• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Yu. A. Antonova S. V. Siradzhudinova The practice of female genital mutilation in Dagestan: strategies for its elimination 2018 CONTENTS Part 1 Results of the frst report on the practice of FGM, public discussions and the position of the authorities 9 Part 2 Survey of changes that have taken place in international law In combatting practices of FGM 20 Part 3 Attitude of men to the practice of FGM: Qualitative study 22 Part 4 International approaches and effective strategies for opposing FGM 37 Appendix 51 Notes 54 The practice of female genital mutilation in Dagestan: strategies for its elimination Report based on the results of a qualitative sociological study in the Republic of Dagestan, the Republic of Ingushetia and the Re- public of Chechnya (Russian Federation) Authors: Yu. A. Antonova, senior gender consultant to Project “Justice Initia- tive” S.V. Siradzhudinova, PhD candidate in political science, president of the Center for the Study of Modern Global Issues “Caucasus. Peace. Development”, Rostov-on-Don 3 YU. A. ANTONOVA, S. V. SIRADZHUDINOVA “State parties to the Convention have a duty to comply with their obliga- tions to respect, protect and fulfl the rights of women and children. They also have a due-diligence obligation to prevent acts that impair the recog- nition, enjoyment or exercise of rights by women and children and ensure that private actors do not engage in discrimination against women and girls, including gender-based violence, in relation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, or any form of violence against children, in relation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.” Joint general recommendation No. 31 of the Committee on the Elimi- nation of Discrimination against Women/general comment No. 18 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on harmful practices (p. 11) (CEDAW/C/GC/31/CRC/C/GC/18). 2014. “States should condemn violence against women and should not invoke any custom, tradition or religious considerations to avoid their obligations with respect to its elimination”. Article 4. Declaration of the elimination of violence against women, proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in resolution 48/104. On 15 August 2016, Project “Justice Initiative” published a re- port on the results of a qualitative study in the Republic of Dages- tan, “Female Genital Mutilation Carried out on Girls.”[1] The report discussed female circumcision carried out for non-health related and non-medical purposes. Female genital mutilation (FGM) was being carried out secretly, at home, and not at medical institutions and is still being practiced in several mountainous regions of East Dagestan. Our study was the frst scientifc sociological and legal investi- gation of the practice of FGM in Russia. The report provided an analysis of interviews with 25 women subjected to FGM in child- hood or infancy, and interviews with 17 experts with specifc in- sights into various aspects of this harmful practice. Additionally, the report provided a legal evaluation of the practice of female cir- cumcision with reference to Russia’s international obligations and requirements of national law. In our frst report, we showed that FGM in Dagestan is carried out on girls primarily in early childhood – up to the age of three. During the procedure, the clitoris is partially or completely re- 4 THE PRACTICE OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION IN DAGESTAN: STRATEGIES FOR ITS ELIMINATION moved, or damaged by cutting or incising. FGM is carried out in unsanitary conditions with a knife, scissors, blade, needle or other available tools. FGM may have different short-term and/or long-term health consequences. Female respondents spoke of se- vere pain, infection, shock, psychological trauma, long-term gyne- cological problems and complications in childbirth, which subse- quently had a negative effect on the mother and child. It is known that FGM can potentially lead to the victim’s death.[2] The practice of FGM comes about as a consequence of social prejudices, accord- ing to which women and girls occupy a lower position compared to men and boys and is carried out on a discriminatory basis car- ried out on a discriminatory basis according to gender and age – only underage girls are subjected to it. FGM is justifed by its prac- titioners’ socio-cultural values and religious customs. The frst report drew wide public discussions in autumn 2016 about the preservation and implementation of female circumci- sion. Following publication, we were asked: “Why are you studying this, if it concerns only a small number of girls and women, who live in remote mountainous regions of Dagestan? This isn’t a mass violation of women’s rights! Does this practice exist outside these closed communities?” Our skeptics believed that the problem should only be discussed when it concerned a large number of women. We did not take into account the scale of the problem as a criterion of assessment of the practice of FGM. Female circum- cision is a violation of the rights of children who are subjected to this operation. Our frst study showed that in Russia, underage girls undergo operations on their sexual organs for non-medical indications and in non-medical conditions. This is in violation of the provisions of criminal legislation of the Russian Federation and international norms, which also carry obligations for Russia. Some communities and the victims of FGM themselves en- deavor to create an aura of sacredness around this tradition, to de- fend the practice from outside interference. This attitude to the practice of FGM serves, in our view, as a justifcation of existing 5 YU. A. ANTONOVA, S. V. SIRADZHUDINOVA gender-based violence and of instruments to control women and girls in the family and community. The discussion after the frst re- port showed that the preservation of gender-based discrimination may, in the future, infuence the prevalence of FGM. It is possible to overcome current traditions and to prevent FGM from becoming widespread by studying the data available, although this is also contingent on the possibility to openly discuss the problem and to anticipate – as we did in 2016 – that the state would provide an adequate and suitable response. One and a half years have passed since the publication of our frst report. Over this time, the state has not taken any steps to as- sess the problem, to intervene or infuence the situation of the practice of FGM. Although the prosecutor’s offce of the Republic of Dagestan initiated two checks, the goal of these measures was to recheck information contained in the report. The practice of FGM is a private operation, and given the intimate context and taboo of cases of female circumcision, it would be logical to as- sume that none of the victims would inform employees of the prosecutor’s offce that she had been subjected to circumcision in childhood, or that the practice of FGM was still carried out in their village. It could not be expected that any of the victims could tell the authorities the names of the people who had carried out FGM. This would mean bearing witness against one’s fellow villagers and even close relatives before the prosecutor’s offce. Thus, in the course of the check, facts were not established that confrmed that FGM was being carried out on underage girls in Dagestan. This was the only reactive measure undertaken by the state to the problem of FGM over the last one and a half years, and we cannot consider it expedient or resultative in the context of the obligation of the state to observe the norms of international law to eliminate the practice of FGM. Female circumcision violates the right to health, safety and bodily inviolability, the right to freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, and also the right to life in the case when these operations lead to death.[3] And 6 THE PRACTICE OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION IN DAGESTAN: STRATEGIES FOR ITS ELIMINATION the state should have taken measures to prevent violence or the violation of human rights, to protect the victims and witnesses of such violations, and to conduct further inquiries, assessments and research into the practice and allegations of its performance. Norms of international law require a targeted and comprehensive policy from the state that would have top priority. The state does not have the right to delay or postpone its implementation for any reason, including cultural and religious customs. The main avenues of state policy for combatting FGM are out- lined in the Resolution of the UN General Assembly of 18 Decem- ber 2014 69/150 “Intensifying global efforts to eliminate the prac- tice of female genital mutilation.”[4] Essential measures include: • To collect quantitative and qualitative data on the problem of FGM; • To develop homogenous methods and standards for collect- ing data on forms of discrimination and violence towards girls, and especially about those forms which are not documented, including FGM (p.14); • To develop and implement programs directed toward elimi- nating FGM; • To support and oversee realization of these programs (p. 23). The regular collection of quantitative and qualitative data on the problem of FGM and its comprehensive analysis is important for an effective strategy of preventing and overcoming the practice of FGM. At present, information about the practice of FGM in Dagestan is practically unavailable, and a scientifc study of the problem is complicated. To fll in the gaps and reveal the place of the practice in communities’ way of life, to understand the essence of the practice, its sources, reasons, motives and conse- quences, we should pay attention to those who are directly af- fected by this problem, and reveal attitudes to the practice on be- half of various representatives of the population.

Load more

  59

Copy Link