The applicability of the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment to the context of domestic violence in the light of private and public dichotomy How does it impact women’s life in Afghanistan?

Abstract

Human rights are traditionally concerned with the violations committed by States, whereas private individuals often perpetrate violence against women. Therefore, some scholars consider this approach the rationale for the so-called "public/private dichotomy", which draws the line between both spheres and becomes a source of women's disadvantage in human rights law. Women's abuse in the private sphere is often ignored and labelled as a "private family matter." Thus, despite the advances in the field of women's human rights, domestic violence is still among the privatised and less remedied patterns of gender-based violence. However, considering the severity of the mental and physical pain and suffering and the involvement of the same use of torture techniques in most cases, domestic violence is remarkably comparable to state-sponsored torture and ill-treatment in confinement conditions. Given the parallels between official torture or other ill-treatment and domestic violence, this thesis proposes expanding the definition of torture by the convention against torture and, thus, incorporating domestic violence within the rubric of torture discourse. In so doing, a more abstract value of alerting perpetrators and the general public will be formed and consequently will hold States more accountable for acts of violence committed by private individuals in their territories.