The Persistent Crisis of Gender-Based Violence: A Political Risk Lens

Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 13, No. 7, July 2025

Ni Una Menos march in Buenos Aires on 3 June 2024. Credit: Prensa Obrera via Wikimedia Commons

By Stephanie Wild

The International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women on November 25 served as a reminder of the global crisis of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and femicide. These issues are not confined to private tragedies but reflect broader governance failures and social instabilities, making them a critical political risk. High rates of SGBV and femicide weaken public trust in institutions, destabilize communities, and impose significant economic costs, all of which threaten national and regional stability.

From January 1st to 31st, 2024 alone, there were 240 femicide cases recorded across 26 different countries. Notably, countries in Africa (and more specifically Southern Africa) and in Latin America (LATAM) consistently report the highest levels of SGBV – often dominating the top ten global lists of rape rates. Those most commonly featured on these lists include South Africa, Lesotho, Botswana, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua. In Africa alone, it is estimated that 20,000 women were killed by their partners and ex-partners in 2022. Select states in Latin America and the Caribbean collecting and publishing regular data on femicide, in 2022, at least 4,050 women fell victim to femicide across 26 countries in the region.

Defining SGBV and Femicide using a Patriarchal Lens

SGBV refers to harmful acts committed against individuals based on their gender or sex. These acts range from sexual violence (rape, sexual assault, forced prostitution, sexual exploitation, trafficking for sexual purposes and sexual harassment), physical violence (assault, battery, and female genital mutilation), psychological violence (intimidation, threats, coercion, stalking, cybercrimes and emotional abuse), economic violence (economic exploitation and denying access to financial resources, education or employment), and harmful cultural practices (forced marriage, honour-based violence, and denial of reproductive rights).

Often, the above ongoing abuse (physical or emotional), threats/intimidation, sexual violence, or discrimination escalates to femicide. In contrast to ‘homicide’, ‘femicide’ is primarily an identity-based crime. As defined by the World Health Organisation, femicide can be understood as the intentional murder of women. When I say intentional, I mean the killing of women (and girls) because they are women, and typically by men. An important nuance to acknowledge is that female family members are sometimes implicated in femicides, acting as accessories to the murders committed by partners/ex-partners. While the perpetrators of femicide are predominantly partners or ex-partners of the victims, known as intimate femicide, this is not always the case. Other instances of femicide include women and girls killed to protect their family’s reputation in the wake of sexual transgressions, to settle dowry disputes with in-laws, or witch-hunting (honour-based violence); pre- and post-natal excess female mortality, infanticide, and the deliberate neglect of female children in favour of sons; and the escalation of sexual aggression by strangers – known as non-intimate femicide or sexual femicide. Ultimately, femicide is a direct result of the unequal power dynamic between men and women in society, which makes the latter more vulnerable to, and even the targets of, lethal violence. Some go as far as linking this intentional murder of women to the state and judicial structures that reinforce the patriarchy and misogyny which in turn uphold and perpetuate this unequal power dynamic – signified by the largely political term ‘feminicide’, this school of thought points to a state responsibility for such killings.

Feminist scholars typically note that the gendered power imbalance and hierarchy that exist in patriarchal societies mostly place men in positions of power and superiority over women, making women particularly vulnerable to abuse and violence at the hands of men. Very often, women may not have the financial independence, nor the resources, to leave abusive situations at work and in the home – both romantic partnerships and parental structures. This is particularly true in countries with high rates of poverty. More than that, welfare systems can often be gender-blind, making the process of seeking help very difficult for those most vulnerable. For example, many domestic abuse shelters only recognise physical abuse, failing to provide a haven for women suffering emotional abuse (which often escalates to physical abuse). Another example is childcare. When looking to leave abusive relationships, those women with children often do not want to leave without them. This complicates financial independence further; as a single mother, one needs childcare to look for a job or to go to work, but one needs a job to afford childcare. Similarly, risking one’s job by reporting abuse at work can be perceived as impossible by a single mother where too much is at stake. Ultimately, this gendered power imbalance and hierarchy makes it difficult for women to oppose abuse, leading to many feeling trapped, remaining in these dangerous situations.

Furthermore, some feminist scholars theorise than men can sometimes feel entitled to and feel a sense of ownership over women. By this logic, men do not require consent from women to pursue what they desire. This behaviour then manifests in many ways: husbands making big financial decisions without consulting their partners, men lobbying to legislatively restrict women’s access to healthcare – abortion rights, access to contraceptives, etc. –, and doctors reverting to male partners for consent on procedures such as tubal ligations. However, in the case of femicide and SGBV, this behaviour manifests violently. Here, men – strangers, partners, ex-partners, or family members – use violence to express their perceived entitlement to and ownership of women, either through sexual aggression or physical abuse/assault. Very often, this show of force ends with harassment, threats of violence, or sexual assault and rape. However, this behaviour can escalate to murder, even if there have been no prior incidents of physical violence against the victim. When women are killed in this way – to express men’s perceived control, power, and ownership over women – it is known as femicide. More specifically, femicide has increasingly been linked to coercive control. While Beckwith et al. note that there is no single definition of coercive control, it is broadly understood to be a gendered phenomenon consisting of a range of tactics typically used by male perpetrators to control or dominate their victim. Stark points out that these tactics include physical and/or sexual violence, emotional or psychological abuse, stalking and surveillance, social isolation, financial abuse, technology‐facilitated abuse, reproductive coercion, and systems abuse. Ultimately, both non-intimate and intimate femicide can be traced back to this power imbalance between men and women, which subordinates women in societal and familial hierarchies.

