Self-defense claim in Domestic violence case1461263/... · 2020. 8. 26. · 2. Self-defense claim in domestic violence 2.1 One-incident approach: the nature of domestic violence 2.2

Spring Semester 2020

Independent Written Essay within the Field of Constitutional law and Human Rights 15 hp

[Master‟s Programme in Constitutional Law and Human Rights 60 hp]

Supervisor Therese Enarsson

Self-defense claim in Domestic violence case

An analysis of domestic violence with self-defense claim and article 2 and 3 of European

Convention on Human Rights

Tarikawit Fikadu Mamo

2

Contents 1 Introduction

11 Purpose

12 Method and material

13 Theoretical framework

2 Self-defense claim in domestic violence

21 One-incident approach the nature of domestic violence

22 Killing the offender self-defense

23 Domestic violence link with Self-defense

3 European Court on Human Rights interpretation of Article 2 and 3 in relation

to self-defense claim

31 Balancing right to life

32 Re-living the fear of abuse

4 Discussion ECtHR perspective of State‟s obligation in the matter

5 Conclusion

Bibliography

3

Women once bruised and broken But the bruises heal the bones mendhelliphellipdon‟t

they

Maybe those that you see

What about the bruises inside

The broken confidence the lack of esteem the degradation of self

The guilt

The shame

The lack complete and total of trust

What about the loss of belief in oneself ndash as a worthwhile human being

The wounds the world can‟t see

Are the wounds most devastating the wounds most destructive1

1 Carline A amp Am P E (2014) Shades of Grey ndash Domestic and Sexual Violence Against Women p 63

Cited in P Easteal Less Than Equal Women and the Australian Legal System Sydney Butterworths

2001 p107

4

Abbreviation

ECtHR ndash European Court of Human Rights

ECHR ndash European Convention on Human Rights

BWS ndash Battered Women Syndrome

5

1 Introduction

Domestic violence is a worldwide problem that most women undergo in their lifetime2

which ranges from physical to psychological3 This problem affects women more than any

other group and contributes to the cause of ldquoillness poverty homelessness and disability in

women around the worldrdquo4 In Europe the problem is widespread and more likely violates

four articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) article 2- right to life

article 3- Prohibition of torture article 8- right to respect for private and family life and

article 14- Prohibition of discrimination5 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) by

breaking the dichotomy of the private public sphere established a comprehensive

jurisprudence to address domestic violence6 Accordingly the ECtHR developed principles in

its case law that address domestic violence that will contribute toward the criminal justice

system7

In domestic violence cases ldquoHomicide is emphatically genderedrdquo8 Women are more

likely to be victims of homicide and killed by a former or current partner9 Conversely where

women kill their former or current partners the history of domestic violence is often a reason

and they claim to have acted in self-defense10

The reality of the women who endures

domestic violence and kill their former or current partners have different view and experience

of their household from other (non-victim‟s) women who does not experience domestic

violence in their households However Courts tend to view the self-defense claim as

unreasonable11

and assess the domestic violence ldquovictim‟s reality of violence with non-

victim‟s viewrdquo12

In doing so this understanding of Court‟s interpretation of self-defense in


See Mclean M (2005) Domestic Violence and Repeat Victimization International Review of Victimology 12(1) p1 3 Harne L amp Radford J (2008) Tackling domestic violence theories policies and practice Maidenhead

Open University Pres p 1-7 4 Meyersfeld B (2012) Domestic Violence and International Law Oxford Portland OR Hart Publishing

p 1 5 McQuigg R J A (2011) International Human Rights Law and Domestic Violence the Effectiveness of

International Human Rights Law London Routledge p 48 See art 2- right to life art 3- Prohibition of

torture article 8-right to respect for private and family life and art 14- Prohibition of discrimination See

the discussion in chapter 2 6 Ibid p 43-44

7 Ibid

8 Carline and AM op cit p 128

9 Ibid

10 Ibid

11 Ibid p 130-137

12 Ibid p 153

6

the case of domestic violence directed the women who are victims of domestic violence to

plead guilty of manslaughter instead of claiming self-defense just to avoid the risk of murder

conviction as default13

Moreover there is inconsistency in the court decisions where women committed

homicides against their abusers The women who were the victim of domestic violence claim

to have acted in self-defense when they kill the offender in a non-confrontational situation to

prevent future violence (bodily harm or death)14

Yet the traditional self-defense definition

does not consider the distinguishable characteristics of domestic violence when it takes legal

action15

As a result ldquodomestic violence (abuse) offenses tend to be prosecuted using other

offenses including homicide offenses sexual or non-sexual offenses against the person or

even breach of the peacerdquo16

Therefore the disparity of the self-defense law ultimately

generates the changeable results to the victim‟s self-defense claims Some are found guilty

while others are acquitted 17

11 Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to discuss women‟s right of self-defense who are in

heterosexual relationships when killing their abusers in non-confrontational circumstance

The disparity between the self-defense legislative framework and its interpretation on

domestic violence cases result diverse outcomes for the self-defense claim made by women

who were victims of domestic violence Moreover self-defense claim made by the women

who were victims of domestic violence and acted under the influence of such violence are

treated as per the traditional definition of the self-defense requirement that disregard the

unique feature of the domestic violence For that reason the paper explores where self-

defense claims in domestic violence cases can be raised and justified

The paper also analyzes the self-defense claim and states‟ obligations in relation to ECHR

article 2- right to life and article 3- prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment

or punishment to establish which circumstances and requirements vindicate the self-defense

claim for the victims of domestic violence who kill their abuser

13

Ibid p 130-131 14

Belew C M (2010) Killing one‟s abuser premeditation pathology or provocation 59(3) p 769-770 15

See Section 21 16

Tadros V (2005) The Distinctiveness of Domestic Abuse A Freedom-Based Account Defining

