A.T HUNGARY Flashcards
(3 cards)
A.T HUNGARY
A.T. v. Hungary was the first domestic violence complaint submitted to and reviewed by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The decision delivered by the Committee redefined state obligation to end domestic violence under international human rights norms and standards, setting a precedent for all other states party to CEDAW. All state parties to CEDAW are required to view domestic violence as a form of gender-based discrimination that requires appropriate action to address the underlying causes of the violation. This requires both the creation of effective domestic remedies and addressing the harmful gender stereotypes that contribute to inadequate responses by public officials when violence occurs.
A.T. v. Hungary (FACTS)
A.T. lived in an apartment in Hungary with her husband, L.F., and their two children, one of whom was severely brain-damaged. Over a period of more than four years, A.T. suffered severe domestic violence at the hands of L.F. The abuse included physical violence and emotional harassment, which caused significant harm to A.T. and endangered the safety of her children. In March 1999, L.F. moved out of their jointly-owned apartment but continued his abusive behaviour. He frequently visited the apartment, shouting loudly and physically assaulting A.T. In 2000, he moved in with a new partner and took most of the furniture and household items with him. In an effort to protect herself and her children, A.T. changed the locks on their door. L.F. responded by sabotaging the locks with glue and kicking in part of the door. On one occasion, L.F. broke into the apartment and severely beat A.T., resulting in her hospitalization for a week due to kidney damage. He also possessed a firearm and threatened to kill A.T. and harm their children.
A.T. sought protection through civil proceedings to restrict L.F.’s access to the family home. However, this attempt failed for two reasons:
a. The court deemed there was insufficient evidence to substantiate A.T.’s claim that L.F. regularly battered her, despite the fact that A.T. had obtained 10 medical certificates documenting separate incidents of severe physical violence between March 1998 and July 2001.
b. The court upheld L.F.’s property rights to the apartment, stating that his possession could not be restricted.
A.T. also initiated civil proceedings to divide their jointly-owned property, but this process was suspended. Additionally, two separate criminal proceedings were launched against L.F. for acts of violence against A.T., one of which was initiated by the hospital that treated her for kidney damage. Despite these proceedings, L.F. was never detained, and Hungarian authorities failed to take any measures to ensure the safety of A.T. and her children. At the time, Hungary’s legal system did not provide for restraining orders or protection orders.
A.T. repeatedly sought help from local child protection authorities to protect herself and her children, but no action was taken. Furthermore, there were no shelters in Hungary equipped to accommodate the specific needs of her disabled son, leaving A.T. without viable options for safe refuge. Throughout this period, A.T. and her children lived in constant fear for their safety due to the ongoing violence and lack of effective intervention by the authorities.
A.T Hungary (Decision of the Committee)
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) held Hungary responsible for violating A.T.’s human rights due to its failure to protect her and her children from domestic violence. The Committee determined that Hungary had breached the following provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW):
* Article 2(a), (b), and (e): Failure to implement effective policy measures to prevent and address violence against women.
* Article 5(1): Endorsement of harmful gender stereotypes that perpetuated violence against women.
* Article 16: Failure to ensure equality in marriage and family life.
The Committee emphasized that women’s human rights to life and physical and mental integrity cannot be overridden by other rights, such as the right to property or privacy. It reiterated that gender-based violence constitutes discrimination under CEDAW, and states are responsible for preventing, investigating, and punishing acts of violence, even when committed by private actors.
The Committee highlighted Hungary’s lack of immediate protection measures for A.T. and its judicial system’s low prioritization of domestic violence cases, which amounted to a failure of due diligence. Widespread gender stereotyping in Hungary was identified as a contributing factor to the systemic nature of gender-based violence.
Hungary’s inaction and systemic failings demonstrated a violation of its obligations under CEDAW, including its responsibility to address domestic violence as a form of gender-based discrimination and to provide protection and support for survivors.
For these reasons, the Committee recommended Hungary (para. 9.6):
* Take immediate and effective measures to guarantee the physical and mental integrity of A. T. and her family
* Ensure that A. T. is given a safe home in which to live with her children, and receives appropriate child support and legal assistance as well as reparation proportionate to the physical and mental harm undergone and to the gravity of the violations of her rights