Those women that then refuse to comply to this gendered hierarchy are viewed as rebels. By failing to subscribe to the patriarchal status quo, there are perceived as threats to the gendered hierarchy that privileges men. Men that wish to enforce this status quo then resort to violence, wielding it as a tool to reassert and reenforce their dominant position in the hierarchy. By physically overpowering women and violating their rights to life, dignity, and equality, perpetrators of SGBV and femicide are able to enact and bolster male dominance. Here, the idea is that by physically dominating women, men can actualise the gendered hierarchy in society. Women therefore become both physically and ideologically subordinate to men in these moments. This also has ramifications for gender lines and roles. By enacting this gendered hierarchy, male perpetrators can redefine what it means to be feminine and masculine. In this way, femininity is associated with subordination and servitude, masculinity with power and dominance – essentially putting rebellious women back in their place, so-to-speak. In this way, SGBV and femicide become tools to reaffirm the traditional gender roles in society. This is further aggravated by toxic understandings of masculinity in patriarchal societies, which equate being a man with power, control, and sexual aggression. When a society adopts these toxic definitions of masculinity, SGBV and femicide are simply normalised as natural manifestations of masculinity in society. More specifically, when definitions of what it means to be a man include sexual aggression, power, and control, SGBV and femicide then become acceptable masculine behaviours in society.

Notably, under this patriarchal framework, not all women are targeted equally. To best understand which demographics are most vulnerable to femicide, an intersectional lens is necessary. First put forward by Kimberlee Crenshaw in 1989, intersectionality theory is a theory of feminism which takes the intersection of gender with other identities (such as race, sexual orientation, class, ableism, religion, language) into account. Using an intersectional lens accounts for how gender intersects with race, sexual orientation, class, ableism, religion, and language to create different and unique lived experiences. A major obstacle to this endeavour, however, is that very few countries collect data that provides information regarding SGBV victims’ identities and lived experiences, other than their sex/gender that is. Notable omissions – globally – in the data collection process include whether they have disabilities, whether they are pregnant at the time of their murder, their race or ethnicity, as well as whether they are immigrants/refugees. That being said, there is growing evidence to suggest that Black, Indigenous, and other racialized women (BIWOR) are among the most vulnerable when it comes to SGBV and femicide. In fact, in the United States, the term – coined by Rosa Page – black femicide has gained increasing popularity over the course of the past few years. Intuitively, the term refers to the disproportionate number of black women and girls that make up femicide victims in America. While recent race-aggregated data is limited, FBI data from 2019 shows that black women and girls in the country are three times more likely to be murdered by male offenders than white women – in 2020, the murder rate for black women increased at double the rate of white women. The term black femicide has also been adopted in the United Kingdom, where black women are four times more likely to be killed than white or Hispanic women. In Brazil, according to a 2015 Violence Map study, Afro-Brazilian women were 23 percent more likely to be murdered than their white counterparts in 2003, jumping to 67 percent in 2013. This is especially alarming given a femicide was recorded every seven hours in 2021. In South Africa, this figure rises to one women killed every 2.6 hours, as of 2022. While there is limited data aggregated by race in South Africa, anecdotal evidence suggests that black women – 49.2 percent of which live below the poverty line as of 2015 – constitute the majority of femicide and SGBV victims. This is supported by concrete evidence, while outdated, from a 2004 study which recorded the number of femicides in the country to determine how many women were killed per 100,000 residents in each of the country’s dominant race groups. The results revealed that the femicide rate for white women was 2.8 per 100,000; the rate for Indian women was 7.5; the rate for black women was 8.9; while the rate for Coloured (a legally and socially defined racial category from apartheid-era classification, referring to people of mixed-race ancestry with distinct cultural identities) women was as high as 18.3.

The statistics for indigenous women in the Americas and in Oceania are equally alarming – between 2010 and 2019, the rate at which indigenous women were killed in the United States was 6.4 times higher than white women. This trend is not unique to the United States. In Canada, according to 2021 data, indigenous women and girls are 4.3 times more likely to be killed than white women. Similarly, according to a Senate Committee, indigenous women in Australia are eight times more likely to be killed than their non-indigenous counterparts. The same trend can be observed in Latin America. While race-aggregated statistics are limited, in Argentina, a femicide occurs – on average – every 32 hours, and anecdotal evidence suggests that the indigenous community, making up just 2.4 percent of the population, is disproportionately affected. In fact, there are growing efforts to spread awareness about the practice of chineo – derived from the Spanish word for Chinese because indigenous women reminded colonialists of the Chinese in East Asia when they first settled in the region. Rooted in old colonial times, chineo refers to the gang rape of indigenous women and girls by European-descending men, sometimes resulting in their deaths, most common in northern Argentina. Victims as young as four years old have been documented. Activists are currently fighting to have chineo included as a hate crime in Argentine legislation. Similarly, between 2010 and 2014, the homicide rate for indigenous women in Brazil was double that of non-indigenous women. Anecdotal evidence further suggests that SGBV is uncharacteristically common in indigenous neighbourhoods in Manaus, the capital of the Amazonas state. Here, more than one in five homicide cases involving women constituted femicide between 2016 and 2021. In Mexico, femicides represented roughly 10 percent of the country’s total homicides in 2019. Furthermore, despite the indigenous community making up only 15 percent of Mexico’s population, indigenous women are disproportionately affected by femicide and SGBV, making up 70 percent of all human trafficking victims by the country’s many cartels.

