Karen Tayag Vertido v the Philippines

Karen Tayag Vertido v the Philippines (2011)
CEDAW Committee

Warning: This case deals with topics that are especially grave and may cause trauma invoked by memories of past abuse. If you have experienced violence and need assistance, please refer to this list of country help lines provided by UN Women.

In the case of Karen Tayag Vertido v the Philippines, the applicant was raped in a hotel room by a work contact. At the time of the attack, she had reason to believe that he was armed with a gun. After lengthy investigation and prosecution delays, he was acquitted by a judge who considered that Karen Tayag Vertido had failed to take reasonable opportunities to resist sexual assault and to take several opportunities to escape, and therefore must have consented to sexual contact. The applicant made a strong and detailed case outlining the many “rape myths” that were included in this trial process.

The CEDAW Committee found that the trial judge’s decision contained ‘several references to stereotypes about male and female sexuality being more supportive for the credibility of the alleged perpetrator than for the creditability of the victim’ and many of the judge’s comments focused on the personality and behaviour of the applicant, even though these issues are not part of the definition of the crime of rape.

In finding violations of articles 2(f) and 5(a), the Committee affirmed that CEDAW requires states parties to ‘take appropriate measures to modify or abolish not only existing laws and regulations, but also customs and practices that constitute discrimination against women’. It also stressed that (paragraph 8.4):

“Stereotyping affects women’s right to a fair and just trial and that the judiciary must take caution not to create inflexible standards of what women or girls should be or what they should have done when confronted with a situation of rape based merely on preconceived notions of what defines a rape victim or a victim of gender-based violence, in general.”

The CEDAW Committee also referred to its General Recommendation 19,

“under general international law and specific human rights covenants, States may also be responsible for private acts if they fail to act with due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate and punish acts of violence, and for providing compensation”. In the particular case, the compliance of the State party’s due diligence obligation to banish gender stereotypes on the grounds of articles 2 (f) and 5 (a) needs to be assessed in the light of the level of gender sensitivity applied in the judicial handling of the author’s case.”

Significance

Along with M.C. v Bulgaria, this case analyses the practices of domestic law enforcement and prosecution of sexual violence, and finds the respondent state responsible for shortcomings in the process and stereotyping which discriminate against women and girls.