Crimes 65(3) p 990 17

Ibid

7


The paper explores the relation between domestic violence and self-defense claim raised

by women who kill their abuser in non-confrontational manner In doing so to draw the very

nature of the domestic violence self-defense and their interpretation the paper studies

different legal research articles Since the topic of the paper is a widespread subject the legal

research articles from both Inter-American and European literature that addresses the issue in

their regional human right system perspective are utilized Despite the fact that the paper

focuses on the European perspective of domestic violence and self-defence the Inter-

American literature are used to contextualize the general concept of self-defense claim and

domestic violence relation as the topic is more developed and raised in many case law in

their legal system Further articles by different scholars are used to provide an elaboration

and understanding of the court‟s perspective in its arguments and judgments

In addition the case laws of ECtHR are studied I chose old and new key cases of ECtHR

which define the concept right to life with its self-defense exception and prohibition of torture

as regard to the perspective of article 2 and 3 of ECHR The case laws are also used to draw

conclusion how those rights are contextualized with respect to states obligation


Women more likely become victims of domestic violence than men Domestic violence is

the violence that takes place in intimate relationship that perceived for long period of time

with the display of the repetitive behavior of the violence in systematic manner18

A woman

who kills her former or current partner in non-confrontational circumstance often claims that

she acted in response to a reasonable perception of danger Hence they claim self-defense19

The traditional meaning of self-defense covers the masculinity version of defending one‟s

right to life by excluding the distinguishing criteria of the domestic violence victim who acted

in self-defense20

Further the criminal justice system disregards the unique link between the

women who kill their abuser and her been in domestic violence household which she

experience emotional and physical violence besides Nevertheless the women who

experience domestic violence that acted in self-defense in non-confrontational circumstance is

18

See discussion in section 2 19

Mihajlovich op cit p 1272 20

See discussion in section 2

8

still acted out of self-preservation which is an essential point that the criminal justice system

to consider21


21 One Incident Approach The nature of domestic violence

The Council of Europe established the Istanbul convention to promote the protection of

women against violence which defines domestic violence

ldquoAll acts of physical sexual psychological or economic violence that occur within the

family or domestic unit or between former or current spouses or partners whether or not the

perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victimrdquo22

Accordingly domestic violence is a form of violence that befalls in the family home and

within an intimate relationship between the former and current partners23

The victims of

domestic violence often live with the offender involved with the offender emotionally also

financially dependent This may cause the victims to be threatened since the victims are likely

be assaulted and see the offender again24

In addition the nature of domestic violence is often different from other form of violence

by very ldquodistinguishing element of the domestic violence that the abuse occurs over a period

of timerdquo25

The victim of this violence had a relationship with the offender or is known to

them be it a partner or an acquaintance and therefore the violence tend not to be a single or a

bdquoone-off event‟26

Instead the violence tends to be cyclical within a cohabitating couple since

it can be triggered at any moment and by any circumstances Consequently the victim lives in

21

Ibid 22

Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic

violence art 3 (b) 23

Tadros op cit p 992 24

Mclean p 52 25

Carline and AM op cit p 63 See Mclean p 53 26

Ibid p 63-64

9

fear that their daily lives encounter violence27

However the victims stay in the relationship

with the offender where they are abused which the researcher explained as BWS28

BWS is ldquoa set of emotional characteristic or behavioral pattern of a woman who is in

abusive relationship with a manrdquo29

These emotional characteristics of women in BWS

indicates a learned helplessness concept which woman develop a passive behavior or lack of

response or felt powerless neither to stop the repeated abuse nor escape the abusive

relationship30

Further the abuses tend to be cyclical or pattern that intensified through time

that is explained in the BWS notion of cycle of violence31

Thus it can be claimed that the

nature of domestic violence is a systematic violence that happens within an intimate

relationship where the violence is more likely to be repetitive than non-domestic violence32

However the criminal justice following the one-incident approach is often directed to

dismiss the domestic violence cases by lack of evidence or escalate the situation to the point

that the victims take the matter into their own hands33

22 Killing the offender Self-defense

The self-defense concept can be defined as ldquoa legal doctrine that in limited circumstances

would render an otherwise criminal act of violence acceptablerdquo34

The traditional doctrine of

self-defense is an act that is necessary proportionate and imminent used against unjust

attack The elements of this definition are often assessed bdquoaccording to a reasonableness

standard‟35

This means the act can be justified where there is not only reasonable but also an

honest belief that there was imminent danger from the perspective of a reasonable person36

27

General recommendation of the committee of experts of the MESECVI (no 1) Self-defense and gender

based violence according to article 2 of the Beleacutem do Paraacute Convention 2018 p7-9

httpswwwoasorgenmesecvidocsMESECVI-CEVI-doc249-ENpdf 28

Ewing C P (1990) Psychological self-defense A proposed justification for battered women who

kill Law and Human Behavior 14(6) 582 See also section 22 29

Mihajlovich Mira (1987) Does Plight Make Right The Battered Woman Syndrome Expert Testimony

and the Law of Self-Defense Indiana Law Journal 62( 4) p 1257 30

Ibid p 1258-1259 31

Ibid 32


Carline and AM op cit p 128-154 34

Joan H Krause distorted reflection of battered women who kill A response to Professor Dressler Ohio

state journal of criminal law 4(555) p 557 35

Kaufman W R (2007) Self-Defense Imminence and the Battered Woman New Criminal Law

Review An International and Interdisciplinary Journal 10(3) p 344 36

Ibid

10

Likewise the common law requires that the person who acted in self-defense has an honest

belief that her his action is necessary and that they have reasonable ground for that belief37