It is not just BIWOR that are disproportionately impacted by femicide. Members of the LGBTQ+ community are also particularly vulnerable. For instance, some homosexual women are targeted by straight men due to their sexual orientation. Known as corrective or homophobic rape, this form of sexual aggression and assault is perceived by the perpetrator as a way to enforce heterosexual and gender norms on the victim, punish the victim for her choice of sexual identity, as well as humiliate the victim. The practice has been recorded in Ecuador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Peru, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Zimbabwe. In Europe, Africa and the Caribbean, perpetrators tend to be strangers or acquaintances. Unfortunately, according to anecdotal evidence, these cases of corrective rape often end in femicide. The exact figure for how many lesbian women are killed due to their sexual orientation is unclear, as most countries only keep statistics on femicide and on LGBTQ+ killings, failing to collect the relevant, intersectional data. For example, while 20 LGBTQ+ killings were recorded between February and October 2021 in South Africa, it is unclear how many were women, how many were BIWOR, how many were transgender, and how many were lesbian. However, anecdotal evidence – i.e., a newspaper series listing the black, gay women killed in South Africa between 2007 and 2018 published by the weekly investigative publication Mail&Guardian – suggests that black, gay women make up the majority of these killings. In Southeast Asia, family involvement is more common. For instance, in India, there is a lot of shame associated with being gay or lesbian. Being a conservative society, this shame extends to one’s family. In a bid to avoid this shame, some families turn to corrective rape in the hopes of changing their child’s sexual orientation. More than that, out of fear of damaging the family’s reputation, very often a family member – ranging from cousins to parents – is recruited to prevent any outsiders from finding out. Exact figures are, again, difficult to come by, as many are afraid to report their own family members.

Transgender women also fall disproportionately victim to femicide. In the United States for instance, one in six anti-trans murders from 2013 to 2018 were committed by an intimate partner. More than that, 22 percent of trans people reported being verbally harassed, physically attacked, or denied equal treatment/service at a domestic violence shelter or rape crisis centre in 2015 – indicating that intervention in abuse cases to prevent intimate femicide is less likely for trans women. Notably, the United States also recorded the third highest number of trans deaths (32 deaths) globally in 2022 – of those countries that collect the relevant data, and that do not criminalise being transgender. The second most dangerous was Mexico, with 56 murders. More striking is Brazil. In 2022, the country reported the highest number of trans killings for the fourteenth consecutive year. Of the 131 trans people killed in 2022, 130 were trans women, making them 38 times more likely to be murdered than trans men and non-binary people. More than that, 76 percent of the 131 trans victims were black, and 24 percent white. As a result, not only are transgender women more vulnerable to femicide than cisgender women, but BIWOR transgender women in Brazil tend to be the most targeted demographic.

In conclusion, BIWOR and sexual minorities face disproportionate vulnerability to femicide and SGBV. This can be due to intersecting socio-economic inequalities, colonial legacies, and societal biases. Poverty, lack of safe resources, and systemic marginalization place them in precarious situations, while colonial histories of violence and impunity perpetuate entitlement over their bodies. Societal biases further devalue their lives, evident in skewed media and public attention toward missing and murdered white women compared to BIWOR.

Relevant Conventions across the World

Since the 1980s, national, regional, and international frameworks have increasingly been implemented to recognize that SGBV is a violation of victims’ rights, as well as to recognise that the state has an obligation to both ensure victims can reasonably exercise their rights and to end this form of gendered violence. At an international level, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was implemented in 1979, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action in 1993, the Beijing Platform in 1995, and the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 – also known as Women, Peace and Security (WPS) – in 2000. Looking specifically at the most recent, UNSCR 1325, the resolution has two focuses, namely the disproportionate targeting of women and girls regarding violence (typically in the form of SGBV), as well as the disproportionate exclusion of women from decision-making processes. In accordance with this resolution, countries have since increasingly adopted WPS National Action Plans (NAPs) that serve as strategic frameworks for implementing the goals of gender equality, women’s empowerment, the protection of women, and participation of women in political processes. These NAPs often include provisions for post-rape care. For example, South Africa’s 2020-2025 NAP cites the need for comprehensive support for SGBV survivors, highlighting the need to improve post-rape care services. Similarly, Guinea’s 2013-2015 NAP includes provisions for the popularisation of emergency kits for post-exposure to rape, aiming to provide immediate medical care to survivors.

At a regional level, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) has implemented its 2015 Gender Protocol, as well as its 2018-2022 Regional Strategy on Women, Peace and Security. The latter highlights the importance of providing adequate healthcare services to SGBV survivors, implicitly supporting post-rape care initiatives. In LATAM, the Convention of Belem do Pará or the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women, has been adopted since 1994. Notably, in the past decade, a growing number of states in Latin America and the Caribbean publish a Gender Equality Observatory for the region each year, publishing the annual femicide and SGBV rates for each country in the region. More than that, 17 states involved in the publication, namely, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, have adopted laws or reforms to their criminal codes in the direction of criminalising femicide as a specific crime separate from homicide.

