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

V
WOMEN’S ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 289
individual in asserting his or her rights, although the person
has not yet breached the law, may put the individual in the
situation of “victim”, if the risk of the law being applied when
the action contrary to it is taken is more than a theoretical
possibility. 715 Furthermore, laws might violate the individual’s
right even when the individual cannot be aware of it, because
the law makes such awareness impossible, for example in the
case of some types of surveillance. 716 Individuals may also be
indirect victims of a violation or might suffer from what could
be called “collateral violations”. It is recognised, for example,
that the relatives of a victim of torture or disappearance might
find their right not to be subject to ill-treatment violated by the
mere fact of having been exposed to this situation. 717 Finally, in
cases of expulsion which might infringe a State’s human rights
obligations, because they could be contrary to the principle of
non-refoulement or disproportionally interfere with the right to
respect for family life, an individual can be a victim despite the
fact that potential and not actual violations are at issue (see,
Chapter 2).
715
See, Mauritian Women Case, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 55; Toonen v.
Australia, CCPR, Communication No. 488/1992, Views of 31 March
1994, paras. 8.2 and 9. See, Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, ECtHR,
Plenary, Application No. 7525/76, Judgment of 22 October 1981;
Norris v. Ireland, ECtHR, Plenary, Application No. 10581/83, Judgment
of 26 October 1988; Open Door and Well Woman v. Ireland, ECtHR,
Plenary, Applications nos. 14234/88 ; 14235/88, Judgment of 29
October 1992; Campbell and Cosans v. United Kingdom, ECommHR,
Applications nos. 7511/76; 7743/76, Report of 16 May 1980.
716
Klass and Others v. Germany, ECtHR, Plenary, Application No.
5029/71, Judgment of 6 September 1978.
717
See, Quinteros Almeida v. Uruguay, CCPR, Communication No.
107/1981, Views of 21 July 1983, para. 14; Staselovich and
Lyashkevich v. Belarus, CCPR, Communication No. 887/1999, Views of
3 April 2003, para. 9.2. See, Kurt v. Turkey, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 724.