However the reasonableness of the act is often interpreted in the perspective of the judges‟

personal values instead of the persons who acted in self-defense38

The approach of right and forfeiture explains self-defense based on the right to life As per

this approach the right to life is dependent on the conduct and conditions39

As a result a

person does not retain a right where heshe poses an immediate danger to a person‟s right to

life instead he she own right to life is forfeited40

Yet this does not mean the right of the

offender is forfeited where the victims acted and kill in self-defense instead ldquothe right to life

is forfeited (or not possessed) simply by virtue of becoming an unjust immediate threat to the

life of anotherrdquo41

Thus it is permissible to kill in self-defense but this does not indicate the

offender is being punished or deserve to die rather it is a system to fight back unjust

immediate attack42

Hence it can be held that the concept of bdquoimminence‟ or bdquoimmediate‟

attack that surrounds the self-defense concept serves to limit the claim of self-defense by

avoiding the excessive way to force and avoid the loss of a person‟s life in self-defense claim

Therefore the very self-defense principle is mainly based on two elements First the act

of the threat shall be immediate against one‟s right to life Second the act is against the unjust

act of the other person under a reasonable man standard


Self-defense is a right one can claim before the court whether the violence is domestic or

not In domestic violence cases the victims of domestic violence who kill their abuser in non-

confrontational situation often the problem to claim self-defense argument is that the

requirement of imminent or current violence that the traditional delineation of the self-defense

concept has to draw self-defense legitimacy is not established43

37


Ibid 39

Leverick F (2007) Defending Self-Defence Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27(3) p 572 40

Ibid 41

Ibid 42

Ibid 43

Burke A S (2002) Rational Actors Self-Defense and Duress Making Sense Not Syndromes Out of

the Battered Woman SSRN Electronic Journal p 225

11

It has been argued that the requirements do not include or address the perspective of

gender since the very nature of the domestic violence is ongoing and set the women in the

state of mind that the attack will befall at any moment44

In light of this the theory of the

BWS is established so that the domestic violence victims justify the claim of self-defense45

The theory explains the feeling of learned helplessness that urges the victim of domestic

violence to remain in the relationship with the abuser46

Further this forces the victim to live

ldquounder a constant reign of terror and may kill during an apparently peaceful moment out of

fear that she will not be able to protect herself from the next inevitable attackrdquo47

However this argument might not stand in itself to support the claim of self-defense in

domestic violence cases48

Alafair argued that BWS theory was not establish using empirical

evidence that the domestic violence victims lives are in the constant reign of terror likewise

the time frame of the violence is unclear and it is hard to establish that the tension or the fear

that the women feel still exits or disappear overtime if she stays in the abusive relationship49

Further Alafair reasoned that the theory failed to clarify why the victim of domestic violence

perception of danger extends beyond one assault50

Accordingly he argues that the modifying

the element of self-defense to subjective perception than objective reasonableness to fit the

victim of the domestic violence self defence in the non-confrontational situation is

undermining the very notion of self-defense claim as justification51

On the contrary it has been argued that the traditional self-defense concept is gender-

biased and unable to accommodate the victims of domestic violence who kill in a non-

confrontational situation 52

It is also argued that loss of self-control is rather a masculine

reaction to violence which shows the traditional self-defense concept biasness toward women

by applying subjective test that favor‟s male defendant53

Moreover ldquoit is unlikely that the

44

MESECVI (no 1) op cit p7- 8 45

Burke op cit p 225 46

Ibid p 230 47

Ibid p 231 48

Ibid 49

Ibid p 238-239 50

Ibid 240 51

Ibid 240-242 52

Jeffrey Murdoch (2000) Is imminence really necessity Reconciling traditional self-defense doctrine with battered women syndrome Imminence and the battered women syndrome 20 N Ill U L Rev p 192-

193 53

Carline and AM op cit p 145

12

victim of domestic violence would feel that she could lose self-control without placing herself

in a significantly more vulnerable positionrdquo 54

3 European Court on Human Rights interpretation of Article 2

and 3 in relation to self-defense claim

31 Balancing Right to life

Right to life is a basic concept that is prerequisite for enjoyment of all other human

rights55

As a result ldquoright to life occupies a high position in the hierarchy of legal normsrdquo56

Human rights instruments international and regional57

incorporate right to life provision into

their instruments for protection of human rights even if limitation or exception to the

enjoyment of the right to life is found in the instruments58

The ECHR one of the regional human rights instruments recognizes and protects the right

to life Article 2 states

1 Everyonersquos right to life shall be protected by law No one shall be deprived of his life

intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime

for which this penalty is provided by law

2 Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it

results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained

(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrectionrdquo

Accordingly it can be claimed that the right to life is not an absolute right given that it

can be taken away lawfully59

Indeed Protocol 6 and 13 abolish the death penalty that

indicated in the article 2sect1 Nonetheless article 2sect2 sets out circumstances in which

54

Carline and AM op cit p 149 55

Mavronicola Taking Life and Liberty Seriously p 1028 56

C Tomuschat E Lagrange and S Oeter the Right to Life Brill 2010 p 5 57

Universal Declaration on Human Right-art 3 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms-art 2 American Convention on Human Rights-art4 African Charter on

Human and Peoples‟ Rights-art 4 Arab Charter on Human Rights arts 5-8 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights-art 6 58

Mavronicola op cit p 1028-1029 59

Ibid

13

deprivation of life can be justified and found lawful whether the loss of life is intended or

not60

Likewise the fundamental character of this right enquires any exceptions that justify

the loss of the right must be construed narrowly and strictly61

In the context of a woman victim of domestic violence who killed her abuser in non-

confrontational circumstances begs a question whether the claims of self-defense is justified

by article 2 bdquodefense of any person from unlawful violence‟ of the ECHR This does not mean

that article 2sect2 ldquodefine instances where it is permitted to kill an individual but describes the

situations where it is permitted to ldquouse forcerdquo which may result as an unintended outcome in

the deprivation of liferdquo62

Therefore balancing bdquolife against life‟ and affected life interest is a

predicament that ECtHR confronted in its case law63

In the case of Stewart v United Kingdom by recognizing the circumstance sets in article 2

that justifies the violation of the right to life it addresses how this justification must be

construed64

The same is also explained in the case of McCann and Others v The United

Kingdom The ECtHR notes that the use of force is justified where ldquothe force used must be

