrontational manner. In doing so, to draw the very nature of the domestic violence, self-defense, and their interpretation the paper studies different legal research articles. Since the topic of the paper is a widespread subject, the legal research articles from both Inter-American and European literature that addresses the issue in their regional human right system perspective are utilized. Despite the fact that the paper focuses on the European perspective of domestic violence and self-defence, the Inter- American literature are used to contextualize the general concept of self-defense claim and domestic violence relation, as the topic is more developed and raised in many case law in their legal system. Further, articles by different scholars are used to provide an elaboration and understanding of the court‟s perspective in its arguments and judgments. In addition, the case laws of ECtHR are studied. I chose old and new key cases of ECtHR, which define the concept right to life with its self-defense exception and prohibition of torture as regard to the perspective of article 2 and 3 of ECHR. The case laws are also used to draw conclusion how those rights are contextualized with respect to states obligation.
Women more likely become victims of domestic violence than men. Domestic violence is the violence that takes place in intimate relationship that perceived for long period of time with the display of the repetitive behavior of the violence in systematic manner.^18 A woman who kills her former or current partner in non-confrontational circumstance often claims that she acted in response to a reasonable perception of danger. Hence, they claim self-defense.^19
The traditional meaning of self-defense covers the masculinity version of defending one‟s right to life by excluding the distinguishing criteria of the domestic violence victim who acted in self-defense.^20 Further, the criminal justice system disregards the unique link between the women who kill their abuser and her been in domestic violence household which she experience emotional and physical violence. besides Nevertheless, the women who experience domestic violence that acted in self-defense in non-confrontational circumstance is
(^18) See discussion in section 2 (^19) Mihajlovich, op. cit., p. 1272. (^20) See discussion in section 2
still acted out of self-preservation, which is an essential point that the criminal justice system to consider.^21
2. Self-defense claim in domestic violence
The Council of Europe established the Istanbul convention to promote the protection of women against violence, which defines domestic violence:
“All acts of physical, sexual, psychological or economic violence that occur within the family or domestic unit or between former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victim.”^22
Accordingly, domestic violence is a form of violence that befalls in the family home and within an intimate relationship between the former and current partners.^23 The victims of domestic violence often live with the offender, involved with the offender emotionally, also financially dependent. This may cause the victims to be threatened since the victims are likely be assaulted and see the offender again.^24
In addition, the nature of domestic violence is often different from other form of violence by very “distinguishing element of the domestic violence that the abuse occurs over a period of time.”^25 The victim of this violence had a relationship with the offender or is known to them, be it a partner or an acquaintance, and therefore the violence tend not to be a single or a „one-off event‟.^26 Instead, the violence tends to be cyclical within a cohabitating couple since it can be triggered at any moment and by any circumstances. Consequently, the victim lives in
(^21) Ibid. (^22) Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, 23 art 3 (b). 24 Tadros,^ op. cit.,^ p. 992. 25 Mclean, p. 52. 26 Carline and AM,^ op. cit., p. 63. See Mclean, p. 53. Ibid., p. 63-64.
Likewise, the common law requires that the person who acted in self-defense has an honest belief that her/ his action is necessary and that they have reasonable ground for that belief.^37 However, the reasonableness of the act is often interpreted in the perspective of the judges‟ personal values instead of the persons who acted in self-defense.^38
The approach of right and forfeiture explains self-defense based on the right to life. As per this approach, the right to life is dependent on the conduct and conditions.^39 As a result, a person does not retain a right where he/she poses an immediate danger to a person‟s right to life instead he/ she own right to life is forfeited.^40 Yet, this does not mean the right of the offender is forfeited, where the victims acted and kill in self-defense instead “the right to life is forfeited (or not possessed) simply by virtue of becoming an unjust immediate threat to the life of another.”^41 Thus, it is permissible to kill in self-defense but this does not indicate the offender is being punished or deserve to die rather it is a system to fight back unjust immediate attack.^42 Hence, it can be held that the concept of „imminence‟ or „immediate‟ attack that surrounds the self-defense concept serves to limit the claim of self-defense by avoiding the excessive way to force and avoid the loss of a person‟s life in self-defense claim.
Therefore, the very self-defense principle is mainly based on two elements. First, the act of the threat shall be immediate against one‟s right to life. Second, the act is against the unjust act of the other person under a reasonable man standard.
