Violence against women in the family

 

 

AI Index: EUR 46/056/2005

14 December 2005

“How did I end up in this cage,
chained?” – Oksana, 54 years old, Russian Federation

Introduction

Every hour a woman in the Russian Federation dies
at the hand of a relative, her partner or former partner. Violence against women
in the family(1) occurs in all 89 regions of the Russian Federation. It occurs
in families of different social spheres and ethnic backgrounds; it is not a
private matter but affects society as a whole. Amnesty International is
concerned that throughout the Russian Federation, too little is done to prevent
violence in the family, to protect those who have become victims and to bring to
account perpetrators of violence in the family. Violence against women in the
family is a human rights violation, a form of discrimination which states are
obliged to act against under international law. The Russian Federation is a
party to a number of treaties which oblige the state to protect those under its
jurisdiction from human rights abuses, including from violence in the family.
This includes the obligation to take measures to prevent acts of violence
against women in the family and to provide protection for victims of such
abuses. Such measures should include, but are not limited to public awareness
raising and training of law enforcement officials, the enactment of specific
legislation and the funding of shelters, hotlines and other services for victims
of violence in the family.

This report is based on research in several
regions – Karelia, St Petersburg, Moscow and Altai – where Amnesty International
found that some positive measures have been taken to improve protection and
support mechanisms for victims of violence in the family. Among those who helped
Amnesty International to conduct its research are the following: Women’s
Alliance (Barnaul), St. Petersburg Crisis Centre for Women, Citizen’s Watch and
Aleksandra (all St. Petersburg), ANNA (Moscow), Femina (Naberezhnie Chelnyi),
the Karelian Centre for Gender Studies as well as the police in St. Petersburg,
Petrozavodsk and the regional administration of the Altai region. Local and
national women’s rights organizations provided information to Amnesty
International, including some good examples on how they have worked to achieve
change in some areas. However, Amnesty International remains concerned that
there is no adequate systematic approach to the problem of violence against
women in the family on the federal, regional and local level. There seems to be
a lack of political will to put an end to violence against women in the family.
Too often the opening of a shelter, the establishment of a hotline or the
cooperation between women’s crisis centres and the police have only happened
because of the efforts of individual people, who are dedicated to provide
support and protection to women, who have become victims of violence in the
family. Amnesty International is concerned that many support centres and women’s
organizations are threatened with closure since funds and government support
have been withdrawn.(2)

This report is mainly based on research
conducted by Amnesty International in December 2004 and early 2005, and is part
of Amnesty International’s worldwide campaign to Stop Violence Against Women. As
well as female victims of violence in the family and women’s organizations,
Amnesty International’s representatives interviewed police officers, judges,
procurators, forensic experts, local officials, social workers, lawyers, workers
in women’s crisis centres and shelters, human rights activists and journalists.
The report focuses on physical forms of violence against women in the family;
however, most of the women who spoke to Amnesty International’s representatives
had also experienced other forms of gender-based violence, including sexual,
psychological or emotional violence and economical dependency or deprivation,
which are no less harmful to women’s ability to fully enjoy their rights than
physical violence.

Although all the victims cited in this report are
women, this does not mean that they are the only victims of this form of
violence. Children are often subjected to abuse by their parents, and men, too,
can be victims of violence in the family. However, domestic violence or violence
in the family is considered a gender-based violence; that is, it is directed
against a woman because she is a woman or it affects women
disproportionately.(3) It is not confined to any particular political or
economic system, but is a form of violence that is prevalent in every society in
the world and cuts across boundaries of wealth, race and culture. As the UN
Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences
stated:

(22). According to the myth of the family as a sanctuary of
tranquillity and harmony, domestic violence is a veritable incongruity, a
contradiction in terms. Violence shatters the peaceful image of the home, the
safety that kinship provides. None the less, the insidious nature of domestic
violence has been documented across nations and cultures worldwide. It is a
universal phenomenon.

(23). Domestic violence is violence that
occurs within the private sphere, generally between individuals who are related
through intimacy, blood or law. Despite the apparent neutrality of the term,
domestic violence is nearly always a gender-specific crime, perpetrated by men
against women. When the reverse occurs and women strike out against their male
partners, such incidents barely influence statistics of the gender-specific
nature of domestic violence. In any case, such incidents most often occur when
women attempt to physically defend themselves against their abusive
partners.(4)

The first major opinion poll on violence within
marriage, carried out in the Russian Federation in 2002-2003, found that women
used violence against men much less than men against women and that the physical
consequences of these beatings were less damaging.(5) The majority of women who
assaulted their husbands had themselves been subjected to violence by them. Only
three per cent of women who assaulted their husbands had not been beaten by
them.

The women who were interviewed by Amnesty International have not
agreed to have their names published. They felt embarrassed that they were
living in a violent relationship and thought that public opinion would blame
them for the situation they were in as well as for making their situation known
to a wider audience. Several women continue to live with their violent partner
and risk reprisals by speaking to a human rights organization. The women who
gave their testimonies to Amnesty International did so to help other women and
to contribute to setting up effective mechanisms for combating violence against
women in the family. All cases referred to in this report are from recent years.

Caption
Candlelight vigil in front of the Russian embassy,
Budapest, Hungary, to protest against violence against women in the family in
the Russian Federation. © AI

Nowhere to turn to – Anna’s
story

“You are just trying to solve your family problems at our
expense”

The first time Anna’s husband hit her, he apologized. The
couple had married in 1986 and have two sons aged 12 and 19. Later he made a
habit of beating and insulting her, and whipped the children for minor offences.
Several times, the bruises on her face left Anna too ashamed to go to work. For
years, Anna tried to live with the problem, ordering the children to be silent
in their father’s presence and trying to avoid potential conflict. But when
Anna’s husband lost his job in 2003 due to alcoholism, he drank even more and
his aggression increased.