bdquoabsolutely necessary‟ and strictly proportionate to the achievement of the aims set out in 2sect2

and where deliberate lethal force is used taking into consideration not only the actions of the

person who actually administer but also all surrounding circumstancerdquo65

Based on the ECtHR interpretation of article 2sect2 it seems that three requirements have to

be met to justify the bdquouse of force‟ ie the use of force must be absolutely necessary

proportionate to the achievement of the aims and shall take into consideration all surrounding

circumstance Yet it seems that ldquoin the context of the use of force between non-State actors

an array of different and complex circumstances may be at play in which the distribution of

power and vulnerability between victim and perpetrator may vary and where presumptions as

to the distribution of bdquokilling‟ power are not appropriaterdquo66

Thus it is more problematic to

60

Ibid p 1027 61

Ibid p1029-1033 62

Guide on Article 2 European Court of Human Rights 2020 para 94 Stewart v United Kingdom

Application no 1004482 para 15 63

Tomuschat C Lagrange E amp Oeter S (2010) The right to life Leiden Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

p 89-90 64

Case of Stewart v United Kingdom Application no 1004482 para 11-19 65

Case of McCann and Others v The United Kingdom Application no 1898491 para 148-150 66

Mavronicola op cit p 1046

14

apply absolute necessity test where violence occurred between individuals that are not state-

actors67

By extension this requirement tries to balance individual‟s right to life who take part in

the situation That means the person who acts in self-defense to relieve her him from the

violation of right to life shall show the assessment probability of her his acts to be absolutely

necessary and proportionate to protect herhis right to life68

Article 2sect2 seems not to observe the requirement of imminence or express the time frame

for the right to life has to be deprived rather focuses in the other criteria that the use of force is

justified

As per the BWS theoretical framework stated above a woman who kills her abusive

partner in non-confrontational situation is often a victim of long-going domestic violence that

tends to develop the feeling of powerlessness and learned helplessness69

In addition the

victim stays in the abusive relationship because she comprehends the futile attempt to escape

will cause future violence 70

Besides the victim may perceive using force is the option to

avoid future violence since that is the ultimate aim of the victim71

By doing so the victim of

the domestic violence acted to protect her right to life and torture or ill-treatment in belief that

her right to life is endangered since the abuser may act at any moment of a time72

Moreover

the women who are in the household of abusive relationships where violence is persistent are

always in danger of losing their limbs or even worse their life Also the feeling of

powerlessness fear and threat that develop in the abusive relationship seems to the women

who kills the abuser in non-confrontational situation a way of protecting the loss of their right

to life from materializing

67

Ibid 68


Burke op cit p 221-224 70

Ibid 71

Belew op cit p 58-59 Its above no 12 72

MESECVI (no 1) op cit p7-9 Also see the discussion on Section 32

15


Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Right stipulates ldquoNo one shall be

subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishmentrdquo73

Such prohibition

is specified in all relevant international human rights and humanitarian instruments74

Likewise the prohibition forms a part of customary international law which recognizes

torture as a crime75

The term bdquotorture‟ is defined under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment article 1 as

ldquoany act which severe pain or suffering whether physical or mental intentionally

inflicted on a person for such purpose ashellippunishing for an act she or a third person has

committed or is suspected of having committed or intimidating or coercing her or a third

personrdquo

By extension torture is an act or omission purposefully causes pain or powerlessness of

the victim which render futile the victim to escape the situation76

Based on this definition

and generic understanding of domestic violence77

the United Nation stated that ldquothe pain or

suffering caused by domestic violence often fall nothing short of that inflicted by torture and

other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishmentrdquo78

On the other hand the ECtHR did not take major steps of deeming domestic violence to

be reflected as a torture79

and has been construed article 3 based on case-by-case formula as

illustrate in below case laws which give leeway for domestic violence to no be consider as

torture In the case of Opuz v Turkey ECtHR states that ill-treatment to fall under the scope

of article 3 it should attain a minimum level of severity It continues to elaborate that this

73

ECHR Article 3 74

Matt Pollard (2005) The Absolute and Comprehensive Prohibition of Torture and other Cruel Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Swedish Forum on Human Rights p2

See Geneva Convention art 3 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art 7 European

Convention on Human Rights art 3 American Convention Human Right art 5 African Charter on Human

and Peoples‟ Rights art 5 75

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Human Rights Fact Sheet United

Nations Geneva 2002 p 3 76

United Nation General Assembly Relevance of the prohibition of torture and other cruel inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment to the context of domestic violence A74148 2019

httpsundocsorgA74148 77

See section 21 78

Ibid above no 52 para 8 79

McQuigg op cit p 48

16

minimum level is relative which depends on circumstance of the case for instance ldquothe

nature and context of the treatment its duration it‟s physical and mental effects and in some

instances the sex age and state of health of the victimrdquo80

Opuz the applicant complained

her husband caused her pain suffering and fear because of the violence perpetrated upon her

by him81

Further the applicant had experienced ill-treatment more than five times that had

been reported to the pertinent authority that caused criminal charge to be brought before the

national court in different occurrence82

Thus the ECtHR notes the physical injury and

psychological pressure the applicant suffered are sufficient enough to fall under the scope of

article 383

In Costello-Roberts v United Kingdom the ECtHR established the minimum level of

severity recognized where the treatment or humiliation is more than the usual that ldquoinherent in

any punishmentrdquo84

Thus the scope of article 3 entails that not all punishment can be

categorized as ill-treatment85

The same assessment can be observed in the case Volodina v

Russia but with more advance description to embrace the wide-ranging effect of the ill-

treatment which does not always have to be physical or mental suffering Accordingly it

denotes that ill-treatment comprises ldquotreatment which humiliates or debases an individual

showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity or which arouses

feelings of fear anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual‟s moral and physical

resistance even in the absence of actual bodily harm or intense physical or mental

sufferingrdquo86

Moreover all the cases cited above established vulnerable individuals women

and children in particular are more likely entail the minimum level of severity in ill-treatment

category87

Thus when the court contented that the circumstance of the cases gravity

heightened it considers the act as violation of article 3 of the ECHR This implies that the

court construed Article 3 in the way that ldquobdquodoes not prohibit‟ the use of force in certain

circumstancesrdquo88

Moreover this does not mean the ECtHR considers merely the vulnerability the

minimum level of ill-treatment of the victim when it comes to assessing the fact to determine