Self-defense is a right one can claim before the court, whether the violence is domestic or not. In domestic violence cases, the victims of domestic violence who kill their abuser in non- confrontational situation, often the problem to claim self-defense argument is that, the requirement of imminent or current violence that the traditional delineation of the self-defense concept has to draw self-defense legitimacy is not established.^43
(^37) Carline and AM, op. cit., p. 130-131. (^38) Ibid. (^39) Leverick, F. (2007). Defending Self-Defence. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 27 (3), p. 572. (^40) Ibid. (^41) Ibid. (^42) Ibid. (^43) Burke, A. S. (2002). Rational Actors, Self-Defense, and Duress: Making Sense, Not Syndromes, Out of the Battered Woman. SSRN Electronic Journal , p 225.
It has been argued that the requirements do not include or address the perspective of gender since the very nature of the domestic violence is ongoing and set the women in the state of mind that the attack will befall at any moment.^44 In light of this, the theory of the BWS is established so that the domestic violence victims justify the claim of self-defense.^45 The theory explains the feeling of learned helplessness that urges the victim of domestic violence to remain in the relationship with the abuser.^46 Further, this forces the victim to live “under a constant reign of terror, and may kill during an apparently peaceful moment out of fear that she will not be able to protect herself from the next, inevitable attack.”^47
However, this argument might not stand in itself to support the claim of self-defense in domestic violence cases.^48 Alafair argued that BWS theory was not establish using empirical evidence that the domestic violence victims lives are in the constant reign of terror, likewise the time frame of the violence is unclear and it is hard to establish that the tension or the fear that the women feel still exits or disappear overtime if she stays in the abusive relationship.^49 Further, Alafair reasoned that the theory failed to clarify why the victim of domestic violence perception of danger extends beyond one assault.^50 Accordingly, he argues that the modifying the element of self-defense to subjective perception than objective reasonableness to fit the victim of the domestic violence self defence in the non-confrontational situation is undermining the very notion of self-defense claim as justification.^51
On the contrary, it has been argued that the traditional self-defense concept is gender- biased and unable to accommodate the victims of domestic violence who kill in a non- confrontational situation. 52 It is also argued that loss of self-control is rather a masculine reaction to violence which shows the traditional self-defense concept biasness toward women by applying subjective test that favor‟s male defendant.^53 Moreover, “it is unlikely that the
(^44) MESECVI (no. 1), op. cit., p.7- 8. (^45) Burke, op. cit., p 225. (^46) Ibid., p. 230. (^47) Ibid., p. 231. (^48) Ibid. (^49) Ibid., p. 238-239. (^50) Ibid., 240 (^51) Ibid., 240-242. (^52) Jeffrey Murdoch (2000). Is imminence really necessity? Reconciling traditional self-defense doctrine with battered women syndrome, Imminence and the battered women syndrome, 20, N. Ill. U. L. Rev ., p. 192-
deprivation of life can be justified and found lawful, whether the loss of life is intended or not.^60 Likewise, the fundamental character of this right enquires any exceptions that justify the loss of the right must be construed narrowly and strictly.^61
In the context of a woman victim of domestic violence who killed her abuser in non- confrontational circumstances begs a question whether the claims of self-defense is justified by article 2 „defense of any person from unlawful violence‟ of the ECHR. This does not mean that article 2§2 “define instances where it is permitted to kill an individual, but describes the situations where it is permitted to “use force” which may result, as an unintended outcome, in the deprivation of life.”^62 Therefore, balancing „life against life‟ and affected life interest is a predicament that ECtHR confronted in its case law.^63
In the case of Stewart v. United Kingdom, by recognizing the circumstance sets in article 2 that justifies the violation of the right to life, it addresses how this justification must be construed.^64 The same is also explained in the case of McCann and Others v, The United Kingdom. The ECtHR notes that the use of force is justified where “the force used must be „absolutely necessary‟ and strictly proportionate to the achievement of the aims set out in 2§ and where deliberate lethal force is used, taking into consideration not only the actions of the person who actually administer but also all surrounding circumstance.”^65
Based on the ECtHR interpretation of article 2§ 2 , it seems that three requirements have to be met to justify the „use of force‟, i.e., the use of force must be absolutely necessary, proportionate to the achievement of the aims and shall take into consideration all surrounding circumstance. Yet, it seems that “in the context of the use of force between non-State actors, an array of different and complex circumstances may be at play, in which the distribution of power and vulnerability between victim and perpetrator may vary and where presumptions as to the distribution of „killing‟ power are not appropriate.”^66 Thus, it is more problematic to
(^60) Ibid., p .1027. (^61) Ibid., p.1029-1033. (^62) Guide on Article 2, European Court of Human Rights, 2020, para. 94. Stewart v. United Kingdom, Application no. 10044/82 63 , para. 15. Tomuschat, C., Lagrange, E., & Oeter, S. (2010). The right to life. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 64 89 - 90. 65 Case of^ Stewart v. United Kingdom,^ Application no. 10044/82,^ para. 11-19. 66 Case of McCann and Others v. The United Kingdom,^ Application no.^ 18984/91,^ para. 148-150. Mavronicola, op. cit., p. 1046.