In December 2003, after her husband had
threatened to set her on fire, Anna finally decided to file for a divorce.
Incensed at her action, her husband destroyed the family’s possessions,
including dishes and clothes.

In March 2004, a week after the couple had
been officially divorced, she returned with her older son to the flat, as she
had nowhere else to go. Her ex-husband told her that he did not recognize the
divorce and that he was going to have sex with her. During the incurring
argument he doused her with inflammable liquid and tried to set her alight.
While Anna had witnesses who could confirm what had happened, the police told
her they could not do anything, because he “had not committed a crime”.
According to Anna, the police did not pay attention to the fact that he had a
lighter nor did they check her coat which was soaked in the liquid.

Anna
believes that her decision to divorce him exacerbated his behaviour. “While we
were living together we were like marionettes for him,” she said, “what he
demanded we would do. Now we were moving out of his control and he could not
accept it.”

Anna and her older son continued to live in one room in the
small flat, while her ex-husband lived in the other room. On 29 March 2004 Anna
returned from work and reportedly found her ex-husband with his brother drinking
in the kitchen. She asked the two men if they could leave the kitchen so that
she could make dinner. Her request led her ex-husband to attack her with a pike.

This time the police treated the incident as an attempt to kill Anna. It
was alleged that her ex-husband had brought the pike to the flat to attack her.
A criminal case under Article 119 of the Russian Criminal Code (threat to murder
or inflict serious bodily harm) was opened against him. In July Anna’s
ex-husband was sentenced to a one-year suspended prison term.

However,
one evening in summer 2004, after her ex-husband had been convicted, he tried to
attack her. The police did little more than take him down to their car to speak
to him for a while. The next morning he entered her room as she was leaving for
work. He had a knife in his hand and told her that he would kill her. She tried
to escape but he caught her and tried to throw her out of the window. When the
police came, they told her that they could not do anything. Apparently, they
were not aware that he had been convicted.

Anna asked the Department for
the Execution of Punishment at the Ministry of Justice (GUIN) how it was
possible that no measures were being taken against her ex-husband after he had
been given a conditional sentence and continued to use violence. She was told
that the GUIN had not received the court decision regarding her husband, and
that they were unable to take action against her husband without this document.
It appeared that the verdict had not been sent on by the court as is required by
the relevant rules of procedure.(6)

On 29 October 2004 Anna’s ex-husband
attacked her and injured one of her friends. The two women ran to Anna’s room
and barricaded the door, but he poured oil in front of it and set it aflame. As
he was reportedly very drunk, the two women managed to get out of the room. They
tried to put out the flames and warned the neighbours who called the police. The
police reportedly had to chain Anna’s ex-husband to a railing in the corridor
while taking statements from the two women and the neighbour. A criminal case
was opened into the beating of Anna’s friend. The attempt to burn the flat was
dismissed by a judge, who allegedly said, “You are just trying to solve your
family problems at our expense.”

On 11 February 2005 Anna’s ex-husband
was finally sentenced to a year in prison. When taking her decision, the judge
took the many reported acts of violence committed by Anna’s ex-husband into
consideration.

Anna’s husband continues to receive a lot of sympathy
from others. His sister reportedly told her, “He has such a difficult life, he
does not have work and he is an alcoholic, but you – you are an active woman,
you have work and continue your studies. You need to take better care of him, so
that everything will be as it used to.”

Anna says that other victims of
violence in the family told her: “That is our fate. If he is aggressive, you
should just go shopping until he calms down.” She said: “Women, including female
judges, do not show solidarity. They consider I should solve my problems myself.
Four times in 2004 the police and judges of the peace refused to open a criminal
case.”

Background

Violence against women in the family is
not a new phenomenon in the Russian Federation. It existed during tsarist times
as well as in the Soviet Union. Today, some people claim that the basis for this
form of violence was laid in the 16th century, when the so-called
Domostroi was written, a manual on how to discipline family and servants.
Legal practice and existing codes of conduct in society affirmed the right of
husbands to beat their wives. In the 19th century, a number of writers raised
concerns about the effects violence in the family had on the lives of women in
the Russian Empire. However, the discussions remained theoretical.(7)

Some of the people interviewed by Amnesty International stated that
violence against women in the family allegedly did not exist during Soviet
times, claiming that violence against women in the family is a by-product of
political instability, economic hardship and the loss of state control over
people’s lives. Most, however, recognized that it was not a “new” issue. During
the early years of the Soviet Union, it was thought that violence against women
in the family would be eradicated in a society where men and women were equal.
Violence against women in the family was considered inherently bourgeois and was
not recognized as a problem the authorities needed to tackle.(8)

In
1999, Larisa Boichenko from the Karelian Centre for Gender Studies organized one
of the first information seminars on violence against women in the family. It
was attended by women who worked in local and regional administration or social
services. According to Larisa Boichenko, several women started crying during the
seminar and explained that they themselves were in a violent relationship and
had not realized that they had the right to live without violence. One woman
said she did not know how to continue her life, knowing that the violence she
experienced did not have to be the norm.

That same year, the UN Special
Rapporteur on violence against women noted that in the Russian Federation:

‘…according to information provided, the government has no clear
strategy for addressing violence against women generally or domestic violence
specifically. According to one report the law enforcement system ‘creates
numerous and substantial obstacles’ to combating violence against women […] Reportedly, a further obstacle is entrenched distrust of those linked to the
State, such as the police, lawyers and the courts, because of recent history,
when all were used as tools for State oppression.’(9)

Violence
against Women in the Family is a Human Rights Violation

Violence
against women in the family is not a private matter but a human rights
violation. Where it occurs, human rights are not fully protected. Respect of
human rights and access to a full enjoyment of human rights and freedoms only
exists where women can find protection from violence in the family.

