GOECKE V AUSTRIA Flashcards
(2 cards)
GOECKE V AUSTRIA (Facts of the Case)
Şahide Goekce was an Austrian citizen of Turkish origin. From 1999-2002, she was subjected periodically to physical violence and death threats by her husband Mustafa Goekce. The police were informed of these ongoing threats. On two occasions, they imposed protection orders requiring Mustafa Goekce to leave the shared home first for a period of 10 days, then for a period of three months. On one occasion Mustafa Goekce was charged with assault but acquitted because Şahide Goekce’s injuries were judged to be insufficiently serious. The police asked twice that Mustafa Goekce be detained because of the death threats and violence that he was inflicting, however, the prosecutors denied these requests because of insufficient evidence.
Şahide Goekce’s father and brother provided further information to the police confirming that Mustafa Goekce had made many threats to kill Şahide Goekce and that he had access to a gun. These statements were not taken seriously or recorded. Two days after prosecution for causing bodily harm and making a criminal dangerous threat was stopped, Mustafa Goekce shot Şahide Goekce with a handgun in front of two of their daughters.
The Vienna Intervention Centre and the Association of Women’s Access to Justice, acting on behalf of Şahide Goekce’s three children submitted the complaint.
The Austrian government defended its actions, noting that Şahide had refused to testify against Mustafa and had expressed a desire to stay with him, even during child protection proceedings. They argued that her actions suggested the threats were part of a recurring dynamic in their relationship and not serious.
Additionally, the government stated that Mustafa’s mental state at the time—described as a “jealousy psychosis”—made it difficult to predict his level of danger. However, argued that the state failed in its responsibility to protect her and placed an undue burden on her to address her husband’s violence. They emphasized that domestic violence is not just a private matter but a crime against the community, requiring proactive intervention by the state. The applicants pointed out that Şahide may have downplayed the threats against her out of fear of losing her children and facing social and cultural stigma as a divorced woman of Turkish descent.
Goekce v. Austria (Decision of the Committee)
The CEDAW Committee emphasized that Austria had a comprehensive framework to address domestic violence, including legislation, remedies, shelters, and education. However, it stressed that political will must be matched by state actors adhering to due diligence obligations to protect victims effectively.
In Şahide Goekce’s case, the Committee considered several critical factors: the frequent police calls for assistance, police requests for Mustafa Goekce’s detention, the breach of the protection order, his purchase of a handgun despite a weapons prohibition, and reports of his possession of the weapon. The Committee concluded that the police knew or should have known that Şahide was in grave danger and should have treated her last call as an emergency.
The CEDAW Committee found a violation of Articles 2(a) (c) (d) (e) and (f) and Article 3, read in conjunction with Article 1 (the definition of discrimination) and General Recommendation 19, which identified gender-based violence as a form of discrimination. On this basis, the Committee made detailed recommendations to the Austrian government, including,
* Prosecute offenders effectively, to convey to perpetrators of violence and the public that society condemns domestic violence
* Ensure better coordination between law enforcement and judicial officers and cooperation with non-governmental organizations that work to protect and support women victims of domestic violence
* Improve training of all relevant officials.