Social Impact

Unlike other violent crimes, addressing SGBV and femicide requires a holistic and identity-sensitive approach to overcome harmful, patriarchal social norms in communities and the criminal justice system. This is clear when looking at data from both global SGBV hotspots, i.e., Southern Africa and LATAM. For instance, 42% of Namibians believe a woman will be criticised, harassed or shamed by those in the community were she to report a crime, with only 14.9% of survivors of intimate partner violence seeking help from the police. In South Africa, 43% of citizens believe a woman would face such treatment by her community were she to report SGBV to the police, with only 66% of South Africans with no formal education believing that the police will take SGBV cases seriously. Similarly, in Costa Rica, SGBV survivors tend to be stigmatised given the country’s patriarchal structures and culture of ‘machismo’. Furthermore, in Nicaragua, SGBV victims not only report fear of social stigma, but also fear of retribution and loss of economic security.

Ultimately, a culture of patriarchy and the subsequent associated stigma significantly exacerbate SGBV in both regions. Notably, women are not immune from adopting such patriarchal beliefs. According to a UNICEF study, while 24% of men and boys aged 15 to 49 in the SADC region believe a man is justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances, 37% of women and girls believe the same. It is worth noting that the figures vary across individual countries in the region. While the figures are as low as 9% for men/boys and 6% for women/girls in South Africa, and 17% for men/boys in Mozambique and 13% for women/girls; in Zambia the figure for men/boys sits higher at 25% and 45% for women/girls, 29% for men/boys in Madagascar and 41% of women/girls, as well as 17% for boys/men in the Comoros and 39% for women/girls. Similarly, in South and Central America men alone do not perpetuate the ‘machismo’ ideology. In fact, early socialisation, where patriarchal norms are presented as natural or moral truths, leads to women sometimes internalising patriarchal values themselves. As a result, some women may uphold, justify, or normalise gender-based violence, believing it to be a form of discipline, a cultural expectation, or even an expression of love. This dynamic complicates state and civil society interventions, as internalised beliefs can inhibit help-seeking behaviour and reinforce stigma. Alternatively, in the case of SGBV, many cases go unreported because women fear losing the man of the house or bringing social shame to their family. Furthermore, in both regions, SGBV is typically compounded by high poverty rates, patriarchal religious beliefs, alcohol and substance abuse, past conflicts and historical structural violence, as well as the proliferation of weapons.

As a result of these complicated root causes, many states in both SADC and LATAM regions have adopted holistic strategies which aim to address the key drivers behind and aggravating factors for high SGBV rates, such as institutionalised patriarchy, unequal societal views on gender roles, harmful cultural and religious practices, and stigma around SGBV in local communities – all while providing comprehensive post-rape care to survivors.

Holistic Post-rape Care Strategies

Despite high rates of SGBV, of the sixteen SADC member states, only six have adopted WPS national action programmes (NAPs) in compliance with UNSCR 1325. That being said, almost all have implemented multisectoral, one-stop SGBV centres to address and prevent gendered violence, but also to adequately care for SGBV survivors. By ‘multisectoral’, I am referring to an integrated approach whereby multiple sectors – including healthcare, psychosocial, legal, social services, and educational/advocacy organisations – collaborate to provide comprehensive care for survivors. The aim is that victims have access to the following all at a single centre: emergency medical care; treatment for physical injuries; post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to prevent HIV infection; trauma-informed mental health support and psychological counselling; evidence collection for court proceedings; legal representation; access to shelters and long-term support programmes; and access to reintegration initiatives. By providing all these services at one location, these centres aim to reduce the barriers survivors face when seeking support, minimise service delivery gaps, and promote victim recovery. Furthermore, these centres also engage in prevention work such as awareness campaigns to reduce stigma and foster community support. These units adopt victim-centric approaches and are often based in hospitals.

Specific examples include South Africa’s Thuthuzela Care Centres (TCCs), Namibia’s Gender Based Violence Investigation Units (GBVIU), Lesotho’s and Botswana’s Child and Gender Protection Units, Malawi’s and Zambia’s Community Victim Support Units, Zimbabwe’s Victim Friendly Units, Eswatini’s Domestic Violence and Child Protection Units, Madagascar’s Proximity Female Brigades, Mauritian Family Welfare Protection Units, the Seychelles Family Squads, as well as the Interagency Gender Based Violence Initiative in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique and Tanzania. While Angola and the Comoros islands have not necessarily implemented these one-stop facilities, they do take a multisectoral approach by running awareness raising campaigns and providing psycho-social support to SGBV survivors, alongside ordinary policing. Notably, these strategies have existed in the region since the early 1990s.

Similarly, of the 33 LATAM states, only nine have implemented WPS NAPs. Again, many in this region have also opted for victim-centric post-rape care. In the case of LATAM, this victim-centric approach typically takes the form of women-led police stations, where policing is largely done by women and where only victims of gendered violence are received. These police stations are also home to interdisciplinary teams, typically offering psycho-social support, childcare services, and rehousing programmes, as well as conducting awareness raising campaigns on gendered violence. These stations can be found in Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Peru, Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay, Colombia, and Costa Rica. It is worth noting, however, that these models differ slightly around who the target population is, the kinds of violence dealt with, which direct and indirect services are provided, how they are funded, as well as which state and non-state actors are involved and the shared responsibilities among them for both service delivery and decision-making. This strategy first emerged in Brazil in the mid-1980s, with the remaining countries typically implementing these police stations after gaining independence from their various dictatorships.

