Inter-American case law on femicide
| Author | Lorena P. A. Sosa |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0924051917708382 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Inter-American case law on
femicide: Obscuring intersections?
Lorena P. A. Sosa
Instituto Interdisciplinario de Estudios de Ge
´nero, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina, (Group on Social History and
Gender); Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Utrecht University, the Netherlands
Abstract
The Inter-American Human Rights System has broken new ground in the field of violence against
women (VAW) by delineating the concept of femicide, the principle of due diligence, clarifying the
obligations of the States regarding violence and a adopting a gender perspective on reparations. In
recent years, ‘intersectionality’, the study of the interconnections of race, ethnicity, religion, age,
class, sexual orientation and other categories of difference in relation to inequality, has been
promoted in human rights law for tackling VAW. This approach poses new challenges for the
interpretation of cases. This article examines to what extent the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights and the Inter-American Commission have incorporated an intersectional view of violence
against women into cases of femicide and discusses the potential of doing so in the future.
Keywords
violence against women, femicide, Inter-American Court, Inter-American Commission,
intersectionality
Introduction
The 2009 judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) in the case of
Gonza
´lez v. Mexico (‘Cotton Field’)
1
represented ‘a beginning and a crucial point of departure
for adjudicating cases of violence and discrimination against women’.
2
The judgment became a
point of reference for many judicial and quasi-judicial bodies dealing with cases of violence
Corresponding author:
Lorena P. A. Sosa, Instituto Interdisciplinario de Estudios de Ge
´nero, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina, (Group on
Social History and Gender); Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
E-mail: l.p.a.sosa@me.com
1. Gonza
´lez et al (‘Cotton Field’) v Mexico, Series C 205 (16 November 2009).
2. Rosa Celorio, ‘Introductory Note To Gonzalez (‘Cotton Field’) v Mexico (IACtHR)’ (2010) 49 International Legal
Materials 637.
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights
2017, Vol. 35(2) 85–103
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0924051917708382
journals.sagepub.com/home/nqh
NQHR
NQHR
against women (VAW). It elaborated on the relation between discrimination and VAW, and
the scope of State obligations.
3
Since then, the Court has continued to elaborate key concepts
for VAW, often building on the work of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights
(‘the Commission’).
In recent times, new perspectives have been gaininggroundinthefieldofVAW.Anumber
of developments at international and regional levels suggest that States need to pay particular
attention to the situation of women facing human rights violations on the basis of multiple
factors, such as their age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, migrant
status, marital or family status and their poverty and literacy levels.
4
Moreover, international
human rights documents increasingly point to ‘intersectionality’, which emphasises ‘the inter-
action between gender, race, and other social categories of distinction in individual lives,
social practices, institutional arrangements, and cultural ideologies and the outcomes of these
interactions in terms of power,’
5
as the best lens for addressing discrimination and violence
against women.
6
This article discusses the adoption of an intersectional perspective in the Inter-American
Court and the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights’ decisions on femicide,thatis,
the killing of women because of their gender, and thebenefitsofadoptingsuchanapproachin
the future.
7
Section 2 describes the origin and main theoretical principles underlying inter-
sectionality and its potential to effectively address the structural causes of violence affecting
women. It also outlines the elements that will guide the analysis of the cases. Section 3
explores to what extent the Inter-American normative framework applicable to VAW promotes
an intersectional approach. Section 4 is dedicated to the analysis of the cases. Section 5
provides concluding observations, discussing the potential benefits of adopting an intersec-
tionalapproachinfuturecases.
3. See ibid; Rosa Celorio, ‘The rights of women in the Inter-American System of Human Rights: current opportunities and
challenges in standard-setting’ (2011) 65 University of Miami Law Review 3, 819–66; Victor Abramovich,
‘Responsabilidad estatal por violencia de ge´nero: comentarios sobre el caso ‘Campo Algodonero’ en la Corte Inter-
americana de Derechos Humanos’ (2010) 6 Anuario de Derechos Humanos 167–82; Katrin Tiroch, ‘Violence against
women by private actors: the Inter-American Court’s judgment in the case of Gonzalez et al (‘Cotton Field’) v Mexico’
(2010) 14 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 371–408; Susana Chiarotti Boero, ‘Women’s Citizen Security’
(2011) 65 University of Miami Law Review 797; Ruth Rubio-Marı´n and Clara Sandoval, ‘Engendering the reparations
jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: the promise of the Cotton Field Judgment’ (2011) 33
Human Rights Quarterly 4, 1062–91.
4. eg Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General Recommendation no 19 ‘Violence
Against Women’ (1992); General Recommendation no 26 ‘Women Migrant Workers’ (2009); General Recommen-
dation no 27 ‘Older Women and Protection of Their Human Rights’ (2010); General Recommendation no 30 ‘Women in
Conflict Prevention, Conflict and Post-Conflict Situations’ (2013).
5. Kathy Davis, ‘Intersectionality as buzzword: a sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory
successful’ (2008) 9 Feminist Theory 1, 67–85.
6. eg Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, General Recommendation no 25 ‘Temporary
Special Measures’ (2004); General Recommendation no 28 ‘Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’ (2010).
7. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, femicide entails the killing of a woman or girl, in particular by a man and on
account of her gender. Very recently, the word ‘feminicidio’ (femicide) was incorporated into the 23 rd edition of the
Spanish Dictionary by the Spanish Royal Academy, the most authoritative source in the Spanish language, promoted by
the Mexican anthropologist Marcela Lagarde and celebrated as an important achievement by the feminist movement in
Ibero-America.
86 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 35(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial