4. Restricted physical integrity
This chapter presents an overview of women’s discrimination in terms of physical integrity. It examines discriminatory social institutions – formal and informal laws, social norms and practices – that increase women’s and girls’ vulnerability to a range of forms of violence and limit women’s control over their bodies across 29 countries in the region of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). This includes formal and informal laws, norms and practices that fail to respect women’s physical integrity or that serve to normalise and justify practices that impinge on their reproductive autonomy. The chapter also seeks to provide policy makers with the necessary tools and evidence to design gender-responsive policies to tackle gender-based violence and women’s lack of control over their bodies.
The Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) score of the region of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) in the “Restricted physical integrity” dimension is 22,1 denoting a low level of discrimination, in line with the global average. However, the LAC sub-regions’ scores vary, ranging from 18 in South America to 24 in Central America, and to 27 in the Caribbean.
While the “Violence against women” indicator emerges as an important issue in the Caribbean and South America, with scores of 38 and 34, respectively (denoting medium levels of discrimination in social institutions), the “Reproductive autonomy” indicator stands out as an area of concern in Central America, with a score of 52 – highlighting a high level of discrimination –, due to restrictive laws on abortion.
Intersectional discrimination that minority, impoverished, rural and young women suffer makes these women more vulnerable to violence and reproductive health issues.
Female genital mutilation and missing women are not considered areas of concern in LAC countries.
There is no statistical indication that the practice of female genital mutilation is common in the LAC region.
All LAC countries display a natural sex ratio at birth, demonstrating an apparent absence of systematic undervaluation of female children.
Violence against women and reproductive autonomy constitute the most salient issues in the LAC region.
No LAC country provides women with comprehensive legal protection from all forms of violence, despite some progress made since around 2017.
Laws that prevent the termination of an unintended pregnancy continue to threaten women’s health and reproductive autonomy. In the LAC region, four countries2 entirely ban and criminalise abortion.
On average, 11% of women of reproductive age who are married or in de facto unions report having an unmet need for family planning, slightly above the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of 10%. This is the result of the lack of information about and access to modern contraceptives, and of inadequate healthcare infrastructure.
Social norms related to women’s physical integrity continue to justify harmful practices in the LAC region.
In the LAC region, 11% of women believe that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances.
Domestic violence against women is becoming progressively less tolerated. Between 2014 and 2018, on average, the percentage of women who declared that domestic violence was acceptable under certain circumstances declined from 15% to 11%.
Women’s control over their own bodies plays an important role in increasing their agency and empowerment. In the LAC region, various factors restrict women’s right to physical integrity, including the numerous forms of violence against women and the legal frameworks that limit women’s reproductive autonomy. Restrictions on physical integrity prevent women from pursuing their goals in public and private spheres such as education and employment. As such, respect for, and protection of, women’s physical integrity constitutes a vital precondition for achieving gender equality (MESECVI and OAS, n.d.[1]); (The World Bank, 2018[2]); (United Nations, 1979[3]). In order to tackle this issue, the SIGI considers four major areas that concern women’s physical integrity (Box 4.1).
The “Restricted physical integrity” dimension captures social institutions that increase women’s and girls’ vulnerability to different forms of violence and limit women’s control over their bodies. This includes formal and informal laws, norms and practices that fail to respect women’s physical integrity or that serve to normalise and justify practices that impinge on their reproductive autonomy.
The “Restricted physical integrity” dimension is composed of four indicators:
The “Violence against women” indicator captures the level of social acceptance and prevalence of domestic violence, as well as its legal acceptance, which indicates whether a country’s legal framework protects women from violence (including intimate partner violence, rape and sexual harassment), taking into account non-statutory (societal) discrimination against women in customary, religious or traditional practices or laws.
The “Female genital mutilation” indicator captures the level of social acceptance and prevalence of female genital mutilation, as well as its legal acceptance, which indicates whether a country’s legal framework criminalises female genital mutilation and includes penalties for practitioners, taking into account non-statutory (societal) discrimination against women in customary, religious or traditional practices or laws.
The “Missing women” indicator captures the statistical shortfall in the number of girls aged 0-4 years, relative to the expected number in the absence of sex-selective abortions, female infanticide or preferential treatment of sons over daughters, correcting for natural biological and physiological differences.
The “Reproductive autonomy” indicator captures the prevalence of women of reproductive age who have an unmet need for family planning and contraception, as well as legal discrimination against women with respect to their reproductive autonomy rights in case of unintended pregnancy.
In the LAC region, violence against women and reproductive autonomy are the most salient issues. Legal frameworks and practices perpetuate discrimination against women in these areas. The legal frameworks in many LAC countries constrain women’s physical integrity, and the prevalence of unmet needs for family planning, as well as of domestic violence, reveals that more work is needed in order to pass new legislation, implement existing laws and work with the justice system to improve women’s equality. This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the factors contributing to the LAC region’s results in the “Restricted physical integrity” dimension, highlighting the social norms and practices that are either contributing to a positive transformation or resulting in harmful and negative outcomes for women.
Snapshot of scores in the “Restricted physical integrity” dimension
The LAC region has a low level of discrimination in the “Restricted physical integrity” dimension, with a score of 22, in line with the global average. Yet, at the sub-regional level, average scores are 18 in South America and 24 in Central America, both of which are categorised as low levels of discrimination, but 27 in the Caribbean, which is categorised as a medium level of discrimination. Uruguay is the region’s top performer in the “Restricted physical integrity” dimension, with a score of 11, stemming primarily from a strong legal framework protecting women’s reproductive autonomy, broad access to family planning services and a relatively low rate of violence against women. For instance, 15% of Uruguayan women who have been in a relationship have suffered intimate partner violence at least once in their lifetime, but only 1% of Uruguayan women declared that spousal violence is acceptable under certain circumstances.
Note: SIGI scores range from 0 to 100, with 0 indicating no discrimination and 100 indicating absolute discrimination.
Source: (OECD, 2019[4]), Social Institutions and Gender Index, https://stats.oecd.org.
In the Caribbean, the Dominican Republic is the LAC sub-region’s top performer in this dimension with a score of 18, ranking 56th globally (Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2). The Dominican Republic’s government has undertaken multiple steps to protect women’s physical integrity. For instance, El Plan Nacional de Igualdad y Equidad de Género 2020-2030 (the National Gender Equality and Equity Plan 2020-2030 [PLANEG III]) recognises the importance of eradicating all forms of violence against women through every stage of their lives. The plan outlines programmes to be conducted (along with a dedicated system to monitor and follow up on their execution) in order to continue the work of reducing violence against women and deconstructing stereotypes encouraging it (Gobierno de la República Dominicana, 2019[5]). The government has also carried out various training and awareness-raising campaigns on sexual and reproductive health and rights, breastfeeding, and women’s health (CEPAL, 2019[6]). Among the three remaining countries in this LAC sub-region with scores in the “Restricted physical integrity” dimension, Jamaica also achieves a low level of discrimination, with a score of 25, followed by Trinidad and Tobago (27) and Haiti (37), which lag behind with medium levels of discrimination.
In Central America, Mexico is the LAC sub-region’s top performer in this dimension with a score of 16 (denoting a low level of discrimination), ranking 47th globally. In 2019, the Mexican government launched the Plan Emergente para Garantizar la Integridad, la Seguridad y la Vida de las Mujeres y las Niñas en México (Emerging Plan to Guarantee the Integrity, Safety and Life of Women and Girls in Mexico) (Gobierno de México, 2019[7]). One of the main objectives of the national plan is to adopt a package of essential services for survivors and victims of violence, which includes services in the areas of protection and safety, health, law enforcement, and economic empowerment in order to decrease risks and vulnerabilities for survivors and victims of violence. In addition to this, the federal government started using the Mecanismo de Alerta de Violencia de Género contra las Mujeres (Alert Mechanism for Gender Violence against Women [AVGM]) in 2015. Gender alerts are activated by the government whenever and wherever there are laws or policies in place that limit women’s equal access to justice. Gender alerts urge the relevant local, state or federal authorities: to take immediate action to combat violence against women; to revise discriminatory legislation; to guarantee that victims receive legal, medical and psychological assistance; and to speed up investigations of unsolved cases (OECD Development Centre, 2019[8]). Like Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Honduras have scores classifying them as having low levels of discrimination. Meanwhile, Nicaragua, with a score of 26, and El Salvador, with a score of 27, exhibit medium levels of discrimination in this dimension.
In South America, Uruguay is the top performer at both the LAC sub-regional and regional levels in the “Restricted physical integrity” dimension, with a score of 11 denoting a low level of discrimination, and ranking 23rd globally. In 2017, Uruguay’s adoption of the Ley Integral de Violencia Basada en Género y hacia las Mujeres (Comprehensive Law on Violence against Women) facilitated the launch of a national Observatory on Gender-Based Violence against Women. The observatory was established by an inter-institutional commission composed of the most relevant public institutions and the Uruguayan Network against Domestic and Sexual Violence. In 2019, the Presidency of the Republic launched a public awareness campaign against gender-based violence, aimed at transforming harmful attitudes and behaviours (CEPAL, 2019[6]). Among the remaining seven countries in South America with scores in the “Restricted physical integrity” dimension, six3 have low levels of discrimination (ranging from 15 in Brazil and Colombia, to 22 in Paraguay), while Peru (27) has a medium level of discrimination.
Source: (OECD, 2019[4]), Social Institutions and Gender Index, https://stats.oecd.org.
Violence against women
Violence against women is not only a violation of women’s fundamental human rights and dignity, but it also reinforces women’s subordination to men. Violence against women represents a cost for societies and economies, as well as for individual rights and well-being. In Peru, for example, the economic cost of intimate partner violence against women for private businesses was estimated to reach 4% of gross domestic product (GDP) (Brendel, Gürtner and Valera Loza, n.d.[9]). The LAC region has made steadfast commitments to stem and eradicate violence against women: the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belém do Pará,1994) and Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Target 5.2 call on countries to “eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls” (United Nations, 2016[10]). Moreover, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) recognises gender-based violence as an “obstacle to the participation of women, on equal terms with men, in the political, social, economic and cultural life” (United Nations, 1979[3]).
No country in the LAC region, or even the world, has enacted laws to protect women from all forms of violence through a comprehensive approach. A comprehensive approach means that women are protected from all forms of gender-based violence, including various forms of domestic violence (physical, sexual, psychological and economic) and sexual harassment (at work, in educational and sporting facilities, in public spaces, and online), and that there are legally codified provisions for the investigation, prosecution and punishment of these crimes, as well as protection and support services for survivors (Box 4.2). The existence of legal loopholes enables violence against women to continue, resulting in the LAC region’s average score of 33 in the “Violence against women” indicator, which exceeds the OECD average of 29, but is well below the global average of 40. In the LAC region, 16 countries4 have a score of 75 in this indicator, which shows that existing legislation protects women from some forms of violence, but not all. On the positive side, 8 countries5 have a score of 25, denoting a low level of discrimination (Figure 4.3).
Note: SIGI scores range from 0 to 100, with 0 indicating no discrimination and 100 indicating absolute discrimination.
Source: (OECD, 2019[11]), Gender, Institutions and Development Database, https://oe.cd/ds/GIDDB2019.
Twenty-two LAC countries6 have laws that provide legal protection from sexual harassment; however, these laws are limited in multiple respects. First, six7 of these countries do not prescribe criminal penalties for sexual harassment. Second, except for Bolivia, most do not protect women from sexual harassment in all areas of public life, including in the workplace, educational institutions, sports facilities, public spaces and online. Five countries8 have passed new legislation in order to close these gaps, including Panama, where Law 7 of 2018 prohibits sexual harassment in all environments and requires employers, public institutions and schools to implement policies that prevent and sanction sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination, such as racism and sexism (Gobierno de Panamá, n.d.[12]).
The Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belém do Pará) (1994) defines violence against women as “any act or conduct based on gender, which causes death, harm or psychological suffering to women, both in the private and public domain” (Chapter I, Art. 1) (OAS, 1994[13]). While legal frameworks have their own definitions for different types of violence against women, broadly, these cover the following kinds of practices:
Harassment can take various forms, but the SIGI’s main focus is on sexual harassment, which is the act of making unwanted and unwelcome sexual remarks or physical advances. For legislation on sexual harassment to be comprehensive, it must provide criminal penalties, as well as protections for women in the workplace, educational establishments, sporting facilities, public spaces and online.
Domestic violence is violence that takes place in the private sphere, usually in the home. It can also take many forms, including physical, sexual, psychological and economic violence. What makes this violence domestic is that it occurs within the household or among members of the household.
Rape has numerous definitions, but according to international standards, it is a sexual act – usually involving intercourse – without consent. The SIGI also includes “marital rape”, which is the act of rape committed by one spouse against the other.
Honour crimes are the killing of female relatives to punish behaviour that the perpetrator deemed unacceptable or shameful to the family.
Note: These are general definitions, and national legislation may use different legal definitions, including or excluding some forms of violence.
Legislation against domestic violence has improved, but still does not cover all forms that this abuse can take. In 20 LAC countries,9 legal frameworks protect women from physical, sexual, psychological and economic domestic abuse, but in 3 countries,10 domestic violence is not subject to criminal penalties. Economic abuse is the least covered form of domestic violence, as nine countries11 do not include this form of abuse in their legislation. Furthermore, five countries12 have legal exceptions in the form of customary, religious or traditional practices or laws that reduce penalties for domestic violence. In Mexico, for instance, indigenous communities often count with traditional systems of sanctioning domestic violence cases. Community and indigenous leaders get involved in cases of domestic violence and decide on the consequences – for example, whether or not the woman can separate from her husband (OECD Development Centre, 2019[8]). As the implementation of legal frameworks remains the biggest challenge in the LAC region, all countries except Barbados, Belize and Cuba have national action plans which are intended to outline implementation with various objectives.13
Paraguay and Peru have led the way since 2017 by making numerous changes to their legal frameworks to include and criminalise more types of violence against women. In Peru, Legislative Decree 1410 (2018) modifying Law 27942 outlined criminal penalties for sexual harassment with aggravating circumstances covering educational, employment and training relationships. Furthermore, the decree specifically states that penalties are applicable in cases where information technologies were used, and thus covers cyber harassment (Gobierno del Perú, 2018[14]). In Paraguay, Law 5777 expanded the legal definition of violence against women by including economic, sexual, labour, political and cyber violence, among others, in its legal code (Gobierno de Paraguay, 2016[15]).
LAC governments have progressively turned their attention to femicide. Since around 2010, femicide – the murder of a single woman or multiple women due to their gender – has become an increasingly common form of gender-based violence. According to data from the Gender Equality Observatory for Latin America and the Caribbean, in 2018, 3 529 women in the LAC region were victims of femicide (ECLAC, 2018[16]). In order to punish this crime, 18 countries14 have passed or amended laws to sanction femicide by classifying it as a crime (ECLAC, 2018[17]) (Figure 4.4). Furthermore, some countries are using or considering the use of technology to prevent femicides (Box 4.3). Evidence demonstrates the importance of intervening in situations of domestic violence before they lead to femicide. It is important to recognise that femicide is typically not the first type of violence a victim has experienced, but rather the culmination of various violent acts. Data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) show that intimate partners perpetrate most femicides, followed by other family members, and that femicides are often preceded by prior incidences of domestic violence specifically (UNODC, 2013[18]).
Note: The figure presents the year when the country first enacted a law addressing femicide.
Source: (OECD, n.d.[19]), SIGI Country Profiles, www.genderindex.org.
While many countries have processes in place to provide protective measures to victims in cases of domestic violence and potential femicide, ensuring that aggressors do not violate these measures remains a challenge. For example, in Chile, 6 of the 44 victims of femicide in 2017 were protected by precautionary measures that were breached. Mexico, Panama and Uruguay have turned to using electronic surveillance technologies in innovative ways in order to protect women from violence and close loopholes in previously existing precautionary and protective measures. Chile and El Salvador are also considering the use of new surveillance technologies for this purpose.
In 2012, the State of Chihuahua in Mexico was the first to use surveillance bracelets to prevent domestic violence and femicides (Comité de Segurimineto del Sistema de Seguridad Pública, 2016[20]). The initiative was created through a partnership between the Secretariat of Social Development and the Secretariat of Public Security, the State Prosecutor’s Office, and the local courts of justice. At a judge’s request, it involves the satellite monitoring of both the potential aggressor and the victim as a precautionary measure.
Uruguay has one of the most comprehensive systems in the LAC region for satellite monitoring as a preventative measure for violence against women. On the instruction of a judge, both the aggressor and the victim are given surveillance devices, and if the aggressor approaches the victim, both the police and the victim are alerted. Furthermore, when enrolled in the programme, both parties receive psychological support. The programme has thus far been a success, as none of the victims enrolled in it has been killed (Frayssinet, 2019[21]).
In Panama, Article 224.9, part of Law 82 enacted in 2013, allowed for the use of an electronic bracelet to monitor the whereabouts of an alleged perpetrator of domestic violence (Gobierno Nacional República de Panamá, 2013[22]). Furthermore, Article 333 of the Código Procesal Penal (Criminal Procedure Code) provides for the victim to use this technology in order to ensure that the potential aggressor does not approach them (UNODC, 2013[18]). In 2015, the Director of Technology at the Ministry of Public Security announced that Panama would begin providing ankle bracelets to both perpetrators and victims in order to prevent all potential violent situations.
