Online Discussion on proposed indicators for data collection on intimate partner violence, rape and femicide

[quote=Council of Europe][quote=Irene Rosales][quote=Nathalie Meurens][quote=Irene Rosales][quote=Nathalie Meurens]

Thanks a lot for your feedback on the IPV indicators. We will now proceed with the suggested indicator on rape:

Women victims of rape aged 18 and over, as a share of the population of women aged 18 and over

Within the scope of this indicator, rape should be understood as: sexual penetration, whether vaginal, anal or oral, through the use of an object or body parts, without consent, using force or by taking advantage of the vulnerability of the victim.

The indicator could be measured by the following sources and units:

1.    Source: police records of crimes (cases reported to the police); units: number of women victims recorded by the police per calendar year.

2.    Source: Hospital and healthcare professionals’ records; units: number of women patients per calendar year.

Source 1 figures from every Member State would be very useful, while source 2 data could remain optional, given the difficulties in its collection.

[/quote]

Hello! Here, I don't understand why you are including the "using of force" in the definition when it was not the case of the the definition of "sexual violence in the context of intimate partner violence". Although I acknowledge that certain legal definitions in the EU can still be based in the use of force, I think we should follow Istanbul Convention standards. Even if this is a definition for statistical purposes, it might set some guidance on how to address the issue of rape. 

[/quote]

We used both the Istanbul Convention and national definitions. The use of force is a circumstance where the lack of consent can be presumed. Since it is difficult to prove the lack of consent as such most definitions often use the use of force as presumption of lack of consent. As a matter of fact, 27 out of the 28 Member States refer to 'use of force' in their definitions. Since we wanted indicators that could be populated by existing national data, we wanted to reflect elements of definitions that are largely used across the EU while taking into account the Istanbul Convention and the ICCS (basically using the best of both worlds). 

[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification. However, Having 14 EU MS states that have ratified the Istanbul Convention and 14 that have signed, and having the EC proposal for the EU to sign and ratify, we should be providing a consistent definition when looking at this issue.

[/quote]

Yes, more and more EU states are ratifying the Istanbul Convention and are actually moving towards changes in their definitions of rape. Like I said, Germany and Austria do now, England and Wales have a rape provision on the basis of consent and more will certainly follow. France is discussing moving towards a consent-based solution. It would be important to take this developments into account and ensure consistency and keep definitions in line with the Istanbul Convention.  

[/quote]

When developing the definitions, the consistency with the Istanbul Convention was crucial to us.

I copy pasted both the Istanbul Convention definition and the indicator definition for easier reference here below. As you see the same elements are reflected in both, with the addition of use of force and taking advantage of vulnerability that are also present in the indicator definition.

Istanbul Convention: engaging in non-consensual vaginal, anal or oral penetration of a sexual nature of the body of another person with any bodily part or object;

Indicator definition: sexual penetration, whether vaginal, anal or oral, through the use of an object or body parts, without consent, using force or by taking advantage of the vulnerability of the victim.

[quote=Nathalie Meurens][quote=Council of Europe][quote=Irene Rosales][quote=Nathalie Meurens][quote=Irene Rosales][quote=Nathalie Meurens]

Thanks a lot for your feedback on the IPV indicators. We will now proceed with the suggested indicator on rape:

Women victims of rape aged 18 and over, as a share of the population of women aged 18 and over

Within the scope of this indicator, rape should be understood as: sexual penetration, whether vaginal, anal or oral, through the use of an object or body parts, without consent, using force or by taking advantage of the vulnerability of the victim.

The indicator could be measured by the following sources and units:

1.    Source: police records of crimes (cases reported to the police); units: number of women victims recorded by the police per calendar year.

2.    Source: Hospital and healthcare professionals’ records; units: number of women patients per calendar year.

Source 1 figures from every Member State would be very useful, while source 2 data could remain optional, given the difficulties in its collection.

[/quote]

Hello! Here, I don't understand why you are including the "using of force" in the definition when it was not the case of the the definition of "sexual violence in the context of intimate partner violence". Although I acknowledge that certain legal definitions in the EU can still be based in the use of force, I think we should follow Istanbul Convention standards. Even if this is a definition for statistical purposes, it might set some guidance on how to address the issue of rape. 

