Putting an end to impunity: Russia’s systematic failure to protect women from domestic violence

Putting an end to impunity: Russia’s systematic failure to protect women from domestic violence

How can international institutional bodies put pressure on Russia regarding legislative reforms and combat the culture of domestic violence as a private family matter?

In recent years, Russia has been the focus of increased attention with regard to the topic of violence against women, and domestic violence in particular. In a country where 14,000 women are murdered each year by their intimate partner, new cases of domestic violence made international headlines. News articles such as the one of the three sisters who killed their abusive father last summer, a St. Petersburg university professor who killed and dismembered his girlfriend, and even the case of a woman whose rage-filled husband abducted her, took her into a forest and cut off both her hands, have been recently covered by media outlets around the world.

Since 2017, battery that does not result in lasting harm has been decriminalised and classified as misdemeanour for first-time offenders. Specifically, under the Administrative Code, a fine is imposed for intimate partner violence (from 5,000 to 30,000 roubles which equals to 70 to 430 euros) instead of a prison sentence. Russia has no specific laws on domestic violence despite its ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 2004, nor has it ratified the Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence.

The exact number of domestic violence incidents is not known since the government does not disaggregate crime data according to gender – with the exception of homicides - nor does it have a separate category for domestic violence. This lack of accurate statistics contributes to the reluctance of policymakers to consider domestic abuse a national priority.

Police authorities treat each complaint separately in cases of repeated abuse and are often unwilling to investigate and bring proceedings in domestic violence cases. Domestic violence is considered a private family matter, and victims often suffer secondary victimisation by having to collect evidence and bear the burden of proof at trials. Such conditions, added to the problem of legal illiteracy, explain why 8 out of 10 cases do not even make it to court.

While bills on domestic violence have been introduced more than 40 times over the last decade in the State of Duma, Russia’s lower house of Parliament, none of them has even passed the first reading. Recently, a member of the Russian Parliament, Oksana Pushkina, has been campaigning to get the 2017 decriminalisation law overturned. She has also initiated amendments to legislation including the introduction of restraining orders, anti-sexual harassment and other measures to promote gender equality. Opposing her proposals, 182 Russian Orthodox Church groups and parents’ organisations wrote an open letter to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, asking for the proposed legislation to be blocked.

So, how can external pressure initiate a shift in Russia’s passivity towards the prevalence of domestic abuse in the country?

Volodina v. Russia

In its first domestic violence judgment involving a claim against Russia, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia to be in breach of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Most notably, it held that Russian authorities had failed to take adequate measures to protect the victim of domestic violence (positive obligation under Article 3) and condemned the absence of legislation defining domestic violence. The Court underlined that Russia had neglected ‘to acknowledge the seriousness and extent of the problem of domestic violence in Russia and its discriminatory effect on women’. (§ 132)

This case was brought before the Court by Ms. Volodina, who had experienced numerous instances of violence by her former partner (Mr. S) over the course of three years. Mr. S. had allegedly beaten, threatened, GPS-tracked, kidnapped and intimidated her. After one physical assault in particular, Ms. Volodina was obliged to undergo medical surgery to terminate her pregnancy. Despite having lodged several complaints with the police, Mr. S was never convicted.

CEDAW Committee

The ruling comes a few months after the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) published its views in S.T. v Russia. The CEDAW Committee monitors State compliance with the CEDAW Convention, and hears individual complaints alleging Convention violations against State Parties. However, the Committee’s communications are non-binding on State Parties. In S.T. v Russia, the Committee found that Russia had failed to uphold the rights of the victim of severe domestic violence in question under the Convention, and had directly perpetuated sex-based discrimination and stereotypes in its handling of her case.

Next Steps

Despite the acknowledgement of injustice for victims of domestic violence in Russia by both the CEDAW Committee and the Court, Russia has not yet complied with these international decisions. As an alternative, the Strasbourg Court could invoke the so-called ‘pilot judgment procedure’ under Article 46 of the European Convention as a pressure tool for reforms. Under this procedure, the Court recognises a systematic problem in a Member State and urges its government to adopt policy and legal reforms so as to prevent violations of the same nature from occurring in the (near) future. Such a procedure could be deemed more effective for future practices - given that four more cases of domestic violence against Russia are pending before the Court - since this would ensure that the government adopts national measures required to satisfy the judgment.

It is yet to be seen whether international attention will contribute towards legal and policy reforms in Russia to set the systematic problem of violence against women as a national priority, as the approval of the suggested bill by the Duma is still pending. Nonetheless, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, tasked with supervising the execution of ECtHR judgments by Member States, could still put pressure on Russia by adopting decisions and resolutions to demand that the country introduces legislative reforms and, hence, conforms with international human rights standards. With 137 women being killed by their intimate partner every day, the lives of women in Russia depend on the introduction and implementation of effective laws on domestic violence.



David, sorry I can't reply to your comments. Certain technical issue here, bars me from commenting properly here. Thanks


David, laws are not decorations. They are progression. Not sufficient, yet progression. It starts with the law, with recognition of rights. Then gradually, it does enhance the building of pressure, for implementing it.

So, you write about families ? What is family? group of individuals, having blood connection or ties in flesh and blood, in order to better survive. Living in harmony and better survive. So, this can be survival in your eyes I wonder? A group founded on oppression, violence, represents in your eyes survival? For that is what family meant for.

Beating, killing, this is family? Do you understand what you write here with all due respect ?

David Soto

“David, laws are not decorations” I wouldn’t say that laws are in general decorations, I only say that in some cases it is the role that they play. And sometimes even happen the next detrimental phenomenon: In countries where the impunity is very high sometimes legislators write laws with exaggerate punishments, and in the reality they don’t resolve any problem; in fact they generate more problems that the ones they resolve, because the criminality doesn't diminish and at the same time the law when is wrongly applied (which is very common in these systems) harm more innocent people.

