Violence against Women as a Structural Risk:

Responding through Prevention with Due Diligence

doi: 10.32566/ah.2024.2.3


Situations of crises such as the Covid–19 pandemic expose the fissures in society, both domestic and global. Using violence against women as an example, the paper shows how structural risks amplify during crises and how the concept of due diligence can be used to address these risks. By focusing on prevention, it analyses the existing approaches towards due diligence in the context of violence against women by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women. The paper looks at how these mechanisms have considered the invocation and applicability of the duty of prevention with due diligence as well as the measures that states need to take to discharge such a duty. It concludes with a reflection on what can be done to further strengthen the arguments of the mechanisms analysed in this paper to utilise the full potential of due diligence concerning state obligations towards the prevention of violence against women.


Due diligence prevention violence against women structural risks

Hogyan kell idézni

Ana, S. C., & Sulekha, A. (2024). Violence against Women as a Structural Risk:: Responding through Prevention with Due Diligence. Acta Humana – Emberi Jogi Közlemények, 12(2), 43–57.


ABDUL AZIZ, Zarizana – MOUSSA, Janine (2016): The Due Diligence Framework: State Accountability Framework for Eliminating Violence against Women. International Human Rights Initiative. Online:

ABI-MERSHED, Elisabeth A. H. (2008): Due Diligence and the Fight against Gender-Based Violence in the Inter-American System. In BENNINGEN-BUDEL, Carin (ed.): Due Diligence and its Application to Protect Women from Violence. Leiden–Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 127–137. Online:

BONNITCHA, Jonathan – MCCORQUODALE, Robert (2013): Is the Concept of ‘Due Diligence’ in the Guiding Principles Coherent? SSRN Electronic Journal, 29 January, 2013. Online:

CHINKIN, Christine (1999): A Critique of the Public/Private Dimension. European Journal of International Law, 10(2), 387–395. Online:

Council of Europe (2020): COVID-19 Pandemic: Tackling the Dramatic Increase in Cases of Violence against Women. Council of Europe Newsroom, 20 April, 2020. Online:

DE VIDO, Sara (2017): States’ Positive Obligations to Eradicate Domestic Violence: The Politics of Relevance in the Interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights. European Society of International Law, 6(6) 1, 1–11.

GARCÍA-DEL MORAL, Paulina – DERSNAH, Megan Alexandra (2014): A Feminist Challenge to the Gendered Politics of the Public/Private Divide: On Due Diligence, Domestic Violence, and Citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 18(6–7), 661–675. Online:

GOLDSCHEID, Julie – LIEBOWITZ, Debra J. (2015): Due Diligence and Gender Violence: Parsing its Powers and its Perils. Cornell International Law Journal, 48, 301–345.

GRANS, Lisa (2018): The Concept of Due Diligence and the Positive Obligation to Prevent Honour-Related Violence: Beyond Deterrence. International Journal of Human Rights, 22(5), 733–755. Online:

HASSELBACHER, Lee (2010): State Obligations regarding Domestic Violence: European Court of Human Rights, Due Diligence, and International Legal Minimums of Protection. Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 8(2), 190–215.

International Committee of the Red Cross (2020): Prevention and Response to Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Covid-19 Quarantine Centres. Online:

KOIVUROVA, Timo – SINGH, Krittika (2010): Due Diligence. Online:

KRYCZKA, Katarzyna – BECKERS, Sarah – LAMBOOY, Tineke (2012): The Importance of Due Diligence Practices for the Future of Business Practices in Fragile States. European Company Law, 9(2), 125–132. Online:

MCDONALD, Neil (2019): The Role of Due Diligence in International Law, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 68(4), 1041–1054. Online:

MONNHEIMER, Maria (2021): Due Diligence Obligations in International Human Rights Law. Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press. Online:

NTHUSANG, Lefafa (2020): Covid-19 Lockdown Provides Perfect Storm for SA’s GBV Crisis. Health-e News, 29 April, 2020. Online:

OHCHR (2009): 15 Years of the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its Causes and Consequences (1994–2009) – A Critical Review. Online:

PISILLO-MAZZESCHI, Riccardo (1992): The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of States. German Yearbook of International Law, 35, 9–51.

SOUSA GANT, Alda Maria (2002): Domestic Violence against Women as a Human Rights Violation. 3 Revista do Instituto Brasiliero de Direitos Humanos, 3(3), 9–21.