In 2018, El Salvador’s Comisión de La Mujer e Igualdad de Género, (Commission on Women and Gender Equality) began an ongoing discussion about the potential use of electronic surveillance bracelets to prevent femicides (Alvarenga, 2018[23]). As of 2019, the Criminal Code allows electronic surveillance to be used as a substitute for detention in certain circumstances, but a revision to the Ley Reguladora del Uso de Medios de Vigilancia Electrónica en Materia Penal (Regulatory Law on the Use of Electronic Surveillance Means in Criminal Matters) would enable this technology to be used in cases of domestic violence where a protective measure is in place. As of 2019, 310 subjects were using a surveillance device in place of detention, and the government of El Salvador has confirmed that “most of them comply with the substitute measures” (Serrano, 2019[24]).
Chile has been using electronic monitoring devices since 2014, but only in cases where a person has been convicted and is on probation or in partial confinement (Comité de Segurimineto del Sistema de Seguridad Pública, 2016[20]). However, a push to use electronic monitoring technology in a wider set of circumstances – particularly to prevent violence against women – began in 2018 and continues, the rationale being that an electronic bracelet would better ensure that potential perpetrators do not violate precautionary measures (Ministerio de la Mujer y la Equidad de Género de Chile, 2018[25]).
Various factors – such as drug and alcohol abuse, as well as firearms regulations – increase women’s risk of experiencing violence, especially domestic violence and femicide. Drug and alcohol consumption plays an important role in the prevalence of domestic violence, with more than 50% of women in Ecuador in 2004 and nearly 30% of women in Guatemala in 2008‐09 who experienced domestic violence reporting their partner’s use of drugs and alcohol as a contributing factor (Bott et al., 2014[26]). Furthermore, studies have found that the risk of femicide increases significantly when the aggressor has access to a firearm (Campbell et al., 2003[27]). This is a particular problem in the LAC region, where the percentage of homicides committed using firearms is higher than the global average of 41%, reaching 59% in South America and 73% in Central America (Instinto de Vida, 2017[28]).
Among the multiple forms that violence can take, sexual violence is pervasive in the LAC region, and some countries’ legal frameworks do not protect against some forms of sexual violence. The LAC region features the highest rate15 of “non-couples related sexual violence” and “the second-highest rate of violence by partners or ex-partners” (Essayag, 2017[29]). This is despite the fact that all but five LAC countries16 have domestic violence legislation that covers sexual abuse, and all LAC countries have laws that classify rape as a criminal offence. However, four LAC countries17 fail to protect married women from marital rape.
Estimates of the prevalence of all forms of violence against women likely underrepresent the actual situation. While the prevalence of all forms of violence against women varies, evidence shows that it remains underreported (Heinemann and Verner, 2006[30]); (St. Bernard, 2002[31]). In particular, stigmatisation and social norms that consider domestic violence to be a private matter contribute to the underreporting of violence against women. Furthermore, a lack of confidence in the justice system may be an aggravating factor (see Chapter 6). Nevertheless, data show that the prevalence of reported domestic violence is decreasing. In the LAC region, the percentage of ever-partnered women who suffered violence from an intimate partner at least once in their lifetime decreased from 36% in 2014 to 27% in 2018. In some countries, the decline has been considerable. For example, the percentage decreased by 29 percentage points in Chile and by 15 percentage points in Jamaica. Challenges remain, however, as between 2014 and 2019, the prevalence of domestic violence increased in three LAC countries.18
Violence against women does not affect all women in the same ways, and it is influenced by other factors – such as race and ethnicity – that can make some women, especially afro-descendant and indigenous women, more vulnerable to violence and its adverse impacts. In Ecuador, indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian women are most likely to face violence. Similarly, in Colombia, afro-descendant girls aged 10-14 years represented the highest number of victims of violence between 2012 and 2013 (ECLAC, 2018[32]). Evidence shows that women of African descent are more likely to experience violence, especially sexual violence, at an early age. Furthermore, while the incidence of femicide among white women decreased in Brazil by nearly 10 percentage points between 2003 and 2013, it increased by more than 54 percentage points for Brazilian black women in the same period (ECLAC, 2018[32]). These worrying figures reflect how deeply rooted racism and patriarchy are in some societies where national laws do not take an intersectional approach that acknowledges overlapping gender and racial hierarchies (ECLAC, 2018[32]).