State and Institutional Responsibility for SGBV and Femicide: A Counterfactual Analysis

The patterns of violence outlined in the above section highlights the normalisation of SGBV and how society can sometimes reinforce gendered hierarchies. It is important to stress, however, that these gendered hierarchies do not only exacerbate SGBV, but also state apathy and policy failure in response to SGBV. This is because gender dynamics inform how institutions respond to, record, and prioritise cases of violence – not only SGBV at an interpersonal level.

Having already established a link between patriarchy and SGBV/femicide by drawing on existing feminist literature, this section will focus on establishing state and institutional responsibility for the extent of the ongoing (and global) SGBV/femicide crisis by using a counterfactual analysis. The overarching question this section aims to answer is: Had different policies been implemented and/or had governments made different choices, could these governments and institutions have shifted the trajectory of SGBV and femicide for the better? While the below study will focus on how policy in the SADC and LATAM regions could have shifted the trajectory of SGBV in these regions had they been implemented differently, it is worth noting that there are, of course, many factors that contribute to the trajectory of SGBV and femicide. These range from sudden economic shocks that increase inequality and poverty, to geopolitical changes that increase weapons proliferation, to increased narcotics trade in an area, city, country, or region. Unfortunately, while these do influence the environment in which SGBV policies are enforced, they fall outside the scope of this study.

The first scenario to consider is earlier adoption and stronger enforcement of CEDAW and UNSCR 1325 commitments. For instance, studies conducted in metropolitan Brazil showed that the presence of women-led police stations reduced femicide rates by 50% for women aged between 15 and 24 years of age, and by 17% overall. Had similar police stations been implemented sooner across the region, or had similar post-rape care facilities been introduced sooner in the SADC region, it is possible that SGBV and femicide policies could have been more preventative than reactive in both regions. This is particularly true for Southern Africa given multisectoral post-rape care facilities were introduced in SADC at least a decade after the first women-led police stations were introduced in LATAM – more specifically in Brazil in 1985. For instance, according to a study of female homicide victims in South Africa in 1999, police sources failed to even establish the victim-perpetrator relationship in 18.6% of the 905 cases studied. This indicates an absence of gender-specific policing as late as the 1990s. Alternatively, SGBV interventions may have been strengthened much sooner, by the 2010s for instance, had the 1990s post-apartheid policing reforms prioritised gender-mainstreaming immediately. This gender-mainstreaming could then have been consolidated by better and more comprehensive data collection. For example, to this day, there is a significant lack of data and especially data disaggregated by race and other factors, globally. The most recent Brazilian studies on femicide largely don’t include data disaggregated by race and class. Had countries in both SADC and LATAM regions mandated the collection of disaggregated femicide data, it could have then been used to implement targeted interventions to better protect the groups most effected.

Ultimately, the earlier implementation of targeted state interventions could have prevented SGBV and femicide from escalating disproportionately among BIWOR and LGBTQ+ members in SADC and LATAM. In Argentina, for instance, the gang raping of indigenous women by white men, known as chineo, was only classified as a hate crime after indigenous women’s rights groups lobbied successfully in 2019 for these culturally specific legal protections. Additionally, while only making up 15% of Mexico’s population, indigenous Mexicans make up 70% of human trafficking victims. Had these countries implemented better protections specifically for indigenous women, states and their institutions could have prevented the disproportionate increase in SGBV and femicide rates amongst these groups. Legal recognition and protections for the LGBTQ+ community continue to be limited. While the researcher failed to identify specific protections against SGBV/femicide for those in the LGBTQ+ community, even general legal protections for the community are surprisingly rare. In fact, the first country in LATAM to allow transgender people to change their names thereby recognising their right to identify their own gender identity, was Argentina in 2012. Others have since followed, for instance, Costa Rica in 2018. This is even more true for the African continent, where only a handful of countries have legalised same-sex marriage. This shows extreme delays in recognising and protecting the legal rights of those in the LGBTQ+ community, ranging from gender identity to same-sex marriage protections, in both LATAM and SADC regions – let alone the implementation of policy interventions aimed at reducing instances of corrective rape and trans femicide. Had these countries adopted specific LGBTQ+ protections in the early 2000s or earlier, corrective rape cases might have been taken more seriously, reducing the frequency of violence against those in the LGBTQ+ community. Instead, policymakers continue(d) not to recognise that BIWOR and those in the LGBTQ+ community continue to be disproportionately affected by femicide, and SGBV more broadly, which has been perpetuated by the absence of a systematic race-based and sexual identity-based data collection process during the reporting stages of these crimes.

Thirdly, countries have been extremely slow at adopting feminist foreign policies. Sweden was the first to explicitly introduce such a feminist foreign policy – in 2014. Canada, France, and Mexico have since followed. Ultimately, these policies influence global security and peacebuilding initiatives using a gender-sensitive lens. Had countries introduced these foreign policies sooner (and had more countries followed suite), they may have witnessed stronger domestic commitments to addressing SGBV and femicide through regional diplomatic pressure.