[/quote]

We used both the Istanbul Convention and national definitions. The use of force is a circumstance where the lack of consent can be presumed. Since it is difficult to prove the lack of consent as such most definitions often use the use of force as presumption of lack of consent. As a matter of fact, 27 out of the 28 Member States refer to 'use of force' in their definitions. Since we wanted indicators that could be populated by existing national data, we wanted to reflect elements of definitions that are largely used across the EU while taking into account the Istanbul Convention and the ICCS (basically using the best of both worlds). 

[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification. However, Having 14 EU MS states that have ratified the Istanbul Convention and 14 that have signed, and having the EC proposal for the EU to sign and ratify, we should be providing a consistent definition when looking at this issue.

[/quote]

Yes, more and more EU states are ratifying the Istanbul Convention and are actually moving towards changes in their definitions of rape. Like I said, Germany and Austria do now, England and Wales have a rape provision on the basis of consent and more will certainly follow. France is discussing moving towards a consent-based solution. It would be important to take this developments into account and ensure consistency and keep definitions in line with the Istanbul Convention.  

[/quote]

When developing the definitions, the consistency with the Istanbul Convention was crucial to us.

I copy pasted both the Istanbul Convention definition and the indicator definition for easier reference here below. As you see the same elements are reflected in both, with the addition of use of force and taking advantage of vulnerability that are also present in the indicator definition.

Istanbul Convention: engaging in non-consensual vaginal, anal or oral penetration of a sexual nature of the body of another person with any bodily part or object;

Indicator definition: sexual penetration, whether vaginal, anal or oral, through the use of an object or body parts, without consent, using force or by taking advantage of the vulnerability of the victim.

[/quote]

A question about 'without consent': is this aspect clear enough? Does consent mean verbalised consent? Or verbalised non-consent? Also: consent can be withdrawn at some point during sexual activity.

[quote=Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu]

Again, we would like to raise the following question regarding the indicator on rape: 

Do you think that the indicators should be worded to apply to ANY data collection sector (crime, justice, health and social services) or should they be tailored to the sector?

Thank you!

[/quote]

Wouldn't it be possible to have both options? The MS could then decide on their own which sector(s)´data they choose according to their reliability. The metadata will then reveale the source(s).

[quote=Tim de Jong Atria Institute on Gender Equality and Women's History][quote=Nathalie Meurens][quote=Council of Europe][quote=Irene Rosales][quote=Nathalie Meurens][quote=Irene Rosales][quote=Nathalie Meurens]

Thanks a lot for your feedback on the IPV indicators. We will now proceed with the suggested indicator on rape:

Women victims of rape aged 18 and over, as a share of the population of women aged 18 and over

Within the scope of this indicator, rape should be understood as: sexual penetration, whether vaginal, anal or oral, through the use of an object or body parts, without consent, using force or by taking advantage of the vulnerability of the victim.

The indicator could be measured by the following sources and units:

1.    Source: police records of crimes (cases reported to the police); units: number of women victims recorded by the police per calendar year.

2.    Source: Hospital and healthcare professionals’ records; units: number of women patients per calendar year.

Source 1 figures from every Member State would be very useful, while source 2 data could remain optional, given the difficulties in its collection.

[/quote]

Hello! Here, I don't understand why you are including the "using of force" in the definition when it was not the case of the the definition of "sexual violence in the context of intimate partner violence". Although I acknowledge that certain legal definitions in the EU can still be based in the use of force, I think we should follow Istanbul Convention standards. Even if this is a definition for statistical purposes, it might set some guidance on how to address the issue of rape. 

[/quote]

We used both the Istanbul Convention and national definitions. The use of force is a circumstance where the lack of consent can be presumed. Since it is difficult to prove the lack of consent as such most definitions often use the use of force as presumption of lack of consent. As a matter of fact, 27 out of the 28 Member States refer to 'use of force' in their definitions. Since we wanted indicators that could be populated by existing national data, we wanted to reflect elements of definitions that are largely used across the EU while taking into account the Istanbul Convention and the ICCS (basically using the best of both worlds). 

[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification. However, Having 14 EU MS states that have ratified the Istanbul Convention and 14 that have signed, and having the EC proposal for the EU to sign and ratify, we should be providing a consistent definition when looking at this issue.