apply absolute necessity test where violence occurred between individuals that are not state- actors.^67
By extension, this requirement tries to balance individual‟s right to life who take part in the situation. That means the person who acts in self-defense to relieve her/ him from the violation of right to life shall show, the assessment probability of her/ his acts to be absolutely necessary and proportionate to protect her/his right to life.^68
Article 2 §2 seems not to observe the requirement of imminence or express the time frame for the right to life has to be deprived rather focuses in the other criteria that the use of force is justified.
As per the BWS theoretical framework stated above, a woman who kills her abusive partner in non-confrontational situation is often a victim of long-going domestic violence that tends to develop the feeling of powerlessness and learned helplessness.^69 In addition, the victim stays in the abusive relationship because she comprehends the futile attempt to escape will cause future violence. 70 Besides, the victim may perceive using force is the option to avoid future violence since that is the ultimate aim of the victim.^71 By doing so, the victim of the domestic violence acted to protect her right to life and torture or ill-treatment in belief that her right to life is endangered, since the abuser may act at any moment of a time.^72 Moreover, the women who are in the household of abusive relationships, where violence is persistent, are always in danger of losing their limbs or even worse their life. Also, the feeling of powerlessness, fear and threat that develop in the abusive relationship seems to the women who kills the abuser in non-confrontational situation, a way of protecting the loss of their right to life from materializing.
(^67) Ibid. (^68) Mavronicola, op. cit., p. 1476- (^69) Burke, op. cit., p. 221-224. (^70) Ibid. (^71) Belew, op. cit., p. 58-59. Its above no. 12 (^72) MESECVI (no. 1), op. cit., p.7-9.; Also see the discussion on Section 3.2.
minimum level is relative, which depends on circumstance of the case, for instance, “the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, it‟s physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim.”^80 Opuz, the applicant, complained her husband caused her pain, suffering, and fear because of the violence perpetrated upon her by him.^81 Further, the applicant had experienced ill-treatment more than five times that had been reported to the pertinent authority that caused criminal charge to be brought before the national court in different occurrence. 82 Thus, the ECtHR notes the physical injury and psychological pressure the applicant suffered are sufficient enough to fall under the scope of article 3.^83 In Costello-Roberts v. United Kingdom , the ECtHR established the minimum level of severity recognized where the treatment or humiliation is more than the usual that “inherent in any punishment.” 84 Thus, the scope of article 3 entails that not all punishment can be categorized as ill-treatment.^85 The same assessment can be observed in the case Volodina v. Russia, but with more advance description to embrace the wide-ranging effect of the ill- treatment, which does not always have to be physical or mental suffering. Accordingly, it denotes that ill-treatment comprises, “treatment which humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or which arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual‟s moral and physical resistance, even in the absence of actual bodily harm or intense physical or mental suffering.”^86 Moreover, all the cases cited above, established vulnerable individuals, women and children in particular, are more likely entail the minimum level of severity in ill-treatment category. 87 Thus, when the court contented that the circumstance of the cases gravity heightened, it considers the act as violation of article 3 of the ECHR. This implies that the court construed Article 3 in the way that “„does not prohibit‟ the use of force in certain circumstances.”^88
Moreover, this does not mean the ECtHR considers merely the vulnerability, the minimum level of ill-treatment of the victim when it comes to assessing the fact to determine
(^80) Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Application no. 33401/02, para. 158. (^81) Ibid., para. 154-155. (^82) Ibid., para. 9-58. (^83) Ibid., para.161. (^84) Case of Costello-Roberts v. United Kingdom, Application no. 13134/87, para. 30. (^85) Ibid. (^86) Case of Volodina v. Russia, Application no. 41261/17, para. 73. (^87) See case of Volodina v. Russia, Application no. 41261/17. Costello-Roberts v. United Kingdom, Application no. 88 13134/87 and Opuz v. Turkey, Application no. 33401/. Mavronicola, N (2013). 'Güler and Öngel v Turkey, p. 374.