Ultimately, through this counterfactual analysis, it has become clear that had more countries in the SADC and LATAM regions made different policy decisions, SGBV/femicide rates could be lower than they currently are. Implementation of gender-sensitive policies has been delayed, disaggregated data on SGBV/femicide is extremely scarce, countries have failed to adequately implement protective policies that focus on intersectional vulnerabilities, and feminist foreign policies have been rare and slow to implement.

Effectiveness of Post-rape Care Strategies

Notably, there is evidence to suggest that the SADC and LATAM holistic post-rape care strategies have been rather effective. The likes of South Africa’s TCCs providing integrated services – ranging from medical care, legal assistance, to psychosocial support – tend to reduce secondary victimization and improve reporting rates. In fact, studies indicate that survivors utilizing TCCs report higher satisfaction levels due to the comprehensive support offered than those reporting at ordinary police stations. Furthermore, specialized courts, such as Sexual Offences Courts, have been associated with improved experiences for rape survivors within the criminal justice system. These courts aim to speed up cases to minimise survivors’ secondary trauma, make better court decisions or judgements by employing SGBV experts, encourage more rape survivors to report their cases to the police by improving efficiency of SGBV cases, as well as to secure more convictions and send more perpetrators to jail. Similarly, following a series of interviews with survivors received by Zimbabwe’s Victim-Friendly Units, data indicates that the centres are perceived to have increased awareness and reporting on SGBV, and child sexual abuse in particular, while also enhancing the coordination of post-rape care services. It is worth noting, however, that the same study indicates inconsistent implementation of services throughout different regions in the country. A 2020 study in the Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina found that women-led police stations increase access to justice, empower women to leave domestic violence situations, and prevent SGBV by challenging patriarchal norms. The study also identified an important offshoot, namely providing women the opportunity of a career in law enforcement. Following a series of women-led police station closures in 2019 in Brazil, a study was conducted to determine the effects. Results revealed the closures correlated with an increase in hospital reports and a decrease in hotline calls, suggesting survivors sought medical attention more frequently but were less likely to report incidents to law enforcement – perhaps pointing to a lack of confidence in police in the absence of specialised women’s units.

Recommendations

When comparing and analysing these case studies, several key lessons emerge on how to effectively enhance holistic post-rape care strategies. These insights include the importance of integrating medical, psychological, and legal support services to address the multifaceted needs of survivors comprehensively. They also highlight the critical role of community engagement and education in reducing stigma and ensuring survivors feel safe seeking help. Furthermore, the studies underscore the value of tailoring interventions to local cultural and socio-economic contexts, ensuring that care strategies are both accessible and sustainable. These lessons collectively provide a roadmap for designing more effective, survivor-cantered approaches to post-rape care. These lessons are particularly important given weak state responses to SGBV exacerbate social instability, undermining citizen trust in governance.

Prevention: Establish awareness raising campaigns

Anecdotal evidence in South Africa suggests SGBV reporting rates have increased in communities in which TCCs have adopted awareness raising campaigns around the nature of SGBV. Grassroots research in Namibia, however, suggests a lack of awareness amongst SGBV victims regarding their legal and rights literacy. Therefore, these post-rape care facilities need to raise awareness on both the topic of SGBV and survivors’ rights. In fact, in Argentina, women-led police stations are legislatively required to engage in primary prevention at least once a month, ranging from community prevention campaigns, to distributing contact details in periods leading up to anticipated increases in SGBV, such as over the Christmas period, and the denaturalisation of violence to prevent revictimisation. Establishing similar legislative requirements can make such prevention strategies non-negotiable.

Therefore, developing and implementing regular and sustained awareness campaigns targeting SGBV and survivors’ rights is key. To do so, parliamentarians can ensure legislative mandates for such regular campaigns. NGOs and advocacy groups must then work with local governments to enforce, as well as monitor and evaluate, the implementation of these mandates. Collaboration on designing and delivering the educational content to local communities is also crucial for the success of these campaigns. Police forces can also play an important role in this prevention work by actively engaging in outreach and education, focusing specifically on high-risk areas. The campaigns should cover the nature of SGBV, legal rights of victims, and community-wide education on prevention. Regarding resource and funding restrictions, local community leaders, NGOs and volunteers can be engaged to conduct awareness campaigns using low-cost materials such as pamphlets and social media. Partnerships with the private sector and international donors can also lead to collaboration with businesses and international agencies for financial or in-kind contributions to fund large-scale campaigns. Specifically, regarding in-kind contributions, local media, corporations, and universities can be encouraged to make donations of time or materials (e.g., printing, radio airtime). Lastly, ministries can allocate small seed funds for pilot projects and coordinate with the private sector and NGOs for additional funding and resources where possible.

Optimising results: Develop and strengthen relationships with grassroots NGOs

In South Africa, SGBV cases reported at TCCs have attracted more severe jail sentences, with 15% to 18% of rape cases reported at TCCs in 2022 getting life imprisonment for perpetrators, which totals 342 life imprisonment sentences for the 2021/2022 period. This is largely due to more efficient and timeous evidence collection, as well as psycho-social and witness support, which both strengthen cases and reduce victims’ likelihood of withdrawing cases brought to the police. Increasing partnerships with grassroots organisations/NGOs to ensure more robust legal aid, medical treatment, and long-term psycho-social support where state funds are limited can improve these results. Notably, studies in Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Peru suggest increased collaboration between women-led police stations and community networks can more effectively and consistently help SGBV survivors.