Early marriage has also been associated with a greater incidence of domestic violence, and studies have shown that child marriage constitutes a risk factor for domestic violence (Taylor et al., 2019[33]) (UNICEF, n.d.[34]). As a result, women who are married before the age of 15 years are more likely to experience domestic violence at least once in their lifetime, compared with women who are married later in life (Figure 4.5). The reasons for this association are complex, but are likely related to the fact that women who marry as children are more likely to be poor, less educated, and influenced by traditional gender norms than those who marry later in life (Kidman, 2017[35]). Furthermore, in some LAC countries, legal frameworks restrict women’s right to divorce their partners, preventing women from leaving abusive relationships and amplifying their risk of experiencing persistent violence at home (see Chapter 3).
Note: Prevalence of child marriage is the percentage of girls aged 15-19 years who have been or are still married, divorced, widowed or in an informal union. The lifetime prevalence of domestic violence is the percentage of women who have suffered from intimate partner physical and/or sexual violence during their lifetime. Data are available for 120 countries, including the following LAC countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay. R² is 0.1542.
Source: (OECD, 2019[11]), Gender, Institutions and Development Database, https://oe.cd/ds/GIDDB2019.
Gender norms affect people’s willingness to consider domestic violence acceptable. In some places in the LAC region, the interplay between the social constructs of machismo and marianismo shape both men’s and women’s behaviour and beliefs about their gender roles and violence (Kimelblatt, 2017[36]). While machismo is a form of hyper-masculinity which valorises dominance and violence, marianismo valorises a submissive hyper-femininity, prizing women’s ability to endure the suffering inflicted on them (Nuñez et al., 2016[37]). Acceptance of marianismo as the standard for women’s beliefs and behaviours may lead women to accept domestic violence as justifiable. On average, nearly 11% of women in the LAC region consider that a husband can be justified in hitting or beating his wife under certain circumstances (e.g. if she burns food, argues with him, goes out without telling him, neglects the children, or refuses to engage in sexual intercourse with him).19 However, this average percentage hides variation within the LAC region; for example, only 1% of women in Uruguay hold this belief, compared with 59% of women in Haiti. While the acceptance and presentation of marianismo and machismo clearly vary throughout the LAC region, in the countries where these roles are accepted, they act as a significant barrier to eliminating violence against women (Hanser, 2001[38]). Unsurprisingly, a higher prevalence of attitudes that accept violence as legitimate is associated with a higher prevalence of domestic violence (Figure 4.6).
Note: Attitude towards domestic violence is defined by the percentage of women aged 15-49 years who consider a husband to be justified in hitting or beating his wife for at least one of the specified reasons: if his wife burns food, argues with him, goes out without telling him, neglects the children, or refuses to engage in sexual intercourse with him. The lifetime prevalence of domestic violence is the percentage of women who have suffered from intimate partner physical and/or sexual violence during their lifetime. Data are available for 120 countries, including the following LAC countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay. R² is 0.1794.
Source: (OECD, 2019[11]), Gender, Institutions and Development Database, https://oe.cd/ds/GIDDB2019.
Provide all women with legal protection from all forms of sexual harassment, especially from increasingly prevalent forms of violence such as cyber harassment. Ensure that sexual harassment legislation has the scope to protect all areas of life, including the workplace, public spaces, and sporting and educational facilities.
Ensure that domestic violence legislation covers all of the forms that such violence can take, including physical, sexual, economic, and psychological abuse. Prescribe criminal penalties for this violence and eliminate exceptions that reduce penalties for domestic violence.
Build the capacity of law enforcement officials and the judiciary to guarantee legal redress. Provide training to law enforcement officials and members of the judiciary about violence against women, and enact legislation to provide protective orders on request and ensure that potential aggressors respect these orders.
In Brazil, The “Save a Woman Project” was established in 2019 by Ministerial Ordinance No. 2842. The project foresees the establishment of partnerships with public and private institutions to build a network of people engaged in fighting violence against women. It seeks to raise awareness and provide training to public servants and other professionals that may be in contact with women, such as hairdressers, manicurist, salespersons and health club attendants, to identify and help victims of violence. These actors are also expected to help by raising awareness in their professional and family spheres and sharing information on public services for women victims of violence, acting as multipliers in preventing violence against women.