“Beating, killing, this is family?” Beating, killing is not good, and do exist the point where you could say there is no a family anymore. But to fight to keep a family alive, to fight to recover a member of the family that is acting in a destructive way, to be prudent, to have a great capacity of forgive, to not demonize certain type of offenses, to be capable to look the positive of a person and all the things that maybe is doing that benefit you at the side of the negative... All of this and other ones are important in a strong family. Besides the act to burn the ships and to understand that one depends totally of the family contribute to make stronger the family too because people tend to work harder when they understand that this is the only thing they can depend on.

The point is this: To make sacred the family, certainly can have some negative side effects against some dysfunctional families, but for other side, it has power to reinforce the willingness of most people to put their families above themselves. And it is the value I was talking to protect... I would like to emphasize this: If you recognize yourself as a part of a group who fight together against any harmful exterior thing, where anyone of the group are willing to give even their life for this group, it is a contradiction and a disloyalty that one of the members make use of an external force in the negotiation of problems that surge among the members of this group, specially when this force take part for someone or try to impose something in this group.

In other hand, the problem that I see is the opposite, there have been that obsession for gender perspective, feminism, forced equality and in thinking only in the things that could harm women (more precisely certain women in specific cases) forgetting men, in the Western World; that in many places we have ended up with uneven laws or policies that not only harm men and sometimes women, but plainly debilitate family. The worst part is that it has not been a natural process, in many parts it is something that has been imposed against people's culture and will, just because the western elites that promoted it had enough power to do it because many countries have servile and weak leaders that don't care to protect the culture of the population. It is the reason of the raise of populisms.


David, what is it that you write here with all due respect? The US, traditionally so, imposes sanctions, not only for political and economic reasons. But, also when the US, don't have much interests of such. Venezuela, is good illustration, even under Trump. Even on members of the Supreme court of Venezuela ( members of Supreme Court, you get it ?) here, titled:

"Treasury Sanctions Eight Members of Venezuela’s Supreme Court of Justice"

Washington – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated eight Venezuelan government officials pursuant to Executive Order 13692. The designated officials, members of Venezuela's Supreme Court of Justice (Tribunal Supremo de Justicia or TSJ), are responsible for a number of judicial rulings in the past year that have usurped the authority of Venezuela's democratically-elected legislature, the National Assembly, including by allowing the Executive Branch to rule through emergency decree, thereby restricting the rights and thwarting the will of the Venezuelan people. The National Assembly has been controlled by a majority of opposition-party members since January 2016.

End of quotation:

" So, " thereby restricting the rights and thwarting the will of the Venezuelan people " . Even under Trump.I could bring here, countless illustrations.



David Soto

" thereby restricting the rights and thwarting the will of the Venezuelan people " Yeah, the reason that they expose maybe could seem to not be economical or political, but it is not the real reason; the real reason is that the "Executive Branch" in Venezuela is against economical interests of US with respect Venezuela's oil. In the same case, if it were the "National Assembly" the one who didn't want to trade oil with US in the terms and form that US wants, US would have supported the "Executive Branch" no matter what. You can find countless examples of this. For example: US supported the overthrow of the first democratically elected president in Egypt in 2013 (it means that it were against the will of Egyptian people), or other example: US have gotten along very well with Israel or Arabia Saudi, no matter that the second one is a monarchy and no matter how much these nations have gone against human rights.

David Soto

These laws as the Russian ones have a lot of worth. To regard domestic violence as a private family matter means that the family is valuable and strong enough to not be able to be intervened; this culture means that they even can fight between them inside the family, but they will never betray the family, neither will give up the family. This context put the family over the individual and this fact is what justify the great sacrifices that people are willing to do for their family.

It means that at least for me, I prefer 1400 dead peoples over demystify family and devalue the reason of life of hundreds of millions of peoples.


See here, and links therein:

"Mexico lawmakers approve proposal to increase prison sentences for femicide, minor abuse"


David Soto

I know Mexico very well and I can assure you that these laws are decoration. Mexico is a country where the law is not obeyed, and the rate of impunity surpass the 90%


Just in " UK Human rights blog ":

" Failure to protect women from domestic violence is a breach of Article 3 of the Convention – Elliot Gold "




And here, most important of course:

" International sanctions during the Ukrainian crisis "



And another one ( and I could bring much more of course) :

"Treasury Sanctions Eight Members of Venezuela’s Supreme Court of Justice"



Very important post. Simply horrific. One may wonder :

14,000 each year murdered by their intimate partner. Well, for much less than such numbers, the US for example, has imposed severe sanctions on Russia. Much less died in that occupation of Crimea, and yet, the US has imposed severe sanctions due to it.

Sanctions simply, can be very useful tool. The US, and the EU, have the right tools and capacity, to affect seriously Russia in this regard ( or rather, personal sanctions on officials). This is crazy simply. The Americans have that method of imposing hell of sanctions, on whoever piss them off ( Iran, Sudan,Venezuela, international corporations, you name it). They even impose huge fines for violation of sanctions. Including in the sphere of human rights. Why not women ? Let's hope that Elizabeth Warren, or, Amy Klobuchar shall take power in next election, and grant more attention to it.

Some negligible illustrations:

"BNP Paribas sentenced in $8.9 billion accord over sanctions violations"


I shall leave more later....


David Soto

The sanctions have a limit, the limit where you come to a state of not relationship between the countries, and more important, the limit where you get harmed yourself with these sanctions more than the one you are putting these sanctions.

In other hand the real reasons for US to put sanctions to Russia are economical and geopolitical reasons, human rights are only the pretexts.

Add a comment