[/quote]

Yes, more and more EU states are ratifying the Istanbul Convention and are actually moving towards changes in their definitions of rape. Like I said, Germany and Austria do now, England and Wales have a rape provision on the basis of consent and more will certainly follow. France is discussing moving towards a consent-based solution. It would be important to take this developments into account and ensure consistency and keep definitions in line with the Istanbul Convention.  

[/quote]

When developing the definitions, the consistency with the Istanbul Convention was crucial to us.

I copy pasted both the Istanbul Convention definition and the indicator definition for easier reference here below. As you see the same elements are reflected in both, with the addition of use of force and taking advantage of vulnerability that are also present in the indicator definition.

Istanbul Convention: engaging in non-consensual vaginal, anal or oral penetration of a sexual nature of the body of another person with any bodily part or object;

Indicator definition: sexual penetration, whether vaginal, anal or oral, through the use of an object or body parts, without consent, using force or by taking advantage of the vulnerability of the victim.

[/quote]

A question about 'without consent': is this aspect clear enough? Does consent mean verbalised consent? Or verbalised non-consent? Also: consent can be withdrawn at some point during sexual activity.

[/quote]

You raise a good point. Consent can be very difficult to define and issues of consent can arise at different points into the violence. It is also hard to provide evidence of the lack of consent, whether verbalised or not. This is why many national definitions also include use of force and taking advantage of vulnerability. 

However, for the data collection purpose, I am not sure this is so relevant to specify further the concept of consent. How would this affect the data collection to specify whether the concept needs verbalising or not? 

1. Is the proposed indicator of femicide clear?

[quote=Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu]

Again, we would like to raise the following question regarding the indicator on rape: 

Do you think that the indicators should be worded to apply to ANY data collection sector (crime, justice, health and social services) or should they be tailored to the sector?

Thank you!

[/quote]

Well, how do you intend to receive comparable data using different definitions (or wordings) for the indicators. Or is comparability between those different sectors irrelevant.

I guess, that there will be more than enough comparability issues without adding another one by using taylored wordings.

If you really just refer to the wording as a means of adjusting it to the recipients jargon, there will always be the problem to really avoid slightly differend meanings. In my opinion the indicators should be worded identical while taking care to be equally understood by all sectors and not to use the special jargon of one sector.

[quote=Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu][quote=Federal Statistical Office of Germany][quote=Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu][quote=Federal Statistical Office of Germany][quote=Nathalie Meurens][quote=Federal Statistical Office of Germany][quote=Nathalie Meurens][quote=Federal Statistical Office of Germany][quote=Elena Fries-Tersch Milieu]

Good afternoon, we would like to resume the discussion. First, we would like to ask you again if anyone else has a comment on the two general questions: 

1) Do you think it is important to have separate indicators for the specific types of violence in IPV context (as we have it now)? Or would it be more useful to have only one general indicator on IPV ? 

2) We think that the general IPV indicator cannot be a composite (aggregate) of the indicators for specific ones, because (as mentioned before), there might be overlaps, so the aggregate would not be the sum of cases. However, do you have a different opinion on that?

[/quote]

Hello Elena,

regarding your questions I do not think that a composite indicator in the crime area leads to comparable information.

Defining indicators needs defining criminal acts. The ICCS I mentioned before is a global definition framework for criminal acts like intentional homicide, rape and other crimes that are collected in the Eurostat/UNODC-CTS-data collection. If definitions in other international data collections do not use these standard definitions they produce results different to the CTS-results. In this case it should be made clear in metadata which defining elements of ICCS are applied and which not in order to help the data users.

[/quote]

Thanks for your useful comment. We based the indicators and their definitions on existing national definitions taking into account the international ones (Istanbul Convention and ICCS) to the extent possible. However, an exact match across the board is not possible.

It is a good point to mention the relevant ICCS tags in the metadata so to support the data users. In the background note, we have not detailed which ICCS tags we used for the definitions but we will add this information in the metadata.

[/quote]

Dear Nathalie,

I agree with you that your starting point are the national legal codes which are then compared to the international standards. We do at national level the same task when we apply the ICCS via so-called correspondence tables from national legal codes to the behavioural codes in the ICCS. It could be usefull to compare these correspondence tables within european countries.

[/quote]

Indeed, this would be a very useful exercise. We have not looked at the correspondence tables. Would it possible to send us a copy at violenceagainstwomen@milieu.be ?