80

Case of Opuz v Turkey Application no 3340102 para 158 81

Ibid para 154-155 82

Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84

Case of Costello-Roberts v United Kingdom Application no 1313487 para 30 85

Ibid 86

Case of Volodina v Russia Application no 4126117 para 73 87

See case of Volodina v Russia Application no 4126117 Costello-Roberts v United Kingdom

Application no 1313487 and Opuz v Turkey Application no 3340102 88

Mavronicola N (2013) Guumller and Oumlngel v Turkey p 374

17

the violation of article 3 but also it contemplates the state‟s response or legislative framework

to the act89

In the case Rumor v Italy the ECtHR finds the state in no violation of article 3 of

the convention The court specified the state ldquohad put in place a legislative framework

allowing them to take measures against persons accused of domestic violence and that that

framework was effective in punishing the perpetrator of the crime of which the applicant was

victim and preventing the recurrence of violent attacks against her physical integrityrdquo90

Based on the above point of view it can be assumed that the ECtHR consider domestic

violence as violation of the ECHR article 3 where the act‟s ill-treatment is justified by

minimum level of severity As the nature of domestic violence more likely involve systematic

violence in the cyclic manner which is repetitive and last for a long period of time the victim

besides physical injury often develop BWS the feeling of passiveness and powerlessness to

the point that the she cannot escape the abusive relationship91

Moreover as per the definition

of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment torture does not only means physical pain but also mental Consequently victims

of domestic violence often suffer BWS which apt to the protection of ECHR article 3

4 Discussion ECtHR perspective of States obligation in the matter

The European Court on Human Rights in its case law shed some light and established

principle as regard to the Human rights enshrined in the ECHR As a result the court

established and robust the positive obligation of the states along with the negative obligation

evidently specified in article 2 of the convention92

The positive obligation of the states in

overall addressed generally into four categories that is framework obligation operational

duties investigative obligation and duties of redress 93

The framework obligation explains that the state should establish the legislative

framework that can deter the person who violated the right to life as well as redress the

unlawful taking of life94

State also have positive obligation of operational duties that entails

states to take reasonable actions to protect right to life from being at risk where the pertinent

89

Case of Rumor v Italy Application no 7296410 90

Ibid para 76 91


Mavronicola op cit p 1031 93

Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18

authorities have knowledge about it 95

Further states have an investigative positive obligation

that must be effective with the aim of establishing how the right to life is violated or justified

based on the state‟s legislative framework so that the victim is redressed for the violence

competently96

Thus the ECtHR expects states to set effective legislative framework that requests the

authority to act in reasonable manner where they knew or ought to have known about the

violation of right to life and in instant where the right to life is violated the state must

provide effective investigations to address and redress the circumstances 97

Often state addresses the positive obligation of right to life by adopting criminal law

legislations Yet for instance in Opuz case the court finds the legislative framework fell

short to the state‟s inherent positive obligation to establish effective system that punish the

person violated such right and provide redress for the victim98

Further irrespective of lack of

effective legislation to punish the wrongdoer the court concludes that the pertinent authority

fells to realize the operational and investigational duties of the state to protect the victim of

domestic violence99

Likewise the ECtHR laid a positive obligation on the state based on article 3 of the

ECHR In its case law it stated that states have a ldquopositive obligations to ensure that

individuals within their jurisdiction are protected against all forms of ill-treatment prohibited

under Article 3 including where private individuals administer such treatmentrdquo100

Moreover

the court addresses state‟s obligation under Istanbul Convention ldquoto take the necessary

legislative or other measures to ensure that investigations and judicial proceedings in relation

to all forms of violence covered by the scope of this Convention are carried out without undue

delay while taking into consideration the rights of the victim during all stages of the criminal

proceedingsrdquo101

In the context of the woman who kills her abuser because of the pain or fear due to BWS

the legislative framework which acknowledge self-defense that are open to take BWS as one

element of self-defense is in line with the positive obligation laid down in article 2

95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100

Case of Rumor v Italy 2014 Application no 7296410 para 58 101

Case of Talpis v Italy Application no 4123714 para 129

19

Consequently it can be argued that this legislative framework may encourage the pertinent

authority to do effective investigation that balances the right to life a woman who kills the

abuser and the man who is killed by the woman he abused alongside the torture and ill-

treatment experienced by the woman who acted in self-defense

Moreover ldquothe ECtHR is not the authority responsible for setting or administering the

substantive contours of criminal liability for acts or omissions endangering or resulting in loss

of life in a domestic contextrdquo102

Instead States are responsible for framing legislative

framework like criminal code that can address the criminal aspect of the situation In doing

so states play very vital role

102


20

Conclusion

Even if the right to life is a basic right given that we all need to be alive to enjoy other

human rights does not make the right to life an absolute right Lawfully right to life can be

taken away either by state agent or by private individual and self-defense is one of the lawful

excuses that can be exercise out of self-preservation

Woman who kills her abuser in non-confrontational circumstances the lawful excuse

seems ambivalent to see her perspective of self-preservation Often the right to self-defense

does not take into account of women who were victims of domestic violence and understand

their act of killing as rational and reasonable in their perspective Nevertheless the concept of

BWS sheds some light to the rational and behavioral pattern of women who kills their abuser

in act of self-preservation from torture ill-treatment and loss of life

The act of self-preservation or self-defense is one of the right specified in ECHR article

