Gender-Based Violence: CEDAW No. 35

Treating gender-based violence as the private conduct of a few bad individuals encourages institutions to look only for someone to condemn after an event. The CEDAW Committee’s General Recommendation No. 35 places violence within discrimination and emphasizes its gendered causes and effects. Distributed on July 26, 2017, it updates No. 19. Concrete perpetrators and public responsibility for the continuation of violence must remain visible together; one does not cancel the other.

Paragraphs 9 and 19–20 move from incidents to social relations. Male entitlement, gender roles and punishment of disapproved female conduct can sustain acceptance of violence. Homes, workplaces and digital environments are not sealed compartments. Threats encountered across them may jointly restrict movement, livelihood and speech, rather than constitute unrelated disturbances to endure separately.

Responsibility for omissions

Paragraph 24 provides an important entry through due diligence. The Committee distinguishes responsibility for State conduct from duties concerning violence by non-State actors. Private perpetration does not automatically place the State outside the issue. Prevention, investigation, prosecution, punishment and reparation require functioning laws, institutions and services. The question extends beyond a formal prohibition to whether warnings are heard, authorities respond and failures are addressed.

Paragraph 29(e) connects the definition of sexual assault with the absence of freely given consent, explicitly including marriage and acquaintance contexts. Relationship status cannot supply consent in advance. This moves sexual violence away from chastity, family honor or spousal entitlement toward personal and bodily integrity. Coercive circumstances need scrutiny, rather than requiring a victim first to establish conformity with an image of the good woman.

Protection should not become a reward for compliance with legal proceedings. Paragraph 31 recommends protective measures without requiring victims to initiate legal action, alongside financial assistance, housing, legal and health services, childcare and employment opportunities. Refusing or leaving danger depends on paying rent, caring for children and understanding procedures. Locating services within conditions of life avoids requiring someone to complete a costly search for help before qualifying for the means to seek it.

Protection cannot make the decision

Paragraph 32 rejects mandatory referral to mediation or conciliation and places strict conditions, including free and informed consent, on alternative procedures. Paragraph 33 connects reparations with recovery, services and guarantees of non-repetition, prioritizing the person’s wishes, decisions, safety and dignity. Restored calm cannot alone demonstrate a resolved case: calm can also result from forced silence. Support and remedy should strengthen decision-making capacity.

A general recommendation interprets Convention obligations; it does not prove that every country supplies the same enforceable remedy. It helps evaluate the distance between design and implementation: are there budgets, accessible services and safety beyond the legislation? Substituting prosecution totals or training sessions for these questions mistakes countable administration for improved lives. Normative goals and actual effects require different evidence.

Terrorizing Women connects prominent acts of violence with institutional tolerance while preserving regional historical and legal differences. The workplace-harassment interview in Les Couilles sur la table brings the inquiry into employment: social rewards can explain repeated boundary violations without absolving perpetrators. Together with No. 35, these readings place individual responsibility, organizational action and the conditions for continuing a life within one account.