Grassroots community-wide education programmes for men and women that address gender inequality, patriarchy, and gendered violence, such as those arranged by South African NGO Sonke Justice and Namibian Align Platform, are also important tools to promote gender justice and minimise stigma in the community. Similarly, HI in Bolivia works in local communities to educate women on reproductive/sexual health, strengthening women’s financial resilience, promoting women’s rights, and strengthening community resources for SGBV prevention/care. Notably, Botswana group Men and Boys for Gender Equality highlights the need to encourage the active engagement of men and boys in these campaigns.

SGBV survivors can also face stigma within the criminal justice system. For example, research in Peru and Uruguay suggest that, while women-led police stations have existed since the 1980s to dismantle patriarchal institutions and beliefs, they can sometimes reproduce harmful myths, such as it is always better to mediate and keep a family together, rather than encourage women to leave abusive partners. Grassroots NGOs can play an important role in providing gender-sensitivity training to these police officers. For example, in South Africa, Ilitha Labantu, holds training sessions on topics such as defining gender, harmful social norms, legal remedies and procedures, working with survivors of violence, basic counselling, and receiving traumatised victims. In Namibia, The Leave No One Behind Project partners with NamPol to hold psycho-social support workshops and empathy training for social workers and police. In the case of Lesotho, however, while police officers at protection units received specialised training to respond to sexual exploitation, capacity and know-how could not be retained due to the rotation of police officers. This suggests that not only is more collaboration with community-based organisations that provide personnel training necessary, but so are mechanisms aimed at retaining officers.

Consequently, strengthening partnerships between post-rape care facilities and grassroots NGOs to improve legal aid, medical treatment, and psycho-social support can be life-changing for survivors. Countries’ ministries of social development and justice can facilitate funding and create frameworks for NGO partnerships, while the police can partner with NGOs to train officers in gender sensitivity, SGBV responses and survivors’ rights. Furthermore, health ministries can coordinate with NGOs to ensure medical care and mental health services are available at post-rape care facilities. To overcome any resource restrictions, mutual resource sharing amongst grassroots organizations that already have resources or infrastructure in place to offer complementary services, such as space, personnel, or medical supplies can improve service delivery. Where possible, governments can also provide small initial funding to attract matching contributions from international organizations and donors. Government ministries can further facilitate partnerships by providing other legal incentives such as tax exemptions, and streamline approval processes for collaboration with NGOs to attract private and international donors. Volunteer networks can further provide support in both legal and psycho-social services, thus reducing staffing costs. Tertiary education facilities can consolidate these volunteer networks by making volunteering in these multisectoral centres a criterion for graduating from certain degrees such as medicine, social work, law or psychology.

Improving logistics: Clarify roles of each department and agency to streamline cooperation

Many multisectoral facilities in the SADC region struggle to coordinate services between and maintenance of infrastructure by prosecuting authorities, health and social services, police departments and NGOs. More attention needs to be paid to how services are coordinated, clearly delineating the responsibilities (including equipment and infrastructure maintenance) of each department. Regular audits to track resource allocation can then hold the departments responsible. Notably, the women-led police stations in Argentina typically work with local boards to avoid the duplication of services, pool resources, and even share information about high-risk cases to prevent gendered violence from escalating to femicide. Similar information-sharing strategies can help streamline the coordination of services in the SADC region.

Ultimately, the clear delineation of department responsibilities (i.e., health, police, justice, and social services) can improve service coordination and infrastructure maintenance at these multisectoral centres. Ministries of health, justice, and/or interior can establish and oversee inter-agency coordination through designing and implementing memoranda of understanding (MOUs). These would outline which department(s) is responsible for resource allocation, infrastructure maintenance, and emergency responses. Regular audits can then serve as a way for these departments to monitor and evaluate against these MOUs any progress made or identify room for improvement. Municipal leaders can also play a key role ensuring smooth coordination at the local level, including sharing data and preventing duplication of services. When overcoming resource and funding restrictions, government agencies can develop a resource-sharing strategy to pool resources and improve infrastructure, equipment, and other facilities. This can help reduce overhead costs for individual departments. Existing networks can also be maximised by using existing facilities and partnerships, like community centres or NGO offices, instead of building new infrastructure for headquarter and administrative spaces. Government agencies can also conduct joint budgeting and planning meetings, ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently and there is no duplication of services. Furthermore, creating digital platforms that allow for real-time data-sharing across departments can further enable better inter-agency coordination without the need for expensive infrastructure.