The Russian Federation’s Obligations under International Law

The Russian Federation is a party to international and regional
human rights treaties, all of which require the government of the Russian
Federation to protect, respect and fulfil the human rights of those under its
jurisdiction. The Constitution of the Russian Federation, which came into force
in 1993, guarantees those under its jurisdiction rights and freedoms “in
accordance with generally respected principles and norms of international law”
(Article 17). The following treaties, a non-exhaustive list of the treaties
which the Russian Federation has ratified, are relevant to the analysis in this
report:

• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);
• The 1st Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which authorizes the Human
  Rights Committee (HRC) to hear individual complaints;
  
• The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
  Women; and its Optional Protocol, which recognizes the competence of the
  Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
  (CEDAW) to receive and consider communications submitted by individuals and
  groups of individuals;
• The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
  Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and its protocols.

The Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Women’s
Convention) requires States Parties to “adopt appropriate legislative and other
measures, including sanctions where appropriate, prohibiting all discrimination
against women” (Article 2(b)). As General Recommendation No. 19 of CEDAW
emphasizes that the definition of discrimination against women in Article 1 of
the Women’s Convention includes gender-based violence, State Parties are under a
legal duty to provide protection for the victims of violence against women and
not to allow acts of violence to be committed with impunity, whether the
perpetrator is a state agent or a private individual. The Russian Federation is
a State Party to numerous international human rights treaties, including the
Women’s Convention and its Optional Protocol. The Russian Federation is also a
member of the Council of Europe and a State Party to the European Convention on
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). These treaty obligations require
the Russian Federation to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the human rights
of everyone within its jurisdiction. It must act with due diligence to prevent
and investigate violence against women and to hold perpetrators of violence
accountable.(10)

Under the Women’s Convention, legislation must not
discriminate against women,(11)and women and men must be equal before the
law.(12) However, this means that even if the Russian Federation’s laws are
gender-neutral, if they discriminate against women in practice and if they
facilitate impunity for violence against women in the family, the Russian
Federation should introduce appropriate legislation to remove this
discrimination. A specific law prohibiting violence in the family would prevent
violence against women more effectively than the current regime of
gender-neutral laws in the Russian Federation which fail to recognize this form
of violence as a specific crime and a human rights violation. Article 5 of the
Convention requires that the state take all appropriate measures:

“(a) To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and
women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary
and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or
the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and
women;”

The Russian Federation is therefore obliged to challenge
those aspects of its culture which reinforce hierarchical stereotypes, and which
dissuade women from seeking remedies that will protect them from further
violence.

The Russian Federation’s obligations to prevent violence
against women in the family, to investigate such violations and to provide
redress extend to the provision of shelters(13), to the staffing of hotlines,
and to the training of law enforcement officers and public officials.(14) It
also includes the provision of civil remedies such as restraining orders,
protecting women victims of violence in the family from renewed violence.

International Organizations
Special Procedures of
the UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
The UN Special Rapporteur on
Violence against Women, its Causes and Consequences visited the Russian
Federation in December 2004. During her visit she met with government officials,
women’s organizations and victims of violence against women. While a report on
this visit has not yet been published, the Special Rapporteur noted in her
initial observations that

“[v]iolence against women and sex discrimination are still low on the
State agenda” and recommended among others to “prioritize women’s
rights in judicial and non-judicial mechanisms, policies and programmes [and
to] amend legislation in conformity with international standards, exact
legislation, specifically criminalizing domestic violence and provide
shelters for those in need.” (15)

Council of
Europe
The Council of Europe will conduct a campaign in 2006 to combat
domestic violence against women throughout its 46 member states, which include
the Russian Federation. In October 2004, the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe (PACE) noted a worrying escalation in domestic violence
throughout Europe, and pledged itself to this campaign.(16) The European Court
of Human Rights has in a number of cases found a violation of the right not to
be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment (Article 3), where the perpetrator was a relative of the victim. The
Court also found violations of the right to a fair trial (Article 6.(1)) in
cases where the state had failed to respond with due diligence to acts of
violence against an individual by a private individual.(17) The Court noted
that:

“the first sentence of Article 2 § 1 [of the ECHR] enjoins the State not
only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also
to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its
jurisdiction (see the L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 9 June 1998,
Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, p. 1403, § 36). It is
common ground that the State’s obligation in this respect extends beyond its
primary duty to secure the right to life by putting in place effective
criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the
person backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention,
suppression and sanctioning of breaches of such provisions. It is thus
accepted by those appearing before the Court that Article 2 of the
Convention may also imply in certain well-defined circumstances a positive
obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to
protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of
another individual.”(18)

Russian legal framework

While it is possible to penalize someone for certain acts of
violence that may occur in an intimate relationship, the Russian Federation does
not have a specific law on violence in the family.(19) Throughout the 1990s,
some 40 different versions of a draft law on violence in the family have been
discussed by women’s rights activists and by Russian parliamentarians, but none
of these survived a first reading. In a letter to the UK section of Amnesty
International, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote in 2003 that the
Russian Parliament, the Duma, as well as a large part of the population, would
consider a law on violence in the family as an interference with private family
matters. It had therefore been decided not to pursue the introduction of such a
law any longer. Amnesty International believes that it is the duty of the state
to take action when the basic rights of those under its jurisdiction are
violated, including when the abuse takes place in the family.

