R.P.B, a Filipina woman, was 17-years-old when she was raped in June 2006 by her neighbor. Like other members of her family, R.P.B. was deaf and mute. She filed a complaint with the local police, and was interviewed by a male police officer with the help of her sister, who provided sign language interpretation. R.P.B. and her sister were asked to sign an affidavit that was prepared in Filipino, even though her sign language fluency was in English. She was not provided a translation. She also underwent a medical exam which concluded there was clear evidence of trauma and sexual assault.
Although R.P.B.’s case was filed with the regional trial court in June 2006, and the perpetrator was arrested, the hearings were delayed over the course of several years, due to the unavailability of the prosecution’s witnesses. Further, no sign language interpretation was made available on other scheduled dates. The trial finally went forward on the testimony of the complainant and her mother only, plus written stipulations from the medico-legal officer and the police officer who had taken the initial complaint and medical exam. Finally, in January 2011, the accused was acquitted. In its decision, the court found that there was insufficient evidence that the complainant did not consent. The court noted the lack of evidence that she had physically resisted the assault: she had not cried out, nor attempted to escape by using force, nor were her clothes torn in any way. The court noted that an ordinary Filipina female rape victim would “summon every ounce of her strength and courage to thwart any attempt to besmirch her honor and blemish her purity.” The court found her behavior was inconsistent with that of an ordinary Filipina and the “reasonable standard of human conduct” because she had not sought to escape or resist. The court then concluded that this failure on her part cast doubt on her credibility and rendered her claim of lack of voluntariness and consent difficult to believe.
R.P.B. sought the CEDAW Committee’s review of the judgment from the regional trial court, alleging that the decision contained forms of gender-based discrimination and bias.
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (the Committee), found that articles 1 and 2(c), (d) and (f) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) had been breached by the Philippines.
The Committee recognized that for remedies to be effective in cases of rape, they must be dealt with “in a fair, impartial, timely and expeditious manner.” Furthermore, the Committee recognized the unique vulnerabilities of women with disabilities and the double discrimination they face.
The Committee recognized that “the free assistance of an interpreter in cases where the parties concerned… cannot understand or speak the language used in court is a fundamental free trial guarantee enshrined in human rights treaties.” In this regard, the Court’s failure to provide sign language interpretation undermined R.P.B.’s full and equal participation in the proceedings, in violation of her rights under articles 2(c) and 2(d) of the CEDAW Convention.
The Committee also recognized the role of stereotyping in women’s right to a fair trial and that the judiciary must not create inflexible standards on how women or girls should respond in situations of sexual violence. It condemned the trial court’s mistaken and prejudicial reliance on gender stereotypes about the use of force and intimidations and the myth that women must forcefully and physically resist the sexual assault to be blameless in its occurrence. Finally, the Committee noted that there should not be an “assumption in law or in practice that a woman gives her consent because she has not physically resisted the unwanted sexual conduct, regardless of whether the perpetrator threatened to use or used physical violence.”
The Committee recommended that the government provide reparations to the victim in this case, including monetary compensation and free psychological counseling and therapy, and in general, that the government review its legislation on rape; guarantee free and adequate interpreters, including in sign language, in all legal proceedings; ensure rape proceedings are conducted in an impartial and fair manner, free from prejudices or stereotypical notions regarding the victim’s gender, age or disability; and provide regular, adequate training on the CEDAW Convention.