2sect2 as an exception to right to life As per the article a person can claim self-defense or use

force where it is absolutely necessary proportionate to the achievement of the aims

considering all surrounding circumstances Conversely the traditional self-defence claim in

addition to the requirements laid down in ECHR article 2sect2 it requires the use force where

the danger inflicted to the right to life is imminent or immediate This traditional meaning of

self-defense disregards the unique link between the women who kill their abuser and her been

in domestic violence household

Likewise the women who kill their abuser in the act of preservation or self-defence often

experience domestic violence This domestic violence to be considered as torture according to

ECHR article 3 the violence or pain inflicted either physical or mental shall satisfy minimum

level of severity in ill-treatment category Often domestic violence opt this minimum levels

severity since the distinguishable elements of the domestic violence is the violence being

systematic and occurs for long period of time

Thus understanding the effect of domestic violence and its effect in order to justify

women‟s act of killing in non-confrontational circumstance needs both legislator and court

recognition

States have negative and positive obligation which also specified by ECtHR Among these

obligations introducing legislative reforms is one way of safeguarding women‟s rights in

21

general and right to self-defense in domestic violence cases in particular Further state‟s court

needs to consider the dynamics and manifestation of the domestic violence where construing

the concept of self-defense By extension the court should analyses and consider the very

nature of the domestic violence where the women who kill the abuser and claims self-defense

Otherwise construing the self-defense claim based on its traditional concept appears denying

the women who were subjected to domestic violence a right to defend themselves or protect

their right to life

Moreover for women who have been the victim of domestic violence that causes

violation of ECHR article 3- protection against torture and ill-treatment which is also a

customary international law does she not deserve a benefit of a doubt when she claims self-

defense for killing her abuser in non-confrontational circumstance

22

Sources

Literature

Belew C M (2010) Killing one‟s abuser premeditation pathology or provocation 59(3)

Burke A S (2002) Rational Actors Self-Defense and Duress Making Sense Not Syndromes

Out of the Battered Woman SSRN Electronic Journal

Carline A amp Am P E (2014) Shades of Grey ndash Domestic and Sexual Violence Against

Women

C Tomuschat E Lagrange and S Oeter the Right to Life Brill 2010

Ewing C P (1990) Psychological self-defense A proposed justification for battered women

who kill Law and Human Behavior 14(6)

Harne L amp Radford J (2008) Tackling domestic violence theories policies and practice

Maidenhead Open University Pres

Jeffrey Murdoch (2000) Is imminence really necessity Reconciling traditional self-defense

doctrine with battered women syndrome Imminence and the battered women syndrome 20

N Ill U L Rev

Joan H Krause distorted reflection of battered women who kill A response to Professor

Dressler Ohio state journal of criminal law 4(555)


Review An International and Interdisciplinary Journal 10(3)

Leverick F (2007) Defending Self-defense Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27(3)

Mavronicola N (2017) Taking Life and Liberty Seriously Reconsidering Criminal Liability

Under Article 2 of the ECHR The Modern Law Review 80(6)

Mclean M (2005) Domestic Violence and Repeat Victimization International Review of

Victimology 12(1)

23

McQuigg R J A (2011) International Human Rights Law and Domestic Violence the

Effectiveness of International Human Rights Law London Routledge

Meyersfeld B (2012) Domestic Violence and International Law Oxford Portland OR Hart

Publishing

Mihajlovich Mira (1987) Does Plight Make Right The Battered Woman Syndrome Expert

Testimony and the Law of Self-Defense Indiana Law Journal 62( 4)


Crimes 65(3)

Tomuschat C Lagrange E amp Oeter S (2010) The right to life Leiden Martinus Nijhoff

Publishers

Laws

Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and

domestic violence

European Convention on Human Right

Case-law from ECtHR

McCann and Others v The United Kingdom (Application no 1898491)

Volodina v Russia (Application no 4126117) 09072019

Talpis v Italy (Application no 4123714)02032017

Opuz v Turkey Application no 334010209062009

Stewart v United Kingdom Application no 1004482 10071984

Rumor v Italy ((Application no 7296410) 27052014

Costello-Roberts v United Kingdom (Application no 1313487) 25031993

24

Other

General recommendation of the committee of experts of the MESECVI (no 1) Self-defense

and gender based violence according to article 2 of the Beleacutem do Paraacute Convention 2018

Guide on Article 2 European Court of Human Rights 2020

Matt Pollard (2005) The Absolute and Comprehensive Prohibition of Torture and other

Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Swedish Forum on Human Rights

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Human Rights Fact

Sheet United Nations Geneva 2002

United Nation General Assembly Relevance of the prohibition of torture and other cruel

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to the context of domestic violence A74148