Increasing resources: Encourage alternative sources of funding

Notably, when comparing the SADC and LATAM regions, it becomes clear that the former has far fewer resources to allocate to these post-rape care facilities than the latter. For instance, in Brazil, there are over 250 women-led police stations nationwide. While Namibia only has 17 GBVIU facilities to service a population of roughly 2.5 million, and South Africa 64 TCCs to service a population of roughly 60,000,000, the Argentine capital Buenos Aires has 128 women-led police stations alone. Notably, many TCCs battle poor infrastructure, with the government’s 2020/2022 Reflective Report on the Implementation of the South African National Strategic Plan on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide calling some centres “dilapidated.” However, those TCCs that receive both private and public funding tend to be the most successful and best equipped centres, while the best equipped Namibian GBVIU facilities have benefitted from cooperation with UNICEF and the UK National Crime Agency. Therefore, where government funds are severely limited, it is necessary to develop incentive programmes to encourage private investment in these centres, as well as develop relationships with and secure funding from fellow states’ crime agencies to improve facilities.

As a result, encouraging both public and private sector investment in post-rape care facilities, particularly in regions with limited state funding, can greatly improve the level of service delivery at these centres. To do so, ministries of finance can facilitate access to private sector funds and international assistance, while local governments can work with private investors to identify infrastructure needs and provide tax incentives for donations. Ministries can then establish frameworks to incentivize private sector involvement through tax benefits and allocate a portion of the national budget to these programmes. Foreign affairs departments can also secure regional and international collaborations and funding. Partnerships with the private sector, where businesses can sponsor initiatives in exchange for branding and social responsibility recognition, can also be leveraged. This could include offering grants or donating equipment. Crowdfunding and online campaigns targeting individuals, local communities, or diaspora populations willing to contribute can further consolidate these funding strategies.

Monitoring and evaluating: Conduct research and collect data using an intersectional-gendered lens

Anecdotal evidence suggests that women from disenfranchised communities and formerly disadvantaged groups tend to be the most vulnerable to SGBV in South Africa. Notably, similar evidence in Namibia suggests members of the LGBTQ+ community and sex workers are particularly vulnerable to SGBV. In Brazil, according to a 2015 Violence Map study, black women were 23% more likely to be murdered than their white counterparts in 2003, jumping to 67% in 2013, while, between 2010 and 2014, the homicide rate for indigenous women in Brazil was double that of non-indigenous women. That being said, there is no mention of intersectional perspectives in Namibia’s 2019-2024 WPS NAP, nor in Brazil’s 2017-2023 NAP. While one of the six guiding principles of South Africa’s 2020-2025 WPS NAP includes applying an “intersectional lens,” data disaggregated by sex, race, class, sexual identity/orientation, HIV-status, age, disability, and religion regarding SGBV rates and the success of TCCs is largely unavailable. This is despite South Africa’s 2019 Voluntary National Review including a pledge to collect disaggregated data going towards 2030. Namibia’s 2018 review also highlights the country’s lack of disaggregated data, pledging to improve the Namibia Statistics Agency, while Brazil’s 2017 review also highlights the importance of disaggregated data to protect the most vulnerable demographics of society. Collecting data of women’s experiences of SGBV and of their treatment at these post-rape care facilities across demographics is necessary to better understand what SGBV survivors need and how best to improve the centres.

Women-led police stations have been in use in LATAM since the mid-1980s, while multisectoral facilities have been in use in SADC since the early 1990s. However, these regions continue to be major SGBV hotspots three to four decades later, and research regarding the efficacy of these strategies is largely anecdotal. That being said, a 2019 Brazilian study found that in the areas with women-led police stations, the female homicide rate for women aged between 15 and 24 dropped by 50%, and for all women by 17%. Therefore, more quantitative research is necessary to better monitor and evaluate both SADC and LATAM strategies.

Therefore, collecting and analysing disaggregated data on SGBV rates and post-rape care services are key to improving facility outcomes and understanding the specific needs of marginalized groups. National statistics offices must oversee the collection of disaggregated data on SGBV and service outcomes. This involves creating national data collection frameworks that ensure data is disaggregated by sex, race, sexual orientation, disability, and other factors, as well as implementing quantitative and qualitative research methods to assess the effectiveness of post-rape care facilities. Civil society and research institutions can assist with the research design, data collection, and analysis to ensure an intersectional approach is maintained. Ministries of social development and/or health can then use this data to guide policy-making and resource allocation. Resource and funding restrictions can be overcome by, where possible, leveraging existing administrative data from government agencies, NGOs, or other sectors to minimize the cost of new data collection efforts. Statistics offices can also partner with academic institutions or research organizations that can provide funding or in-kind contributions for data collection and analysis. Universities and students in research projects can also get involved through internships or volunteer opportunities that contribute to data gathering and analysis. Government ministries can further create incentives for research institutions to engage in this type of research and develop partnerships with international organizations that focus on gender equality to support data collection and analysis.

Conclusion

The International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women is not only a reminder that SGBV continues to be a global crisis, but also a significant political risk for broader society. This is reflected by institutional weaknesses, cyclical violence, and social instability.

Governments stand to both protect vulnerable members of society while securing a more stable and equitable future with systemic reforms that improve and strengthen victim support and prevention. More specifically, intersectional approaches to addressing SGBV stand to mitigate political risks, foster public trust, and build resilient societies.

References:

Stephanie Wild is Assistant Editor at the Journal of Political Risk. She has a B.A. in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, an Honours degree in Justice and Transformation, and a Masters of Philosophy in Public Law, all from the University of Cape Town. Her latest academic research focuses on a gendered analysis of transitional justice mechanisms. She currently works as a Public Information Associate for the Department of Peace Operations, focusing on sexual exploitation and abuse.