[/quote]

The implementation process of the ICCS has started this year with the first meeting of the UNODC-Technical Advisory Group on the ICCS implementation. We started it with homicide, but as far as I know there are other countries who already worked on sexual violence. So, we are interested in their work as well. I think an exchange of experiences at european level could be an issue in the Eurostat Working Group on Statistics on Criminal Justice you attend as well.

[/quote]

Does 'implementation of ICCS' mean that you actually change the categories of data collection, for example in the coding protocols the police use? As far as I know, the codes they use are in line with the Criminal Code articles, so will they be changed to match ICCS? How can you otherwise re-assign data to match the ICCS codes? 

[/quote]

At international level in the CTS-questionnaire the catagories will be definied according to ICCS. At national level we change the data provision to CTS as far as possible according to ICCS using correspondence tables as a tool. In them the codes of national statistical classifications of police and of justice are related to ICCS codes.

[/quote]

so, theoretically, when providing data on IPV, this could also be done via correspondence tables indicating which national codes are included in physical, psychological, sexual and economic violence? (according to the our definitions and our suggestions on which ICCS codes these refer to)

[/quote]

Regarding your question I think yes. Correspondence tables could be usefull for each data collection at international level. At national level it is a working tool in order to optimize and standardize the coding process for CTS data collection. But if you have any other data collection at international level on the same kinds of offences using ICCS as well then you can use the CTS- correspondence tables again.

If you have an international data collection on homicide, rape cts. outside CTS and without exactly the same ICCS terms of definition and the same elements of inclusion and exclusion then in a correspondence table you can define those differences to CTS in order to help data users.

[quote=Nathalie Meurens]

1. Is the proposed indicator of femicide clear?

[/quote]

Hi Nathalie,

I'm joining you from the Women's Aid Federation of England, working as the research officer for their Femicide Census. I am struggling with the second half of definition of femicide "death of a woman as a result of a practice that is harmful to women". 

Clarity at a very early stage on your inclusion/exclsuion criteria for cases is essential. Intricate and extremely complex cases come up time and time again where the definition of femicide we use is challenged. The definition here speaks only to practices, which will make inclusion of cases of "mercy killings" tricky, as an example.

In regards to the latter half of the indicator "as a share of the women victims of homicide", it could be more straight forward, e.g. all women killed. Which will help cases where a charge of manslaughter or neglect is brought against the perpetrator.

I should point out that in the COST Action "Femicide across Europe", we set up a Working Group on Definitions and for three years, representatives of 30 European countries have been comparing notes. There is great variation in the definition of femicide/feminicado and some EU countries do not know the word at all. Therefore, it is a tall order to set up indicators on this tricky subject. However, there is agreement by all that it is a murder of a woman because she is a woman, so even if she had suffered violence, it might not be because she is a woman. 

[quote=Inger Lövkrona][quote=Nathalie Meurens]

1. Is the proposed indicator of femicide clear?

[/quote]

I find we have a similar problem  here as with the rape-indicator, it is covered by two indicators. Femicide (here called manslaughter)  within an IPV context is covered by de indicator 2, physical violence. Gender-based femicide takes place also outside an IPV context, alike rape.

[/quote]

Yes as I said also earlier, there are overlaps between the different categories. We try to clarify these overlaps as much as possible, also as the data will not be aggregated between these indicators- these double counts should not be an issue. 

[quote=Irene Rosales][quote=Nathalie Meurens]

1. Is the proposed indicator of femicide clear?

[/quote]

I think that if it is only covering intimate femicide, the title 3.3 should be changed: "indicators for data collection on intimate femicide", as not all the expectrum is being covered.

[/quote]

I agree tiwh Irene. if at the end it is decided to focus just on femicide in intimate relationship this should be worded  clearer

Hello, I represent Lithuania and I do agree with the comment of Hanna hereinabove. Definition of femicide as such does not exist in all legal systems of MS. Therefore, if keep collecting data separatelly on such indicator I believe  it will always remain confusing and complicated to ensure correctness of EU data overall collected on such offenses. Lithuanian criminal code does not provide femicide as a separate crime unfotunatelly, therefore, of course Lithuanian data regarding this indicator will never be accurate and cannot be deemed fully reliable when assessing EU statistics.