2019

2

Contents 1 Introduction

11 Purpose




21 One-incident approach the nature of domestic violence

22 Killing the offender self-defense


3 European Court on Human Rights interpretation of Article 2 and 3 in relation

to self-defense claim

31 Balancing right to life


4 Discussion ECtHR perspective of State‟s obligation in the matter

5 Conclusion

Bibliography

3


they




The guilt

The shame







2001 p107

4

Abbreviation




5

1 Introduction











system7









unreasonable11











7 Ibid


9 Ibid

10 Ibid

11 Ibid p 130-137

12 Ibid p 153

6










action15







11 Purpose














13

Ibid p 130-131 14


See Section 21 16


Crimes 65(3) p 990 17

Ibid

7





















A woman





in self-defense20





18




8


to consider21










The victims of






of timerdquo25






21

Ibid 22




Mclean p 52 25


Ibid p 63-64

9









relationship30















standard‟35



27








Ibid p 1258-1259 31

Ibid 32







Ibid

10







As a result a









immediate attack42













37


Ibid 39


Ibid 41

Ibid 42

Ibid 43



11






























44



Ibid p 230 47

Ibid p 231 48

Ibid 49

Ibid p 238-239 50

Ibid 240 51

Ibid 240-242 52


193 53


12







rights55




















54








Ibid

13


not60













construed64














60

Ibid p 1027 61

Ibid p1029-1033 62




p 89-90 64




14


actors67







justified




In addition the








Moreover






67

Ibid 68



Ibid 71



15




Such prohibition









personrdquo














73

ECHR Article 3 74











See section 21 78


McQuigg op cit p 48

16






by him81






article 383













sufferingrdquo86



category87







80



Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84


Ibid 86





17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

3


they




The guilt

The shame







2001 p107

4

Abbreviation




5

1 Introduction











system7









unreasonable11











7 Ibid


9 Ibid

10 Ibid

11 Ibid p 130-137

12 Ibid p 153

6










action15







11 Purpose














13

Ibid p 130-131 14


See Section 21 16


Crimes 65(3) p 990 17

Ibid

7





















A woman





in self-defense20





18




8


to consider21










The victims of






of timerdquo25






21

Ibid 22




Mclean p 52 25


Ibid p 63-64

9









relationship30















standard‟35



27








Ibid p 1258-1259 31

Ibid 32







Ibid

10







As a result a









immediate attack42













37


Ibid 39


Ibid 41

Ibid 42

Ibid 43



11






























44



Ibid p 230 47

Ibid p 231 48

Ibid 49

Ibid p 238-239 50

Ibid 240 51

Ibid 240-242 52


193 53


12







rights55




















54








Ibid

13


not60













construed64














60

Ibid p 1027 61

Ibid p1029-1033 62




p 89-90 64




14


actors67







justified




In addition the








Moreover






67

Ibid 68



Ibid 71



15




Such prohibition









personrdquo














73

ECHR Article 3 74











See section 21 78


McQuigg op cit p 48

16






by him81






article 383













sufferingrdquo86



category87







80



Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84


Ibid 86





17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

4

Abbreviation




5

1 Introduction











system7









unreasonable11











7 Ibid


9 Ibid

10 Ibid

11 Ibid p 130-137

12 Ibid p 153

6










action15







11 Purpose














13

Ibid p 130-131 14


See Section 21 16


Crimes 65(3) p 990 17

Ibid

7





















A woman





in self-defense20





18




8


to consider21










The victims of






of timerdquo25






21

Ibid 22




Mclean p 52 25


Ibid p 63-64

9









relationship30















standard‟35



27








Ibid p 1258-1259 31

Ibid 32







Ibid

10







As a result a









immediate attack42













37


Ibid 39


Ibid 41

Ibid 42

Ibid 43



11






























44



Ibid p 230 47

Ibid p 231 48

Ibid 49

Ibid p 238-239 50

Ibid 240 51

Ibid 240-242 52


193 53


12







rights55




















54








Ibid

13


not60













construed64














60

Ibid p 1027 61

Ibid p1029-1033 62




p 89-90 64




14


actors67







justified




In addition the








Moreover






67

Ibid 68



Ibid 71



15




Such prohibition









personrdquo














73

ECHR Article 3 74











See section 21 78


McQuigg op cit p 48

16






by him81






article 383













sufferingrdquo86



category87







80



Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84


Ibid 86





17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

5

1 Introduction











system7









unreasonable11











7 Ibid


9 Ibid

10 Ibid

11 Ibid p 130-137

12 Ibid p 153

6










action15







11 Purpose














13

Ibid p 130-131 14


See Section 21 16


Crimes 65(3) p 990 17

Ibid

7





















A woman





in self-defense20





18




8


to consider21










The victims of






of timerdquo25






21

Ibid 22




Mclean p 52 25


Ibid p 63-64

9









relationship30















standard‟35



27








Ibid p 1258-1259 31

Ibid 32







Ibid

10







As a result a









immediate attack42













37


Ibid 39


Ibid 41

Ibid 42

Ibid 43



11






























44



Ibid p 230 47

Ibid p 231 48

Ibid 49

Ibid p 238-239 50

Ibid 240 51

Ibid 240-242 52


193 53


12







rights55




















54








Ibid

13


not60













construed64














60

Ibid p 1027 61

Ibid p1029-1033 62




p 89-90 64




14


actors67







justified




In addition the








Moreover






67

Ibid 68



Ibid 71



15




Such prohibition









personrdquo














73

ECHR Article 3 74











See section 21 78


McQuigg op cit p 48

16






by him81






article 383













sufferingrdquo86



category87







80



Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84


Ibid 86





17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

6










action15







11 Purpose














13

Ibid p 130-131 14


See Section 21 16


Crimes 65(3) p 990 17

Ibid

7





















A woman





in self-defense20





18




8


to consider21










The victims of






of timerdquo25






21

Ibid 22




Mclean p 52 25


Ibid p 63-64

9









relationship30















standard‟35



27








Ibid p 1258-1259 31

Ibid 32







Ibid

10







As a result a









immediate attack42













37


Ibid 39


Ibid 41

Ibid 42

Ibid 43



11






























44



Ibid p 230 47

Ibid p 231 48

Ibid 49

Ibid p 238-239 50

Ibid 240 51

Ibid 240-242 52


193 53


12







rights55




















54








Ibid

13


not60













construed64














60

Ibid p 1027 61

Ibid p1029-1033 62




p 89-90 64




14


actors67







justified




In addition the








Moreover






67

Ibid 68



Ibid 71



15




Such prohibition









personrdquo














73

ECHR Article 3 74











See section 21 78


McQuigg op cit p 48

16






by him81






article 383













sufferingrdquo86



category87







80



Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84


Ibid 86





17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

7





















A woman





in self-defense20





18




8


to consider21










The victims of






of timerdquo25






21

Ibid 22




Mclean p 52 25


Ibid p 63-64

9









relationship30















standard‟35



27








Ibid p 1258-1259 31

Ibid 32







Ibid

10







As a result a