The
Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has no specific definition of domestic
violence or violence against women in the family. The Criminal Code makes few
references to the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim of a
crime. Cases of violence against women in the family are often considered by law
enforcement officials as part of “violence in the private sphere”
(bytovoe nasilie).(20) The expression “domestic violence”
(domashnee nasilie) is used by women’s organizations and others, but has
not yet found its way into the legal codes of the Russian Federation. Sometimes
the two expressions are used interchangeably.

One of the many versions
of a draft law on violence in the family in the Russian Federation gives the
following definition:

“Violence in the family (family violence) in the current (draft) law
is understood under criminal law as beatings, intended infliction of bodily
harm, systematic use of violence (iztiazanie), rape, premeditated
murder, as well as threats to kill, committed by one member of a family
against another or other members of the family.”(21)

Thus,
this draft law follows the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation’s definition
of what can constitute a crime against a person (Part VII of the Criminal Code).
In another draft law on social and legal protection from violence in the family,
such violence is defined as:

“…any intended action by one family member against another member, if
this action limits the constitutional rights and freedoms of the family
member as a citizen, inflicts physical pain and causes damage or poses
threats to the physical or personal development of under-age members of the
family. Violence in the family can have the form of physical, psychological,
sexual pressure and coercion (force).”(22) [unofficial
translation]

While not finding their way into law, these and
similar definitions of violence in the family are shaped by the discussion of
women’s organizations and experts of the issue.

Today acts of violence
against women in the family, like any violent crime against a person, are
punishable under Part VII of the Russian Criminal Code (crimes against the
person). Staff in women’s crisis centres told Amnesty International that they
often deal with cases of violence against women in the family which may be
prosecuted under the following Articles:

• Article 112 (intentional causing of average gravity harm to health);
• Article 115 (intentional causing of minor harm to health);
• Article 116 (beating);
• Article 119 (threat of homicide or of causing grave harm to health).(23)
  

None of the above-mentioned articles takes note of the
relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. Moreover, a perpetrator’s
repeated acts of violence against the same person are not specifically
criminalized under Russian law. Article 18 of the Russian Criminal Code excludes
“records of convictions for intentional crimes of small gravity” or of
conditional sentences to be taken into account when considering recidivism of
crimes. The law fails to recognize the seriousness of violence against women in
the family where often the individual acts of violence cause only minor damage
to the health of a victim but the cumulative effect of repeated abuse can have
serious long-term repercussions for the mental well-being of the victim. Only
Article 117 of the Russian Criminal Code (torture, the causing of physical or
mental suffering by means of the systematic infliction of beatings or other
forcible actions) considers as aggravating circumstances: if the victim is a
minor, is apparently helpless “or… is materially or otherwise dependent on the
guilty person”. However, this article is rarely invoked. A police officer in
Barnaul, Altai region, told Amnesty International that in three years he had
come across only one case where a man had been charged under article 117 and the
NGO National Center for the Prevention of Violence ANNA had recorded three such
cases in 2004.

A perpetrator of violence against women in the family may
also be prosecuted under the following Articles of the Russian Criminal Code:

• Article 105 (homicide);(24)
• Article 108 (homicide committed when exceeding limits of necessary
  defence);
• Article 110 (incitement to suicide);
• Article 111 (intentional causing of grave harm to health);
• Article 127 (illegal deprivation of freedom);
• Article 231 (hooliganism).(25)

With no specific law on
violence against women in the family, marital rape is not recognized as a
specific crime under Russian law. Articles 131 to 133 of the Russian Criminal
Code criminalize rape or sexual abuse. The relationship between victim and
perpetrator is not mentioned, so charges can theoretically be brought under
these articles in cases of marital rape. But Amnesty International has not been
able to find cases where rape in a marriage or close relationship had been
prosecuted.(26)

Opinion polls have shown that the majority of the
population do not consider forced sexual intercourse within marriage a
crime.(27) Moreover, according to a 2002 opinion poll, 60 per cent of Russian
men and 50 per cent of Russian women believe that marital rape is a
misnomer.(28) When interviewing female victims of violence in the family in
Russia, Amnesty International found that those women who had been raped by their
partner identified sexual violence as one of the worst experiences in their
violent relationship. The above-mentioned opinion poll found that six per cent
of the women questioned had been forced repeatedly to have sex with their
partner after he had assaulted them.

Articles 107 and 113 of the Russian
Criminal Code (killing or “causing of grave or average gravity harm to health in
a state of temporary insanity… caused by force, mockery or grave insult on the
part of the victim or other unlawful or immoral action (or failure to act) of
the victim, and likewise a prolonged mentally stressful situation which arose in
connection with the systematic unlawful or immoral behaviour of the victim”) can
be used as a defence in cases of violence in the family. These articles do not
relate to self-defence, which is considered separately under Russian criminal
law. A women’s organization in Tatarstan informed Amnesty International about a
case where a husband had been sentenced under Article 107(1) to three years’
imprisonment for killing his wife. The judge considered the husband’s
jealousy and doubts about the paternity of his second child to be mitigating
factors. The victim had reportedly previously sought protection and medical aid
for injuries she had sustained during beatings from her husband. Amnesty
International was unable to find a case where a woman, who had been a victim of
violence in the family and had killed the perpetrator, had been charged under
this article.(29)

Though existing Russian law allows women, who are
victims of violence in the family, to seek justice, in practice it is very
difficult to obtain it. While the laws in the Russian Federation are in general
non-discriminatory, some experts consider this to be a problem, arguing that
special measures should be taken, aimed at accelerating de facto equality
between men and women, which is not contrary to the Women’s Convention (see
Article 4 of the Convention).

