GOECKE V AUSTRIA Flashcards
Conclusion
The Committee notes that the State party has established a comprehensive model to address domestic violence that includes legislation, criminal and civil-law remedies, awareness-raising, education and training, shelters, counselling for victims of violence and work with perpetrators. However, in order for the individual woman victim of domestic violence to enjoy the practical realization of the principle of equality of men and women and of her human rights and fundamental freedoms,
the political will that is expressed in the aforementioned comprehensive system of Austria must be supported by State actors, who adhere to the State party’s due
diligence obligations.
In the instant case, the Committee notes that during the three-year period starting with the violent episode that was reported to the police on 3 December 1999 and ending with the shooting of Şahide Goekce on 7 December 2002, the frequency of calls to the police about disturbances and disputes and/or battering increased; the police issued prohibition to return orders on three separate occasions and twice requested the Public Prosecutor to order that Mustafa Goekce be detained; and a three-month interim injunction was in effect at the time of her death that prohibited Mustafa Goekce from returning to the family apartment and its immediate environs and from contacting Şahide Goekce or the children.
The Committee notes that Mustafa Goekce shot Şahide Goekce dead with a handgun that he had purchased three weeks earlier, despite a valid weapons prohibition against him as well as the uncontested contention by the authors that the police had received information about the weapon from the brother of Mustafa Goekce. In addition, the Committee notes the unchallenged fact that Şahide Goekce called the emergency call service a few
hours before she was killed, yet no patrol car was sent to the scene of the crime.
Although, the State party rightly maintains that, it is necessary in each case to determine whether detention would amount to a disproportionate interference in
the basic rights and fundamental freedoms of a perpetrator of domestic violence, such as the right to freedom of movement and to a fair trial, the Committee is of the view, as expressed in its views on another communication on domestic violence, that the perpetrator’s rights cannot supersede women’s human rights to life and to physical and mental integrity.
While noting that Mustafa Goekce was prosecuted to the full extent of the
law for killing Şahide Goekce, the Committee still concludes that the State party
violated its obligations under article 2 (a) and (c) through (f), and article 3 of the
Convention read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention and general recommendation 19 of the Committee and the corresponding rights of the deceased
Şahide Goekce to life and physical and mental integrity.
