INTERVIEW: SR ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

‘SRs must be made part of mainstream’

A ‘voice of conscience’ (de Mello) on issues of women's rights, Radhika Coomaraswamy of Sri Lanka has been Special Rapporteur on violence against women (VAW), its causes and consequences, since 1994. Her reports address domestic violence, VAW in the community and perpetrated by the state, trafficking, VAW in the context of armed conflict, and cultural practices constituting VAW; country missions covered military sexual slavery (North and South Korea), trafficking (Poland, Bangladesh, Nepal, India), domestic violence (Brazil), rape in the community (South Africa), (internal) armed conflict (Rwanda, Colombia) and post-conflict situations (Sierra Leone), VAW in prisons (USA), Afghan women, and response mechanisms (Haiti), intersectional discrimination (WCAR), and model legislation on VAW. Her final report, submitted to the CHR this year, outlines the 'state of the world' on VAW and the fight against it and reviews international, regional and national developments and best practices. Ms Coomaraswamy will now go on to chair the Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission.

 _______________________________________

Human Rights Features (HRF): In this year's report you find that the next decade must see compliance with and monitoring of the standards that evolved on VAW that you have helped evolve over the past decade. What support can local actors seek from the UN human rights mechanisms?

Radhika Coomaraswamy (RC): I think that now you have an international framework for monitoring. So I think to some extent working with the CEDAW Committee and the Special Rapporteurs by giving them information so that they can monitor at the international level. And maybe the agencies of the UN, of course, to some extent have to make this a priority because it has become one of the important issues for many of them. So if we could use that as well and try to get funding for women's programmes through some of the UN agencies and women's focal points. 

HRF: How do you assess the level of awareness of women's rights issues across the UN human rights systems more than ten years after Vienna's mainstreaming push?

RC: I think we have to say that there have been a lot of activities if you look at the UN resolutions of the General Assembly, on migrant workers and trafficking, the CHR, UNICEF, ILO - this issue has come up in a big way. WHO has just done a study; there are two chapters on VAW. So there has been - at the level of standard-setting and awareness raising - some level of awareness that this is an important issue that has to be tackled. The question is: how do they operationalise it? I think that, in the field, the UN is not as active as some of the bilateral donors on issues of VAW. Maybe that can be more proactive in the next decade. And also in the Millennium Goals I don't think it is articulated enough.

HRF: How would you assess the system of the special procedures in terms of support received, cooperation, effectiveness and output? In which direction do you see the special procedures developing?

RC: I think the special procedures have to move beyond an ad hoc adjunct of the UN and become part of the mainstream structure. As you know we don't have passports. Even at the UN in New York we have to come in through the visitors entrance. There is a certain status issue as well on trying to mainstream us within the UN because we are seen too much as independent experts. And I think to do effective work perhaps the special rapporteurs would be made more full-time, some kind of support that allows them to dedicate more time to the position. And, of course, more resources to the CHR so that they can do that. At the moment they just cannot afford to do that. So I think that is the most important thing. Governments complain that we do not do our work thoroughly but we do as much as we can.

HRF: You locate "the greatest challenge to women's rights" in the doctrine of cultural relativism - yet the conservative backlash against women's rights comes also from those who disavow this doctrine. How do you think this curtails the universal progress achieved?

RC: I think that - as Charlotte Bunch said in the discussion - the problem of culture is something universal and that the women's movement is attempting to transform culture in every society so that it is less patriarchal. But I think there is one problem in that in certain societies culture is used by the governments to deny the universality of human rights. In some cultures the universality is accepted but people have a backlash. So I think it is those societies that I am addressing, those that deny the universality of human rights, towards which we perhaps need to develop sensitive strategies so that we don't create a backlash and that we work hard with.

HRF: At the Commission on the Status of Women, Iran, backed by Egypt and Sudan, opposed a yearly draft conclusion under which countries would agree to "condemn violence against women and refrain from invoking any custom, tradition or religious consideration to avoid their obligations with respect to its elimination". The draft was not adopted - an ominous sign for the fight against VAW?

RC: I think there are two challenges to VAW, one coming from the Western countries and one coming from culture. The Western countries are challenging the framework that we evolved over the last decade to deal with women's human rights, which is violence by private actors and the due diligence standards that combats impunity of private actors and puts states under a duty to prevent and punish those commit violence.

There is this belief by some people in Western societies that this is criminal justice issue and not a human rights issue because the state is not the direct source of violence. Now of course we have to direct this framework on impunity. Otherwise we will have impunity, we don't have some way of holding states accountable for violence by private actors. 

The other challenge comes from societies with different cultural frameworks than the Enlightenment that produced the human rights. This is the notion that culture trumps women's human rights. So these that the two big challenges, strangely coming from two different parts of the world.

HRF: It is surprising though that the CSW conclusions were not adopted.

RC: I think they are making a point the past approaches to this issue are something they want to challenge.

HRF: Brazil is tabling a draft resolution on 'Human rights and sexual orientation' at this session. Has the time now come for the UN to tackle this controversial area?

RC: I think so. I think it is an important issue, and I think that in time we can have a special rapporteur on sexual orientation.

HRF: In your opinion "the articulation of sexual rights is the final frontier for the women's movement" - how do you think it can be tackled?

RC: We have the Cairo language on sexual health and safe and satisfying sex life which perhaps creates the framework for some notion of sexual rights. As I do my research I find that a lot of the violence against women, whether it is honour killings, FGM or domestic violence, is to do with the regulation of female sexuality. So I think that the recognition of the sexual autonomy of women would go a long way in fighting violence.

HRF: What will be your priorities as the Chairperson of the new Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission?

RC: I think the priority for anyone working on Sri Lanka at the moment is how to ensure human rights in the peace process and also to some extent perhaps work on the new areas such as economic and social rights and develop problems in the post-conflict situation in Sri Lanka.

HRF: In your opinion, which of your country visits best illustrates the positive developments that your mandate has brought with it?

RC: I think for example in Poland, they have come up with a lot of the recommendations we have mentioned. This is true also to some extent of India, Nepal and Bangladesh with actions taken on trafficking.

HRF: You point at the ICC as a forum for progressive developments on violence against women, on issues such as consent - how do you see these influencing measures on violence against women at the national level?

RC: The ICC has now made sexual violence war crimes and crimes against humanity. So I think that the interpretation of these will be taken into consideration in national laws. But there are also the International Tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda there is judicial construction of what is rape, what is enslavement, torture - interesting jurisprudential developments. Perhaps those interpretations will also affect national level jurisprudence.

HRF: The Office of the previous High Commissioner gave great impetus to addressing the issue of trafficking and sexual exploitation. In 2000, you expressed your worries with regard to the Protocol on Trafficking to the International Convention on Transnational Organised Crime. Have these been assuaged?

RC: To some extent: yes: Because the Protocol has come forward with a definition that, I think, tries to bridge the gap between all the different approaches to trafficking. It is not a definition that all sides are happy with but I think it is a minimum definition that all sides can live. Therefore I think it is very uniting. I have spoken to women on both sides of the debate - they are quite happy to work with the Convention.

So I think in the end it turned out to be a success.