E.D. and M.D. v Belarus

CEDAW Committee, 13 March 2024. CEDAW/C/87/D/157/2020

Women prisoners should be supervised at all times by women prison officials. Being watched by male prison officers while undressed or using the toilet is a form of sexual harassment and sexual violence.

Both women, E.D. and M.D. took part in peaceful demonstrations in March 2017 and were arrested and held in “administrative arrest” for more than two weeks. Both were held in the at the central detention facility of the Main Internal Affairs Directorate of the Minsk City Executive Committee (referred to in the case as “TSIP”).They brought their complaint about the conditions they were held into the CEDAW Committee:

“2.3 Both authors submit that the conditions of their detention at TSIP were humiliating and discriminatory to them as women. In particular, they were denied the opportunity to properly maintain their personal hygiene, as they were forced to wash themselves in their cells. Given the significant lack of female officers at the detention facility, the cells were generally monitored by men. Each of their cells had two video cameras installed in the ceiling, so male TSIP officers could watch them while they were changing clothes, washing themselves or using the toilet. Male officers could also watch them at all times through peepholes in the cell doors, including when the authors were undressed. E.D. also claims that she saw two video cameras in the women’s shower. In addition, there were no menstrual hygiene products at the detention facility, so the authors had to use cloth or cotton wool instead and had to explain their needs to male officers.

2.4 As for their detention at IVS, both authors submit that there was no hot water in their cells and that they were allowed to take a shower only once a week. They stated that the IVS administration denied them the possibility of following basic hygiene practices and did not provide M.D. with soap or toilet paper. The cells were very cold, and the authors had to wash themselves with cold water, which they say was not only degrading but also dangerous to their health.

In its response, Belarus stated that there were women working as officers at the TSIP, and that all appropriate regulations had been followed. The applicants responded that all the officers monitoring their detention were men.

The CEDAW Committee found that there were violations of the CEDAW Convention, the Bangkok Rules, and rule 81 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, on treatment of women in custody.

“1. In a prison for both men and women, the part of the prison set aside for women shall be under the authority of a responsible woman staff member who shall have the custody of the keys of all that part of the prison.

2. No male staff member shall enter the part of the prison set aside for women unless accompanied by a woman staff member.

3. Women prisoners shall be attended and supervised only by women staff members. This does not, however, preclude male staff members, particularly doctors and teachers, from carrying out their professional duties in prisons or parts of prisons set aside for women.”

The CEDAW Committee found that Belarus had violated the CEDAW Convention, especially the principle that violence against women is a form of discrimination, because:

“guards were in a position to use the peepholes to watch the authors in the course of private activities, such as using the toilet, which was located inside the cell and was blocked from view on only one side by a screen intended to give an impression of privacy but that did not obstruct the view of the toilet from the door. These allegations have not been challenged by the State party. The Committee recalls that respect for the privacy and dignity of women prisoners must be a high priority for prison staff. The Committee considers that the abusive treatment of the authors by penitentiary officials, namely male prison staff, including unjustified interference with their privacy, constitutes discrimination within the meaning of articles 1 and 5 (a) of the Convention, as explained in general recommendation No. 35. The Committee is of the opinion that the specific unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature of the male guards’ amounts to sexual harassment, which is a form of gender-based violence and which may be humiliating and may further constitute a health and safety problem. The Committee considers that, in the present case, the authors suffered harm to their dignity, moral damage and prejudice owing to the humiliating and degrading treatment, sexual harassment and negative health consequences suffered during detention. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the State party failed to meet its obligations under articles 2 and 5 (a) of the Convention.” (paragraph 7.7) This case is important as it recognizes both the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders 2011 (known as the Bangkok Rules) the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners 2015 (known the Nelson Mandela Rules) as part of the of the CEDAW Committee’s analysis of gender-based violence.