According to Svetlana Polenina of the
Russian Academy of Sciences, “the main defect of the RF [Russian Federation] legislation should be considered its gender neutrality; the lack of any norms
ensuring the equalization of men’s and women’s opportunities in the realization
of their rights and freedoms that is proclaimed by the RF Constitution (Part 3,
Article 19)”.(30)

In 2002, the CEDAW urged the government of the Russian
Federation to take action to strengthen the protection of women who are
subjected to violence in the family:

37. The Committee, in accordance with its General Recommendation 19,
urges the immediate enactment of specific domestic violence legislation to
facilitate the prosecution of offenders. It also urges the Government to take
immediate and effective measures to provide training to all levels of law
enforcement officers and judges as to the serious and criminal nature of
domestic violence. It recommends the provision of training to health-care
professionals and social workers to improve recognition and reporting of
domestic violence. It recommends the provision of measures of physical
protection for women who are victims of domestic violence, such as removal of
the violent person from the family home, and state budgeting for a sufficient
number of shelters for the victims of violence. All such measures should be
accompanied by a vigorous awareness-raising campaign emphasizing that domestic
violence is a criminal offence and not a “private matter”.(31)

Some
of the suggested measures are being addressed in parts of the Russian
Federation, for instance, as part of action plans of working groups combating
issues such as inequality between men and women, violence against women in the
family, trafficking of women and violent sexual assault, and of commissions for
the advancement of the situation of women. According to the Ministry of Health
and Social Development there were 23 state-funded crisis centres for women in
2005.(32) While the above mentioned working groups and commissions exist on
regional and local levels, and usually bring together government officials,
health, social and legal experts, and activists from non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), they often lack the funds and the power to implement new
measures to prevent violence against women in the family.(33)

Caption
Woman working on a hotline in a crisis centre for
women. © AI

Despite progress being made in some areas, violence
against women in the family remains a serious, but often ignored problem in the
Russian Federation. Amnesty International remains concerned that the state too
often does not act with due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish acts of
violence against women in the family. While in theory the laws allow for the
prosecution of abusers, victims often face police, prosecutors and judges with
little to no awareness or training on violence in the family, and poor
availability of information about the right to live without violence.

Scale of the problem

Government
statistics
In its fifth periodic report to CEDAW, the Russian
Government stated that 14,000 women die each year at the hands of their partner
or a family member.(34) In 2003 reportedly 9,000 women died as a result of
violence from their current or former partner.(35) If these figures are correct,
it would indicate that a woman in Russia dies in her home at the hands of
someone close to her every 40-60 minutes.

However, to date there are no
systematic federal government statistics available about violence against women
in the family and its impact on the lives of those affected. The Russian Federal
Office of Statistics and the Ministry of Interior publish statistics about
crimes and crime investigation on their respective websites, but these
statistics do not include information about the victim of a crime and his or her
possible relationship to the perpetrator. When Amnesty International spoke to
law enforcement officials, women’s NGOs and medical experts, it emerged that
most of the bodies dealing with violence in the private sphere and with health
issues collect information about their work and provide these to the Ministry of
Interior, the Ministry of Health and Social Development and others. For example,
the data collected by emergency ambulances personnel contains information about
the place where an injury was sustained, be it in a public place, in traffic, at
a workplace or in a private home. The influence of alcohol, and the age and
gender of injured persons is noted down as well. Forensic institutes provide
similar information. However, none of the practitioners Amnesty International
spoke to had received an analysis of their data back from the respective
ministries.

“Violence enforces redistribution of resources and
power”

Statistical research into violence against women in the
family

The Forensic Institute at the State Medical University of
Barnaul is one of the first such institutions which encouraged research into
violence in the family. Between July and August 2004 the Office of Forensic
Expertise on Living Persons received 1,410 cases, 230 of which were identified
as cases of family violence. Of these, women accounted for 96.4 per cent of the
victims.(36) Of those who had been victims of violence in the family, 71.4 per
cent had been attacked by an intimate partner (men or women). Among those who
were over 50 years old, a significant number had experienced violence by their
children, grandchildren or their respective partners.

Recent research
into violence in marriages, carried out by the Council for Women of Moscow State
University, showed that the scale of violence in the family in contemporary
Russia was very high.(37) The survey was carried out in cities and villages in
seven regions of the Russian Federation. In total about 2,200 people who were
married for at least one year took part across 50 towns and rural areas.
The
research showed that an overwhelming number of the women interviewed were
victims of violence and were living in fear and despair as a result.

• 70 per cent of women said that they had been subjected to one or another
  form of violence (psychological, sexual, physical and economical) by their
  husband
• 36 per cent of women experienced physical and psychological violence
• 7 per cent of women endured all forms of violence (physical, economic,
  sexual and psychological) simultaneously
• over 70 per cent of women said they suffered from some form of
  psychological discomfort in relation to their husband, including stress,
  anxiety, lack of confidence, powerlessness, dependency, despair, guilt, fear
  or inadequacy
• 51 per cent of women experienced restrictions of some kind or had
  threats made against them. Twenty-two per cent were threatened with physical
  harm; 15 per cent were threatened with abandonment
• 90 per cent of all respondents had either witnessed scenes of domestic
  psychological violence between their parents, or had experienced it in their
  current relationship.

The women interviewed described how they
had experienced different types of violence – often at times when they were
physically most vulnerable.

• 58 per cent of women had been subjected to aggression from one or
  another close male (current or former husband, fiancé or lover)
• 18 per cent of women found themselves in a situation of regular or
  severe physical mishandling by their husbands
• 48 per cent of women beaten were attacked while they were pregnant,
  breast feeding, had small children, were ill, had lost their job or were
  experiencing difficulties at work, or were experiencing physical or mental
  suffering and found themselves in a position of helplessness
• Over 60 per cent of women beaten by their husband had experienced
  various degrees of trauma as a result; 3 per cent of all those questioned
  required medical assistance.