the violation of article 3 but also it contemplates the state‟s response or legislative framework to the act.^89 In the case Rumor v. Italy , the ECtHR finds the state in no violation of article 3 of the convention. The court specified the state “had put in place a legislative framework allowing them to take measures against persons accused of domestic violence and that that framework was effective in punishing the perpetrator of the crime of which the applicant was victim and preventing the recurrence of violent attacks against her physical integrity.”^90
Based on the above point of view, it can be assumed that the ECtHR consider domestic violence as violation of the ECHR article 3 where the act‟s ill-treatment is justified by minimum level of severity. As the nature of domestic violence more likely involve systematic violence in the cyclic manner, which is repetitive and last for a long period of time, the victim besides physical injury often develop BWS, the feeling of passiveness and powerlessness, to the point that the she cannot escape the abusive relationship.^91 Moreover, as per the definition of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, torture does not only means physical pain but also mental. Consequently, victims of domestic violence, often suffer BWS, which apt to the protection of ECHR article 3.
4. Discussion: ECtHR perspective of States obligation in the matter
The European Court on Human Rights in its case law shed some light and established principle as regard to the Human rights enshrined in the ECHR. As a result, the court established and robust the positive obligation of the states along with the negative obligation evidently specified in article 2 of the convention.^92 The positive obligation of the states in overall addressed generally into four categories, that is, framework obligation, operational duties, investigative obligation, and duties of redress.^93
The framework obligation explains that the state should establish the legislative framework that can deter the person who violated the right to life as well as redress the unlawful taking of life.^94 State also have positive obligation of operational duties that entails states to take reasonable actions to protect right to life from being at risk where the pertinent
(^89) Case of Rumor v. Italy, Application no. 72964/10, (^90) Ibid., para. 76. (^91) Mihajlovich, op. cit., p. 1257. (^92) Mavronicola, op. cit., p. 1031. (^93) Ibid., p. 1031- (^94) Ibid.
Consequently, it can be argued that this legislative framework may encourage the pertinent authority to do effective investigation that balances the right to life a woman who kills the abuser and the man who is killed by the woman he abused alongside the torture and ill- treatment experienced by the woman who acted in self-defense.
Moreover, “the ECtHR is not the authority responsible for setting or administering the substantive contours of criminal liability for acts or omissions endangering or resulting in loss of life in a domestic context.” 102 Instead, States are responsible for framing legislative framework, like criminal code, that can address the criminal aspect of the situation. In doing so, states play very vital role.
(^102) Mavronicola, op. cit., p. 1050.
Conclusion
Even if the right to life is a basic right, given that we all need to be alive to enjoy other human rights, does not make the right to life an absolute right. Lawfully, right to life can be taken away either by state agent or by private individual and self-defense is one of the lawful excuses that can be exercise out of self-preservation.
Woman who kills her abuser in non-confrontational circumstances, the lawful excuse seems ambivalent to see her perspective of self-preservation. Often, the right to self-defense does not take into account of women who were victims of domestic violence and understand their act of killing as rational and reasonable in their perspective. Nevertheless, the concept of BWS sheds some light to the rational and behavioral pattern of women who kills their abuser in act of self-preservation from torture, ill-treatment, and loss of life.
The act of self-preservation or self-defense is one of the right specified in ECHR article 2§2 as an exception to right to life. As per the article, a person can claim self-defense or use force where it is absolutely necessary, proportionate to the achievement of the aims considering all surrounding circumstances. Conversely, the traditional self-defence claim in addition to the requirements laid down in ECHR article 2§2, it requires the use force where the danger inflicted to the right to life is imminent or immediate. This traditional meaning of self-defense disregards the unique link between the women who kill their abuser and her been in domestic violence household.
Likewise, the women who kill their abuser in the act of preservation or self-defence often experience domestic violence. This domestic violence to be considered as torture according to ECHR article 3 the violence or pain inflicted, either physical or mental, shall satisfy minimum level of severity in ill-treatment category. Often domestic violence opt this minimum levels severity since the distinguishable elements of the domestic violence is the violence being systematic and occurs for long period of time.
Thus, understanding the effect of domestic violence and its effect in order to justify women‟s act of killing in non-confrontational circumstance needs both legislator and court recognition.
States have negative and positive obligation which also specified by ECtHR. Among these obligations, introducing legislative reforms is one way of safeguarding women‟s rights in
