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

V
WOMEN’S ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 249
procedurals in place for such submissions. In other instances, it
may be necessary to make a request to the bodies on an ad
hoc basis. Providing a legal opinion to the lawyers acting in the
case for their use in submissions may be a means of
contributing where it is not possible to intervene directly with
the adjudicative authority.
Whether or not intervening as a third party is appropriate in an
individual case, and how to plan strategy, may depend not only
the formal rules and procedures but also on the culture and
customary practices of the authority that is being addressed.
Third party interventions may exhaust time and resources of
the court and the parties involved. What might be seen as a
demonstration of political weight in favour of a particular
development in the law in one jurisdiction may be seen as
inappropriate in another court.
Generally a third party intervention will only be useful if the
intervener can bring an expertise to the case that the parties
are unable to bring, whether for lack of expertise, owing to
resource limitations or for strategic reasons involving the
particularities of a case. For international human rights
advocates seeking to intervene in domestic courts, the most
appropriate briefs tend to be those that highlight international
or comparative law on an issue, in an area where a domestic
court may be unfamiliar with developments at the international
level or in other countries. Alternatively, an expert opinion may
be less concerned with the law, but may have factual research
that highlights the extent of a problem domestically. This may
be useful when it comes to addressing how the definition,
investigation and prosecution of rape is often informed by
stereotyping and engenders secondary victimization of victims
and witnesses, and how this stops victims from coming
forward. 670
670
Three important and influential amicus briefs are to be found in the
following cases: M.C. v Bulgaria (2003) ECHR 651; Vertido v
Philippines, CEDAW Communication No 18/2008, UN Doc
CEDAW/C/46/D/18/2008 (2010); and Angela González Carreño v