Men often denied that the use of
violence against their wives had changed the relationship while women realized
that the use of violence by their husbands had led to a redistribution of
resources and power in favour of the men(38).

The men interviewed were
five times more likely to blame their wives than themselves for starting an
argument which led to a beating, and three times more likely to point to the
reason for the argument as her “bad” behaviour, rather than his own. Men’s
responses often underestimated or underplayed the level and frequency of
violence.

• 41 per cent of women had been hit at least once by their current
  husband, while only one in 10 men admitted he had tried to hit his wife
• 55 per cent of women said they had been threatened or exposed to
  physical violence; 48.7 per cent of men admitted to having exposed their
  wives to threats or violence
• 50 per cent of women had experienced physical force only once; 40.8 per
  cent of men said they had used violence on no more than one
  occasion.

Most women did not seek help the first time they
were hit by their husband, opting instead to keep their experiences private.
Almost half felt they needed medical or legal help but did not seek it.

• 35 per cent of women beaten (17 per cent of all respondents) turned to a
  medical doctor or the police
• 57 per cent of women who had been assaulted by their husband told
  someone close to them about it
• 83 per cent of women who had been assaulted by their husband believed
  that the violence would continue in the future.

Sexual
violence, though common, went unrecognized as a problem by most respondents.
More than half of all those questioned felt that rape within marriage was in
principle impossible.

• 23 per cent of women had been subjected to sexual violence by their
  husbands or partners, including having unwanted sex to “keep the peace”
• 43 per cent of all respondents felt that it was better for the wife not
  to refuse her husband sex, even if she did not want it
• over 70 per cent of all respondents did not consider it absolutely
  necessary to consider the wishes or needs of the wife in marital
  sex.

“Justification” of Violence against Women in the
Family

Violence against women in the family can never be justified.
Women have the right to live without such violence, no matter what their
personal circumstances are. Women, who suffer violence in the family are
deprived of fundamental rights, such as their right to physical and mental
integrity, to liberty and security of the person and to freedom of expression.
Those who are killed are deprived of their right to life. Not only those, who
commit acts of violence against women in the family must be made accountable for
their actions, but the state which tolerates such violence also has to be made
accountable. The Russian Federation does not only have the obligation to protect
those under its jurisdiction from abuses of these rights but to provide access
to conditions which will enable every person to fully enjoy these rights without
discrimination. The following “justifications” for violence against women in the
family are in no way mitigating factors for those, who have used violence
against women in the family. Nonetheless, in addressing violence against women
in the family, the government has to consider existing gender-stereotypes,
economic problems and other factors which may contribute to the perpetuation of
the violence.

Housing problems

While there are fewer
and fewer so-called “komunalki“– large flats shared by different people
who cannot choose whom they live with – lack of housing is still a big problem
for many Russians. Few people can afford to buy a flat on the free market.(39)
Thus it is common practice to exchange one big flat for two small ones if a
couple splits up. It may be difficult for those who want to move out of their
flat to find a suitable alternative.(40) Many young couples live with their
parents. Often a whole family lives in one room in a hostel where the
accommodation is given to them as part of their work contract. It is not unusual
for divorced couples to continue to live together in one flat, house or just in
one room. In her 2000 report to the UN Commission on Human Rights, the Special
Rapporteur on VAW stated that:

“Inadequate housing provides living conditions that are conducive to
violence… Moreover, overcrowded housing conditions, where stress levels are
high and tolerance is low – added to unemployment or poverty and the
resulting financial anxieties – exacerbate the risk of domestic
violence.”(41)

The UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as
a component of the right to an adequate standard of living concluded in a
report, published in 2005, that

“[W]omen living in situations of
domestic violence inherently live in inadequate housing, due to the violence
they face in the home.”(42)

Many women confirmed to Amnesty
International that they felt they had been deprived of a home as a place of
safety and harmony. They were often moving between friends’ and relatives’ homes
and tried to be as little in their own place as possible.

Nina P.’s
partner started becoming violent three years ago. For many months now, Nina P.
and her son have only been returning to the flat to sleep, while they are
looking for a new place to live. They eat with Nina P.’s mother and socialize in
different places. “It is just a matter of time and in between I try not to upset
him. I avoid any conflict,” she says. “I have known him for 20 years now and
know how to act.”

Anna continued to live with her violent ex-husband in
the same two-room flat, even after her complaints had finally been taken on by
the police. She carried tear gas with her for self-defence, and each night she
barricaded herself in her room. She stayed as often as possible with friends and
avoided being in the flat when he was around.

While the police are
required to intervene if a crime has been committed, there are restrictions on
their right to enter a flat without a warrant and evict someone from his or her
own property. The state, for example, cannot subject someone unnecessarily to
homelessness. Eviction is only possible if a tenant destroys the property of
other individuals or the state, and poses a serious threat to the safety of his
neighbours.

Alcohol

The misuse of alcohol is often
seen by police, procurators, medical experts(43) and judges in the Russian
Federation as a major cause of violence. Alcoholism is commonly used to explain,
if not justify, the behaviour of the perpetrator. Many women who were
interviewed by Amnesty International said that their husband became violent
because he was unable to control himself when drunk. However, only in a few
cases did these women report that their husbands had also been violent towards
people outside the family. The interviews showed that while the first acts of
violence may have occurred when the men were drunk, in long-lasting
relationships the men had often become violent even when sober.

“I am
his equal and he does not like it” – Liuba’s story

Liuba is a teacher
of literature and deputy head of a college. She is 37 years old and has three
children aged 16, 14 and four. She married Oleg, an amateur boxer, when they
were students. Initially, she thought his controlling behaviour was a sign of
his love for her. The first time he hit her she was
pregnant.

