CEDAW/C/64/D/67/2014
treatment; that in severity it is comparable to rape, 5 being an “outrage upon personal
dignity”, which may indicate torture; 6 that victims of forced nudity who survived
other acts of torture perceived duress by forced nudity as comparable; 7 that medical
research confirmed the severe adverse health effects of sexual humiliation; 8 and that
the very threat of forced nudity is degrading. 9 She also maintained that, if male
police officers with weapons force women to be naked in their presence, this
constitutes inhumane treatment. 10
3.4 The author further referred to the Committee’s conclusions that forced
gynaecological examinations are incompatible with human dignity. 11 She also
referred to jurisprudence of other international jurisdictions that considered related
issues, such as strip searches, during which the presence of persons of the opposite
sex was an aggravating factor, 12 the stripping of clothes, also by persons of the
opposite sex, 13 or continued nudity in detention. 14 Thus, she maintained, force is not
a precondition for nudity to be degrading: the humiliation by a police officer acting
as a “peeping Tom” may also reach the threshold of degrading treatment. 15
__________________
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
6/20
Anne-Marie de Brouwer, Supranational Criminal Prosecution of Sexual Violence (Antwerp,
Intersentia, 2005), p. 149; and Robert Cryer and others, An Introduction to International
Criminal Law and Procedure (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 208.
International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Furundzija, judgment in case
No. IT-95-17-1 of 10 December 1998, para. 264, confirmed on 21 June 2000.
Henry J. Steiner and Philip Alston, International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals
(Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008) p. 777, about victims of incommunicado detention in
Spain, who survived mock executions; and Witness JJ in Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Judgment in
case No. ICTR-96-4-T of 2 September 1998, para. 423, who survived rape and the murder of her
baby.
Metin Basoglu, Maria Livanou and Cvetana Crnobaric, “Torture vs other cruel, inhuman, and
degrading treatment: is the distinction real or apparent? ”, Archives of General Psychiatry,
vol. 64, No. 3 (2007), pp. 277-285; N.C. Feeny, T.J. Linares and E.B. Foa, “Sexual assault”,
Encyclopedia of Stress (Cambridge, Massachusetts, Academic Press, 2007); and Jean-Michel
Darves-Bornoz, European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology ,
vol. 71, No. 3 (1997), p. 59.
Human Rights Committee, communication No. 1353/2005, Njaru v. Cameroon, views adopted on
19 March 2007.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru,
25 November 2006.
Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
with respect to Turkey (A/52/38/Rev.1, part one, para. 178).
European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Valasinas v. Lithuania (application
No. 44558/98) of 24 July 2001; Iwanczuk v. Poland (application No. 25196/94) of 15 November
2001; Lorsé and others v. the Netherlands (application No. 52750/99) of 4 February 2003; Salah
v. the Netherlands (application No. 8196/02) of 6 July 2006; and Frerot v. France (application
No. 70204/01) of 12 June 2007.
Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Wieser v. Austria (application No. 2293/03)
of 22 February 2007; and Wiktorko v. Poland (application No. 14612/02) of 31 March 2009.
Committee against Torture, communication No. 59/1996, Abad v. Spain, views adopted on
14 May 1998; and European Court of Human Rights, Hellwig v. Germany of 7 July 2011 and
Wiktorko v. Poland.
European Court of Human Rights, in the context of medical i nspections: Duval v. France
(application No. 19868/08) of 26 May 2011; and of forced gynaecological inspections: European
Court of Human Rights, Yazgül Yilmaz v. Turkey (application No. 36369/06) of 1 February 2011.
16-13831