Universal-Womens-accesss-to-justice-Publications-Practitioners-Guide-Series-2016-ENG

V
WOMEN’S ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 131
CHAPTER VI
TRAPS, DEAD-ENDS AND OBSTACLES TO
JUSTICE: SOLUTIONS PROPOSED BY HUMAN
RIGHTS LAW FRAMEWORKS
Attaining access to justice for gender-based violence remains
difficult in domestic jurisdictions, to varying degrees. Where
there is a generally adequate framework of laws and policies,
failures of political will, expressed through lack of training,
oversight, enforcement and accountability on the part of
individual State officials, mean that individual women who have
experienced violence, or are at risk of violence, typically do not
get the protection and access to justice that they are entitled to
under international human rights law. 353
Practitioners should be aware of these hurdles and develop
strategies for circumventing or overcoming them. The reasons
for these failures are multiple and complex, depending on the
circumstances prevailing in each State or locality. Human rights
law and standards have been effective in analysing how States
need to improve laws, policies and practical initiatives if the
human rights of women are to be ensured. This knowledge can
be useful in domestic legal advocacy.
353
See, for example, Goecke v Austria, CEDAW Communication No
5/2005, UN Doc CEDAW/C/39/D/5/2005 (2007), paragraph 12.1.2:
“The Committee notes that the State party has established a
comprehensive model to address domestic violence that includes
legislation, criminal and civil-law remedies, awareness-raising,
education and training, shelters, counselling for victims of violence and
work with perpetrators. However, in order for the individual woman
victim of domestic violence to enjoy the practical realization of the
principle of equality of men and women and of her human rights and
fundamental freedoms, the political will that is expressed in the
aforementioned comprehensive system of Austria must be supported
by State actors, who adhere to the State party’s due diligence
obligations”. See also: Yildirim v Austria, CEDAW Communication No
6/2005, UN Doc CEDAW/C/39/D/6/2005 (2007), paragraph 12.1.2;
and Angela González Carreño v Spain, CEDAW Communication No
47/2012, UN Doc CEDAW/C/58/D/47/2012 (2014), paragraph 9.9.