16 days of activism against GBV: A global call for change and solidarity
The “16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence” is an important global campaign that runs annually from Nov 25 to Dec 10. This period serves as a critical time to raise awareness, advocate for change, and take action against gender-based violence (GBV), particularly violence against women and girls. The campaign aims to highlight the widespread nature of GBV and to encourage governments, organizations, and individuals to take concrete steps toward its eradication.
The “16 Days of Activism” campaign was launched in 1991 by the ‘Center for Women’s Global Leadership’ at Rutgers University, United States. It was created to catalyze a global movement to address violence against women, with specific dates chosen for their significance. Nov 25 marks the “International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women”, which commemorates the “Mirabal Sisters”, three Dominican women who were political activists and were murdered on 25 Nov 1960, by the secret police under the regime of Rafael Trujillo. Their assassination became a symbol of resistance against gender-based violence and state oppression. The campaign ends on Dec 10, which is ‘Human Rights Day’, commemorating the adoption of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” by the United Nations in 1948. This declaration affirms the right of every individual to live free from violence, discrimination, and abuse.
The legacy of the “Mirabal Sisters” plays a central role in the campaign. Patria, Minerva, and Maria Teresa were politically active women who opposed the authoritarian Trujillo regime, speaking out about the rights of women and against the brutal tactics of the government. Their tragic deaths became a rallying cry for women’s rights activists around the world, and their legacy continues to inspire the global fight against violence. The United Nations officially designated Nov 25 as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women in 1999, using their martyrdom to draw attention to the urgent need to address gender-based violence.
As per various reports and studies, violence against women remains a global epidemic, affecting “one in three women” in their lifetime. This violence can take many forms such as physical, sexual, psychological, and economic and is often perpetrated by intimate partners. GBV is deeply entrenched in social, cultural, and institutional inequalities, and its impacts are far-reaching. Factors such as “poverty”, “armed conflict”, and “cultural norms” exacerbate women’s vulnerability to violence. Women in poverty are more likely to experience abuse and lack the resources to escape it, while those in conflict zones face heightened risks of sexual violence. Harmful patriarchal systems, gender norms, and societal expectations often normalize violence, perpetuating abuse across generations.
The “16 Days of Activism” aims to achieve several key objectives. “Raising awareness” is a primary goal of the campaign. Through social media campaigns, public protests, and educational workshops, the campaign amplifies the voices of survivors and advocates, helping to break the silence around GBV and bring the issue into the global spotlight. Another central objective is “advocating for institutional change”, specifically pushing for stronger laws and policies to protect women from violence. This includes advocating for the criminalization of all forms of GBV, ensuring that survivors have access to justice, and establishing support services to help women recover from violence. “Empowering women and girls” is also a major focus of the campaign. By providing resources, education, and support, the campaign works to help women and girls live safe, healthy, and fulfilling lives, while breaking the cycle of violence. Lastly, the campaign seeks to “build solidarity” among individuals, organizations, and nations, fostering a collective global movement to end GBV and ensure gender equality.
Over the years, the “16 Days of Activism” campaign has had a significant impact. It has led to “increased legal protections” in many countries, with reforms that criminalize domestic violence, sexual harassment, and human trafficking. These legal advancements have helped ensure that survivors have access to justice and vital support services. The campaign has also played a crucial role in “raising public awareness” about gender-based violence. Through mass media, social media, and grassroots campaigns, it has sparked public dialogue on the root causes of violence and the need for social change. The campaign has inspired “global solidarity movements”, with protests, marches, and social media mobilizations uniting people from diverse backgrounds in the fight against GBV.
Looking toward the future, while the campaign has made significant progress, much work remains to be done. The future of the “16 Days of Activism” depends on continued efforts to “change social norms” and “engage men and boys” as allies in the fight against GBV. Challenging traditional notions of masculinity, promoting respectful relationships, and addressing harmful gender norms are essential for creating lasting societal change. Additionally, there is a growing emphasis on “prevention”—educating individuals about consent, healthy relationships, and the importance of gender equality. Supporting survivors remains a critical component of the campaign, ensuring that they have access to care, legal assistance, and economic resources to rebuild their lives.
In conclusion, the “16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence” is a vital campaign that continues to raise awareness, advocate for systemic change, and build solidarity across the globe. Its impact has been profound, but the fight for gender equality and the elimination of violence is ongoing. The campaign serves as a reminder that this is not just a women’s issue, it is a human rights issue that requires the collective action of all people, regardless of gender, to ensure that women and girls everywhere can live free from violence, discrimination, and fear.
