Femicides: some reflections on their denial

It is now common to talk about or have information on femicides in Latin America, both for the general public and for most judicial system officials. Some institutional and social advances in the fight against this phenomenon are now tangible thanks to the ceaseless struggle of organizations and groups of women throughout the region, as well as the tenacity of public officials. Nevertheless, the road has only just begun and, as has become evident in the process of realizing women’s rights, the journey is neither straightforward nor uneventful; it is pervaded by obstacles and marked by a persistent state of denial.

Concrete headways give rise to a certain optimism and encourage us to believe that decisive responses can emerge to confront this criminal phenomenon. I do not think it would be exaggerated to say that Latin America has much more to show in this field than other regions. An ignored phenomenon has been made visible by no longer considering its manifestations as isolated anecdotes but rather as illustrations of a social vice rooted in an androcentric and patriarchal vision of life. The legal framework is in place (although it may not always be the most appropriate one): almost all the countries have carried out legal reforms (particularly regarding the criminalization of femicide and other special measures) and institutional reorganization (through the creation of specialized units in the security forces or in the General Prosecutors' offices, or the establishment of special courts). Sentences against people who committed femicides have been pronounced by both national high courts and local tribunals, and some decisions have highlighted the obligation for the prosecutors' offices to investigate those cases with a gender perspective. The influence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ decisions on those national decisions is undeniable. The Latin American Model Protocol for the investigation of gender-related killings of women (published in 2014 by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and UN Women) has served as a catalyst for the development of similar tools by the prosecutors’ offices of several countries. If properly applied, these instruments can shape more homogeneous criminal investigation practices based on an adequate understanding of the violence involved in femicides, and above all, in a more systematic inclusion of gender perspective.

These are the glimmers of hope. I fear, however, that this position is too illusory for the countless victims who hope — often in vain — that those responsible for cases of femicide will answer for their actions. In fact, practice shows that femicides continue to be sheltered by multiple and complex mechanisms of denial, described by sociologist Stanley Cohen in his book States of denial: knowing about atrocities and suffering (Blackwell Publishers: 2001). These denials render some of the advances more rhetorical than practical. Let me illustrate these forms of denial with some simple examples.

We must begin with the most basic conception of what a femicide is. Despite all the efforts made, there is still no clear understanding of the dynamics and the seriousness of the violence involved in femicides. A femicide does not only consist of a woman’s violent death. Using the sex of the victim to differentiate femicide from homicide is a widespread practice that simplifies the differentiation process and creates confusion around it. The sex of the victim is important, but it is not sufficient to identify a femicidal act — it is the elements derived from gender that need to be explored. When gender-motivated, the death of a woman (or of a person with female gender expressions or identity) responds to a particular violent phenomenon. Its circumstances, modus operandi and context differentiate it from other types of deaths. These factors are what justify the special efforts needed to make the phenomenon visible. By not investigating, researching or recording these aspects, the phenomenon is invisibilized and denial is spread.

This lack of understanding is also evident from the shortcomings of femicide prevention policies in many countries. The indicators usually used reduce the phenomenon to the problem of women's deaths, ignoring or denying other previous acts that constitute risks of femicide. How many deaths could have been avoided if the initial complaints had been dealt with appropriately and if the violence the woman was revealing had not been denied or trivialized? Femicides are preceded by events that should cause concern but are not adequately registered by the systems and the people who implement. For example, the psychological violence in gender-based oppressive and coercive dynamics — the violence that is not seen, which does not yield reliable medico-legal evidence — is commonly denied, reinterpreted, or reduced to problems of female sensitivity. Denying all these significant events, which would be suitable indicators to prevent femicides, is part of a way of denying reality through the interpretation of the events or the implication assigned to them.

Another way of denying the phenomenon, of not acknowledging its social implications, is to treat femicides as marginal issues. It is remarkable to see that, in certain countries with high numbers of femicides, the criminal analysis carried out by the General Prosecutor's office does not include femicides. Although there is plenty of rhetoric, in practice few criminal policy frameworks incorporate the prosecution of these cases as a priority. This lack of attention derives from what Cohen calls implicatory denial.

Furthermore, although much is said about femicides, it is relevant to recognize that, at the end of the day, little is known about the femicidal phenomenon, its prevalence, its causes or dynamics. Obviously, this lack of knowledge derives from the denial I described above; but not only. Of course, we know that many femicides are associated with intimate partner violence, but this is not the only context in which these events occur. Fixating on intimate partner violence results in a bias according to which domestic violence is the cause — pretty much the only cause — of femicides. It does not take into account that women are killed for gender-related reasons in many other contexts or dynamics: in human mobility circumstances, in the framework of different dynamics of organized crime, in contexts of confinement or deprivation of liberty, in public events and street demonstrations, etc. There is much more we need to do to know and understand the dynamics of violence and coercion involved in femicides in the different countries of the region.

Moreover, understanding femicides cannot be reduced to counting the cases that are labeled as femicides — which we know only represent the tip of the iceberg. It also requires opening our eyes to other related cases, and approaching the phenomenon from a holistic perspective in order to understand its dynamics and manifestations. It involves analyzing femicides along with women’s disappearance, attempted femicides, women’s suicides (induced or not) and cases filed after the aggressor’s suicide (quite common in cases of intimate femicides).

Finally, public policies adopted to confront violence against women often lack funding or monitoring mechanisms to assess progress and setbacks. In addition, the indicators that are frequently used, as I illustrated above with the examples on denial, distort goals and processes (e.g., focusing only on women's deaths and neglecting other factors). Again, these are illustration of the implicatory denial described by Cohen. Tackling femicides requires sustained investment in broad areas of public administration. (Partially) acknowledging the phenomenon is not enough to deal with it effectively.

Through my experience working with officials involved in the administration of justice, I am aware of the personal and institutional efforts required to ensure an appropriate response from any judicial system. It is my understanding that the most reasonable results still depend very much on the willingness and personal dedication of certain individuals in public service. I recognize the invaluable effect of this personal factor, but it is insufficient to achieve an effective response to this phenomenon. Acknowledgement must be public and, as Cohen reminds us, overcoming denials is a prerequisite for public policies and institutional practices to be able to transform and dignify victims.

[1] Criminal codes and specialized laws in Latin America interchangeably use the terms “feminicides” or “femicides” to criminalize gender-related killings of women. In this article, I use the word “femicide” to refer to both.

* Françoise Roth is a human rights lawyer and gender consultant and a member of ReLeG

**Photo: Françoise Roth