• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 1
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
 C
OMMUNICATION UNDER THE
O
PTIONAL
P
ROTOCOL
 
TO THE
C
ONVENTION ON THE
E
LIMINATION OF
A
LL
F
ORMS
 
OF
D
ISCRIMINATION
A
GAINST
 W 
OMEN
 
Submitted by: KAREN T. VERTIDOassisted by counsel EVALYN G. URSUA*Alleged victim: KAREN T. VERTIDOState party: PHILIPPINESDate of Communication: 29 NOVEMBER 2007 
*With the support of the
 Women’s Legal Bureau, Inc.,
a legal resource non-government organization for women based in Quezon City, Philippines and withresearch and writing assistance from
Maria Karla L. Espinosa.
Thanks also to
Feliz Marie Guerrero
and
Angelo Manlangit
for their research and writingassistance on the trial court decisions and programs.
 
Communication under the Optional Protocol to the Women’s Convention
 Karen T. Vertido vs. the Philippines
29 November 2007Page 2 of 103
 I. Information concerning the author of the communication
 
Family name VERTIDOFirst name KARENMiddle name TAYAGDate and place of birth 18 APRIL 1954BUHI, CAMARINES SURPHILIPPINESNationality/citizenship FILIPINOSex FEMALEMarital status/children MARRIED; WITH TWO CHILDRENOccupation UnemployedPresent address Quezon City, PhilippinesMailing address for confidential c/o EVALYN G. URSUACorrespondence (if other than Room 305, Amaremca BuildingPresent address) 107-A Kalayaan Avenue, Diliman1101 Quezon City, PhilippinesFax/telephone/e-mail (632) 9292818egulaw@yahoo.comkarenvertido@yahoo.comSubmitting this communication as: VICTIM, WITH THE ASSISTANCEOF COUNSEL
 
Communication under the Optional Protocol to the Women’s Convention
 Karen T. Vertido vs. the Philippines
29 November 2007Page 3 of 103
 II. Name of the State Party
PHILIPPINES
The Philippines ratified the Convention on the Elimination of AllForms of Discrimination against Women (“Women’s Convention”) on 5August 1981 and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on 12 November2003.
 
 III. Nature of the Alleged Violations
The author’s story spans one night of terror and eight years of ordealthat culminated in a painful denial of the violation she suffered. Herpursuit of justice frustrated, she comes to the Committee to give an accountof her rape and re-victimization by her own government.After her rape
1
and her agonizing pursuit of justice, the judge,Virginia Hofileña-Europa, rendered a decision of acquittal that relied upongender-based myths and misconceptions about rape and its victims and, inbad faith, distorted the evidence submitted, to the great injury of theauthor. Judge Europa’s decision re-victimized the author, effectively deniedher equal protection of the law and a just and effective remedy for theviolation and harm that she suffered, and further nullified and impairedher exercise and enjoyment of her rights and freedoms, all of whichconstitute discrimination within the meaning of Article 1 of the
1
Rape is one form of violence against women. Violence against women is one form ofdiscrimination against women. General Recommendation No. 19, which was adopted bythe Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in 1992, states thatgender-based violence or violence against women “is a form of discrimination thatseriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equalitywith men,” within the meaning of Article 1 of the Women’s Convention. Gender-basedviolence is violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or thataffects women disproportionately. It includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexualharm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion, and other deprivations of liberty.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...