Opuz v Turkey: Contextualizing the case in Nepal and the path to reform
The Opuz v Turkey case provides essential insights for Nepal to combat domestic violence and ensure the protection of domestic violence victims. Nepal can enhance safety for women and marginalized individuals by recognizing its international human rights obligations and establishing/implementing effective legal frameworks. The ruling in the Opuz v Turkey case highlights the vital role of the judiciary in ensuring that the state fulfills its duties, asserting that domestic violence is a human rights violation requiring thorough legal and social action. Nepal can uphold the dignity and rights of all victims through a coordinated effort by enhancing protections, reforming legal structures and changing societal attitudes, reflecting the spirit of the ruling and advancing the struggle against domestic violence.
The case of Opuz v Turkey (2009) is an important decision in human rights law, particularly in relation to domestic violence and the obligations of the state to protect the victims of domestic violence and vulnerable individuals. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruling establishes important precedents that are particularly relevant for countries such as Nepal, where domestic violence is prevalent and state systems frequently fall short in safeguarding the victims. In Nepal, the prevalence of domestic violence is ingrained in cultural norms and entrenched in traditional patriarchal frameworks, thereby fostering a pervasive tolerance for violence targeting women. Despite notable advancements, women often encounter discrimination and violence in familial environments, as societal norms often view domestic violence as a private issue, thereby deterring victims from seeking help. The perpetuation of traditional gender roles and cultural expectations creates a cycle of abuse that renders women voiceless and defenseless due to fear of stigma and retaliation. The Opuz v Turkey case established critical precedents concerning a state’s obligations to protect individuals from domestic violence under the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECtHR emphasized that states bear positive obligations to implement preventive measures when they are cognizant of a real and immediate risk to an individual's life, thereby redefining domestic violence as a matter of public concern rather than a private issue. This ruling acknowledged the grave nature of domestic violence as a violation of human rights and mandated the establishment of effective legal protections and accountability mechanisms. The implications of this judgment have significantly influenced the treatment of domestic violence cases throughout Europe and serve as an essential reference point for legal reforms in countries, such as Nepal, that face analogous challenges.
Although, Domestic Violence (Offense and Punishment) Act- 2009 of Nepal is a major legislative step in the right direction, obstacles to accessing justice, cultural shame, and poor enforcement - all work against the law's efficacy. When seeking assistance, many women face barriers because the legal and law enforcement sectors frequently lack the resources and expertise necessary to provide adequate assistance. According to reports, police officials may reject cases or act biasedly toward women, which encourages a culture of impunity for those who commit crimes against women. Important legal arguments that are relevant to Nepal are highlighted by the Opuz v Turkey case, especially those that deal with the right to life and the outlawing of torture and inhumane treatment. Authorities must acknowledge that it is their responsibility to step in when there is a known threat to a person's life, as victims of domestic abuse in Nepal face serious risks. Protecting victims and making sure their accusations are taken seriously need proactive measures like restraining orders and emergency interventions.
Moreover, the psychological and physical violence experienced by women in Nepal parallels the experiences of the applicant in Opuz v Turkey. The ECtHR’s acknowledgment of domestic violence as a serious violation of human rights underscores the need for Nepal to adopt a similar perspective. It is vital that Nepali law recognizes domestic violence as a public concern that necessitates state intervention. This shift in perception is essential for mobilizing resources and support systems for victims, including easy access to counseling, legal assistance, and shelters. The implications of the Opuz ruling for Nepal are profound, emphasizing the need for enhanced state accountability in cases of domestic violence. This can be achieved through specialized training for law enforcement to handle such cases sensitively and effectively, as well as the establishment of clear protocols for responding to domestic violence complaints.
Strengthening legal frameworks is also critical. In order to ensure adequate protection for victims of domestic abuse within the legal system, a comprehensive review of the existing legislative framework is imperative. It is essential for government officials, lawmakers, legal experts, and women's rights advocates to collaboratively engage in this endeavor. Furthermore, alignment of national legislation with international human rights standards is crucial to prioritize victims' rights and maintain consistent enforcement of laws. Initiatives for community engagement can help advance knowledge of rights and resources, and educational programs in communities and schools can dispel prejudices and foster an environment of equality and respect.
In conclusion, the Opuz v Turkey case offers valuable lessons for Nepal in addressing domestic violence and ensuring the protection of victims. By acknowledging the responsibilities of the state as outlined in international human rights law and enacting robust legal structures, Nepal can strive towards establishing a more secure atmosphere for women and marginalized populations. The judgment highlights the vital importance of judicial systems in ensuring state responsibility, emphasizing that domestic violence constitutes a breach of human rights necessitating thorough legal and societal actions. As Nepal persists in addressing the challenges of domestic violence, drawing insights from the case of Opuz v Turkey provides a valuable chance to enhance its dedication to safeguarding victims and tackling this widespread problem with the necessary promptness.