STOYANOVA, Vladyslava (2020): Fault, Knowledge and Risk within the Framework of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Leiden Journal of International Law, 33(3), 601–620. Online:

THILL, Magally (2014): States’ Duty to Prevent and Eliminate Violence against Women in the European Union. Revista Universitaria Europea, (21), 43–68.

United Nations (2006): Ending Violence against Women: From Words to Action. Study of the Secretary-General. Online:

UN Women (2021): Measuring the Shadow Pandemic: Violence against Women during Covid-19. Online:

Treaties and soft law documents

CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 35 on Gender-based Violence against Women, Updating General Recommendation No. 19, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/35, 26 July, 2017.

CEDAW Committee, Rep. on Mexico produced by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women under art. 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, and reply from the Government of Mexico, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/2005/OP.8/MEXICO, 27 January, 2005.

Committee of Ministers (2002): Recommendation on the Protection of Women against Violence. Rec(2002)5.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted on 18 December 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13.

Council of Europe (2011): Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. CETS No. 210, 2011.

Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, A. Res. 48/104, UN Doc. A/RES/48/104, 20 December, 1993.

Organization of American States, Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence of Women, adopted on 9 June 1994, O.A.S.T.S. A No. 61.

UNHCR (1989): CEDAW General Recommendation No. 12: Violence against Women. 8th session, 1989.

UNHCR (1992): CEDAW General Recommendation No. 19: Violence against Women. UN Doc. A/47/38, 1992.

UNHCR (2006): Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Its Causes and Consequences on the Due Diligence Standard as a Tool for the Elimination of Violence against Women, Yakin Ertürk. UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/61 20 January, 2006.

UNHCR (2008): CAT Committee, General Comment No. 2, UN Doc. CAT/C/GC/2, 24 January, 2008.

UN General Assembly (2009): Business and Human Rights: Towards Operationalizing the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. Rep. of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprise, UN Doc. A/HRC/11/13, 22 April, 2009.

UN Human Rights Council (2013): Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Its Causes and Consequences, Rashida Manjoo. UN Doc. A/HRC/23/49, 14 May, 2013.


CEDAW Committee, Angela González Carreño v. Spain, Communication No. 47/2012, UN. Doc. CEDAW/C/58/D/47/201215 August 2014.

CEDAW Committee, A.T. v. Hungary, Communication No. 2/2003, UN. Doc. CEDAW/C/36/D/2/2003, 26 January 2005.

CEDAW Committee, Fatma Yildirim v. Austria, Communication No. 6/2005, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/39/D/6/2005, 1 October 2007.

CEDAW Committee, Goekce v. Austria, Communication No. 5/2005, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/39/D/5/2005, 6 August 2007.

CEDAW Committee, V. K. v. Bulgaria, Communication No. 20/2008, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/49/D/20/2008, 27 September 2011.

ECtHR, Balsan v. Romania, App. No. 49645/02, 23 May 2017.

ECtHR, Đorđević v. Croatia, App. No. 41526/10, 24 July 2012.

ECtHR, Eremia v. The Republic of Moldova, App. No. 3564/11, 28 May 2013.

ECtHR, Mastromatteo v. Italy, App. No. 37703/97, 24 October 2002.

ECtHR, Mudrić v. The Republic of Moldova, App. No. 3564/11, 16 July 2013.

ECtHR, M. G. v. Turkey, App. No. 646/10, 22 March 2016.

ECtHR, Opuz v. Turkey, App. No. 33410/02, 9 June 2009.

ECtHR, Osman v. United Kingdom, App. No. 23452/94, 28 October 1998.

ECtHR, Tërshana v. Albania, App. No. 48756/14, 4 August 2020.

ECtHR, T. M. and C. M. v. the Republic of Moldova, App. No. 26608/11, 28 January 2014.

ECtHR, Valiuliené v. Lithuania, App. No. 33234/07, 26 March 2013.

IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc. 68, 20 January 2007.

IACHR, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al v. United States, Case 12.626, Rep. No. 80/11, Merits, 21 July 2011

IACtHR, González et al. (‘Cotton Field’) v. Mexico, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Ser. C No. 205, 16 November 2009.

IACtHR, Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brasil, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Ser. C No. 318, 20 October 2016.

IACtHR, López Soto v. Venezuela, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Ser. C No. 367, 26 September 2018.

IACtHR, Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Ser. C No. 140, 31 January 2006.

IACtHR, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, Ser. C No. 4, 9 July 1988.

IACtHR, Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Cost, Judgment, Ser. C No. 369, 28 November 2018.


Letölthető adat még nem áll rendelkezésre.