Fortunately, Liuba did not miscarry, but her vision was
temporarily impaired. Oleg, who was drunk when he struck her, claimed afterwards
he did not realize what he had done. “When I tell him about this today, he looks
at me as if I am mad and says, ‘this is impossible’,” she says. He apologized
when he was sober and said he did not mean to hurt her. However, his alcoholism
grew increasingly serious and, according to Liuba, he is always aggressive when
he drinks.

For the first five or six years of her marriage Liuba tried to
get used to the violence by living in a way that would not provoke Oleg’s
temper. “Then, on one occasion, he was sober and we had an argument, even though
I think there was no reason to beat me. But he did and I flew against the wall,”
recalls Liuba. “Our children saw it and started screaming. After that my then
two-year-old son started stammering. That’s when I started thinking that maybe
it is not alright to be beaten again and again.”

Liuba thinks Oleg is ill
and that he has an extreme sensitivity to alcohol. She told Amnesty
International: “He is different from other Russian men – just a small amount of
vodka… is enough to make him lose control over his body”. Recently she realized
that he may be using his alcoholism as an excuse for violence.

“I am a
successful woman, I am a teacher and the deputy head of a college,” says Liuba.
“I am well educated and know more than Oleg. I am also a good mother… I fulfil
all the criteria for a good woman who should be protected and appreciated by her
husband. My husband realizes that I am his equal and he does not like it. Even
when he calls me a beauty there is something aggressive in the way he says it.
Maybe he has a lot of psychological complexes. Men in this country don’t like
successful women.”

Women’s crisis centres and other experts have pointed
out that those who use violence against their partners or children have done so
whether intoxicated or not. And conversely, not everyone who misuses alcohol
becomes violent.(44)

Several women said that their attacker did not drink
at all or had never used violence under the influence of alcohol.

Caption
Woman in a hospital after having suffered violence
from her partner. © Marie Dorigny

Gender
stereotypes

Several experts on violence against women in the
family, who spoke to Amnesty International, were concerned about the high level
of acceptance of violence against women in the family as an inherent part of
life and the failure of many, including of victims of such violence, to
recognize it as a punishable crime. A government official in the Altai region
told Amnesty International that in his experience many women only turn to the
police when their children are being beaten by a violent relative but bear the
violence directed against themselves. He recognized that the state should take
action to change attitudes on gender stereotypes which are at the root of such
behaviour.

Oksana, aged 54, has two children from a previous marriage.
Elegant and educated, Oksana had a well-paid job and was able to support herself
until she married her current husband 15 years ago. She admits knowing he was
violent before she married him. In fact, twice she failed to turn up for her
wedding ceremony and had to be taken by force to the registrar’s office by her
husband. She told Amnesty International that despite having been able to look
after her two children on her own after her divorce, she felt pressurized into
getting married again. According to her, she felt less respected as a single
mother and believed that for her life to be fulfilled she needed to get
married.

After her marriage, Oksana’s husband slowly destroyed her
independence. He made her give up her job and forced her to work in his company.
He paid her only enough money to buy food. He created an atmosphere at home
which put her relatives and friends off from visiting her. He had promised her
an easier life if she joined his company, but she often ended up working late
into the night, doing whatever he told her to. He did not help her with
household duties.

When she failed to fulfil his demands, he beat her.
Yet she never turned to the police. Twelve years ago, he pushed her against some
furniture and continued kicking her while she was lying on the ground. Her back
was so badly injured that she had to stay in bed for two weeks and could not
walk. She thought he had broken her ribs. Her husband called a doctor he knew to
look after her so that she did not have to go to a hospital where the doctors
might ask her how she had sustained the injuries.

“Sometimes he would
beat me and I don’t even know why, I can’t think of a reason,” says Oksana. She
has to ask her husband for permission to invite friends or relatives. She has
friends she can go to when he has beaten her, but they refuse to come and see
her and tell her to leave her husband. On one occasion, four years ago, she went
to see a friend who lived close by. Although her husband knew where she had
gone, when she came home, he began kicking and punching her as soon as she
entered the flat. He told her he had been extremely worried when it became
dark.

Oksana believes that there are too many obstacles for her to seek a
divorce. Instead, she tries to avoid confrontation. Her husband only needs to
raise his hand to remind her of times when he nearly killed her. “Whatever he
wants he gets, there is no point in arguing with him,” she says. “He is not
interested in other people’s opinion. They do not exist for him. I do not
understand how I got into this. Did I really believe him? How did I end up in
this cage, chained?”

Caption
Woman seeking advice in a
Crisis Centre for women after having been subjected to violence from her
partner. © AI

“He thinks I am his possession”

Marina,
aged 36, was thrown by her partner of three years from the window of their third
floor flat. Her neighbour called the police and instigated a criminal case
against Marina’s partner. Marina had been to the hospital previously after being
injured by her partner and the hospital sent her to the police. But once there
she always told the police that she had been attacked by a stranger on the
street. “I felt sorry for him.”

Only once did Nina P. bother to get a
forensic certificate recording the injuries she had sustained when being beaten
by her partner. She needed to take sick leave as her face was covered in bruises
and she felt uncomfortable about going to work and being seen in such a
condition. “People think it is your fault, once you live with him, that you like
it that way,” she says.

One night, remembers Liuba, her husband came home
drunk and was so angry at being served only potatoes for dinner, he threw the
vegetables into the corridor, shouting, “I earn enough money to deserve better
food!” He then beat her and when the children tried to intervene, he beat them
as well. “Our small daughter was between me and him and I thought he would kill
her,” she says. “We tried to barricade one of the rooms but he broke the door
open. The children were screaming. Somehow we got out of the flat and went to my
father-in-law. The next morning my father-in-law went to see Oleg and when he
came back he simply said, ‘You did not serve your husband well; I don’t want to
get involved in your marital problems’.”