immediate attack42













37


Ibid 39


Ibid 41

Ibid 42

Ibid 43



11






























44



Ibid p 230 47

Ibid p 231 48

Ibid 49

Ibid p 238-239 50

Ibid 240 51

Ibid 240-242 52


193 53


12







rights55




















54








Ibid

13


not60













construed64














60

Ibid p 1027 61

Ibid p1029-1033 62




p 89-90 64




14


actors67







justified




In addition the








Moreover






67

Ibid 68



Ibid 71



15




Such prohibition









personrdquo














73

ECHR Article 3 74











See section 21 78


McQuigg op cit p 48

16






by him81






article 383













sufferingrdquo86



category87







80



Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84


Ibid 86





17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

8


to consider21










The victims of






of timerdquo25






21

Ibid 22




Mclean p 52 25


Ibid p 63-64

9









relationship30















standard‟35



27








Ibid p 1258-1259 31

Ibid 32







Ibid

10







As a result a









immediate attack42













37


Ibid 39


Ibid 41

Ibid 42

Ibid 43



11






























44



Ibid p 230 47

Ibid p 231 48

Ibid 49

Ibid p 238-239 50

Ibid 240 51

Ibid 240-242 52


193 53


12







rights55




















54








Ibid

13


not60













construed64














60

Ibid p 1027 61

Ibid p1029-1033 62




p 89-90 64




14


actors67







justified




In addition the








Moreover






67

Ibid 68



Ibid 71



15




Such prohibition









personrdquo














73

ECHR Article 3 74











See section 21 78


McQuigg op cit p 48

16






by him81






article 383













sufferingrdquo86



category87







80



Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84


Ibid 86





17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

9









relationship30















standard‟35



27








Ibid p 1258-1259 31

Ibid 32







Ibid

10







As a result a









immediate attack42













37


Ibid 39


Ibid 41

Ibid 42

Ibid 43



11






























44



Ibid p 230 47

Ibid p 231 48

Ibid 49

Ibid p 238-239 50

Ibid 240 51

Ibid 240-242 52


193 53


12







rights55




















54








Ibid

13


not60













construed64














60

Ibid p 1027 61

Ibid p1029-1033 62




p 89-90 64




14


actors67







justified




In addition the








Moreover






67

Ibid 68



Ibid 71



15




Such prohibition









personrdquo














73

ECHR Article 3 74











See section 21 78


McQuigg op cit p 48

16






by him81






article 383













sufferingrdquo86



category87







80



Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84


Ibid 86





17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

10







As a result a









immediate attack42













37


Ibid 39


Ibid 41

Ibid 42

Ibid 43



11






























44



Ibid p 230 47

Ibid p 231 48

Ibid 49

Ibid p 238-239 50

Ibid 240 51

Ibid 240-242 52


193 53


12







rights55




















54








Ibid

13


not60













construed64














60

Ibid p 1027 61

Ibid p1029-1033 62




p 89-90 64




14


actors67







justified




In addition the








Moreover






67

Ibid 68



Ibid 71



15




Such prohibition









personrdquo














73

ECHR Article 3 74











See section 21 78


McQuigg op cit p 48

16






by him81






article 383













sufferingrdquo86



category87







80



Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84


Ibid 86





17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

11






























44



Ibid p 230 47

Ibid p 231 48

Ibid 49

Ibid p 238-239 50

Ibid 240 51

Ibid 240-242 52


193 53


12







rights55




















54








Ibid

13


not60













construed64














60

Ibid p 1027 61

Ibid p1029-1033 62




p 89-90 64




14


actors67







justified




In addition the








Moreover






67

Ibid 68



Ibid 71



15




Such prohibition









personrdquo














73

ECHR Article 3 74











See section 21 78


McQuigg op cit p 48

16






by him81






article 383













sufferingrdquo86



category87







80



Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84


Ibid 86





17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

12







rights55




















54








Ibid

13


not60













construed64














60

Ibid p 1027 61

Ibid p1029-1033 62




p 89-90 64




14


actors67







justified




In addition the








Moreover






67

Ibid 68



Ibid 71



15




Such prohibition









personrdquo














73

ECHR Article 3 74











See section 21 78


McQuigg op cit p 48

16






by him81






article 383













sufferingrdquo86



category87







80



Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84


Ibid 86





17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

13


not60













construed64














60

Ibid p 1027 61

Ibid p1029-1033 62




p 89-90 64




14


actors67







justified




In addition the








Moreover






67

Ibid 68



Ibid 71



15




Such prohibition









personrdquo














73

ECHR Article 3 74











See section 21 78


McQuigg op cit p 48

16






by him81






article 383













sufferingrdquo86



category87







80



Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84


Ibid 86





17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

14


actors67







justified




In addition the








Moreover






67

Ibid 68



Ibid 71



15




Such prohibition









personrdquo














73

ECHR Article 3 74











See section 21 78


McQuigg op cit p 48

16






by him81






article 383













sufferingrdquo86



category87







80



Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84


Ibid 86





17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

15




Such prohibition









personrdquo














73

ECHR Article 3 74











See section 21 78


McQuigg op cit p 48

16






by him81






article 383













sufferingrdquo86



category87







80



Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84


Ibid 86





17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

16






by him81






article 383













sufferingrdquo86



category87







80



Ibid para 9-58 83

Ibid para161 84


Ibid 86





17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

17


to the act89





























89


Ibid para 76 91



Ibid p 1031-1033 94

Ibid

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

18





competently96












domestic violence99





Moreover





proceedingsrdquo101




95

Ibid 96

Ibid 97

Ibid 98


Ibid 100



19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

19











102


20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

20

Conclusion



























recognition



21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

21







their right to life





22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

22

Sources

Literature





Women








N Ill U L Rev









Victimology 12(1)

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

23




Publishing




Crimes 65(3)


Publishers

Laws


domestic violence


Case-law from ECtHR








24

Other










2019

24

Other










2019

Documents

Self-defense claim in Domestic violence case1461263/... · 2020. 8. 26. · 2. Self-defense claim in domestic violence 2.1 One-incident approach: the nature of domestic violence 2.2