Liuba told Amnesty International
that it took her several years to overcome her own belief that somehow she may
be responsible for the violence she was being subjected to. She said: “my
husband thinks I am his possession, that he owns me and that I have to endure
everything because I am his wife. He shouted at me, ‘you have been living with
me for 17 years already and you still do not understand.’ I don’t know what
there is to understand. I cannot accept his behaviour. I went to a crisis centre
for women, because I wanted to find out if there is something wrong with me
because I cannot accept his violent behaviour and they told me that my feelings
regarding this violence were normal.”

Tamara (28) got married when she
was only 18. Her husband soon started beating her but she did not tell anybody
about it because she was too ashamed. After one especially violent attack, she
left the flat and lived for some time on her own. His relatives found her and
convinced her to return. Soon the violence resumed. She did not call the police
once. One day in winter he made her undress, put on a swimsuit and pushed her
out of the flat. She went to the neighbours, who let her in and rang the police.
Her husband followed her and apologized for the “mad” behaviour of his wife.
After that Tamara left for good.

The Special Rapporteur on violence
against women in her report to the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1996 drew
comparisons between violence against women in the family and torture, including
the use of violence as a means of control and punishment.

“It is argued that, like torture, domestic violence commonly involves
some form of physical and/or psychological suffering; including death in some
cases. Secondly, domestic violence, like torture is purposeful behaviour which
is perpetrated intentionally. Men who beat women partners commonly exercise
control over their impulses in other settings and their targets are often
limited to their partners or children. Thirdly, domestic violence is generally
committed for specific purposes including punishment, intimidation and the
diminution of the women’s personality. Lastly, like torture, domestic violence
occurs with at least the tacit involvement of the State, if the state does not
exercise due diligence and equal protection in preventing domestic abuse. This
argument contends that, as such, domestic violence may be understood to
constitute a form of torture.”(45)

Anastasia is a lawyer who has
represented victims of domestic or sexual violence. She told Amnesty
International that she had been living in a violent relationship for nearly 15
years but never filed a complaint against her husband, a well respected
professor and head of a faculty.

The first seven years of her marriage
were without violence. When Anastasia earned more money than her husband, he
began to extort money from her and tried to humiliate her by beating her. He
made her buy him expensive clothes and a weekend house in the countryside. At
the same time, he tried to prevent her from spending money on herself and on
their daughter. Anastasia found that the higher he rose in his position, the
more obedience and servility he expected from her and the more money he
demanded.

Anastasia’s husband was never drunk when he was violent. Until
recently he beat her only on those parts of the body where marks would be less
visible or could be covered up(46). He pulled her hair, and kicked her in the
stomach and on her arms and legs. When the couple decided to have separate bank
accounts, he started hitting her on the face as well. A black eye would prevent
her from going to work, which would lead to her earning less money. Anastasia
told AI: “Sometimes I think my husband is using me for some kind of
psychological experiment… He tells me that there is nothing I can do against
him; no one will believe me, because he is a respected professor and has a good
reputation.”

In Russia, character references for a suspect, written by
someone who knows him well, can sometimes be added to the evidence in a case.
Several women, who had been subjected to violence by their partners, told
Amnesty International that the men had received positive character references
from their superiors. In court such positive character references have allegedly
influenced the judge’s decision. Sociologists and women’s crisis centres have
pointed out repeatedly that perpetrators of violence against women in the family
may use such violence only at home and only against specific persons; otherwise
they may be very well adjusted to society in general.(47) As such, they have
argued that positive character references should not be used in cases of
violence against women in the family as evidence in favour of a
batterer.
Prevalence of violence in society

The 2002-03
opinion poll on violence in contemporary Russian families(48) also looked into
public opinion on the acceptability of physical violence. The majority condemned
violence against women as a “social evil” and the beating of women as a crime
which the government should fight against. At the same time, those who were
prepared to excuse a husband who hit and beat his wife fluctuated between 32 per
cent and 47 per cent of respondents, depending on the reasons given for his
violence. However, nearly 80 per cent of respondents felt that the government
should protect women who had become victims of violence in the
family.

Following the break-up of the Soviet Union some of the gross
human rights violations, which were associated with it, have been addressed and
eradicated but human rights abuses, including by law enforcement officials and
security forces persist. A large proportion of Russia’s male population has been
in the army, a relatively high number in prison.(49) In both cases, the men are
likely to have been subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or to
serious human rights violations, including torture and ill-treatment. In
addition, many Russian soldiers, members of special forces and police officers
have participated in the armed conflicts in Chechnya. Some of them may have
found it difficult to adapt afterwards to a non-conflict environment.

A
lawyer working with the organization, Soldiers’ Mothers of St. Petersburg, told
Amnesty International about several cases
where relatives of men who had been
serving in the armed forces in
Chechnya sought advice from the organization
as the men had distinctly changed their behaviour, including becoming violent,
after they returned from Chechnya. One woman admitted that her son’s violence
against her and other members of the family had become such a problem she had
even wished he was dead.

A young woman, who married her husband shortly
before he went to Chechnya, approached the Soldiers’ Mothers after her husband’s
return. He had fits and became aggressive without any obvious reason. He would
tell her that he wanted to protect her from what he had seen. He had difficulty
sleeping, was irritable, but would not tell her why. His wife was scared as he
still owned a weapon. He complained that none of the promised opportunities for
rehabilitation had materialized and that he felt people looked down on him.
A