Take concrete actions to prevent femicide now and in the future. These can include: using electronic surveillance technologies to prevent femicides when protective orders are in place; ensuring that potential aggressors are prohibited from buying firearms; conducting awareness-raising campaigns about machismo and its relationship with violent crime; and working with schools and youth programmes to deconstruct gender identities and the way that some forms of masculinity can promote violence.
In Mexico, The National Institute for Women (Inmujeres) in coordination with the instances of women in the federal entities and the prosecutors' offices and general prosecutors of Justice of the federal entities, set up the “Mesas técnicas para la revisión de los casos de los feminicidios y homicidios dolorosos de mujeres y niñas” (technical tables to review the cases of femicides and homicides of women and girls). The government aims to establish inter-institutional liaison spaces for the authorities to address the main problems they face in the investigation of violent deaths of women and girls, as well as to promote the incorporation of the gender perspective in police, ministerial and judicial action, which will contribute to guaranteeing access to justice and a life free of violence. Currently 12 tables are installed in: Chiapas, Chihuahua, Mexico City, Coahuila, State of Mexico, Hidalgo, Morelos, Tabasco, Veracruz, Yucatan, Oaxaca, and the first municipal table in Naucalpan, State of Mexico, with which agreements have been generated to eliminate the obstacles impeding women’s and girls’’ access to justice. Five sessions have been held in Mexico City, four sessions in Veracruz and two follow-up sessions in Tabasco and Morelos. The tables address three fundamental themes: 1) orders and protection measures; 2) investigation and litigation with a gender perspective; and 3) orphaned children due to femicide (Gobierno de México, 2019[39]).
Protect in-union women from marital rape by ensuring that this form of sexual violence is prohibited by law and subject to criminal penalties.
Invest in data collection about all forms of violence against women in order to better understand which factors may alter its form and prevalence. Be especially attentive to indigenous, rural and minority communities, and collect data that disaggregate for these characteristics. Collect data about the judicial process as it relates to gender-based crime in order to understand under what circumstances these crimes are most likely to be reported.
Work with women’s movements to spread awareness and change social norms. Invest in media campaigns so as to ensure that the public understands issues related to violence against women and what resources are available to survivors. Challenge social norms that position women as subordinate to men. Provide programmes for men to understand masculinity and its expression, and the way it relates to violence against women.
Female genital mutilation
Female genital mutilation includes “all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injuries to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons” (WHO, 2018[40]). This traditional practice is recognised internationally as a violation of women’s and girls’ human rights, and can be both fatal and a cause of adverse outcomes for women’s and girl’s health and well-being. SDG Target 5.3 explicitly aims to “eliminate all harmful practices, such as female genital mutilation” (United Nations, 2016[10]).
The “Female genital mutilation” indicator combines the scores of two variables: the prevalence of female genital mutilation, and attitudes towards female genital mutilation. Even though legal frameworks are not considered for the calculation of this indicator, it is worth noting that only one country in the LAC region, Trinidad and Tobago, has a legal framework that defines female genital mutilation as a harmful practice in its criminal law.
It is probably because of this lack of data that every country in the LAC region scores 0 in this indicator. The data on the practice of female genital mutilation suffer from considerable gaps. Tracking information for SDG indicator 5.3.2, which measures the “proportion of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone female genital mutilation”, is currently available for only 28 countries, 26 of which are in Africa and none of which are in the LAC region, despite evidence suggesting that female genital mutilation may be practised in the LAC region (UNICEF, 2013[41]).
Cases of female genital mutilation are identified when it is too late. Before 2007, it was unknown that female genital mutilation was practised among the Emberá indigenous group in Colombia, but that year its continued practice was revealed when a newborn Emberá girl died due to complications caused by the procedure. Nevertheless, as this group does not universally practise female genital mutilation, the revelation came as a surprise to many, both within and outside the community (Moloney, 2015[42]). This element of secrecy prevents accurate accounting for the actual prevalence of female genital mutilation (Box 4.4).
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has set up an intervention aimed at helping the Emberá eradicate the practice of female genital mutilation within their community. The intervention involved communication with the members of the community in order to help them understand the issue, as well as education about the consequences of female genital mutilation for women’s and girls’ health. Because the practice is regarded as private, very few people were willing to discuss it at first, but gradually women became more confident in speaking about their experiences. This work has also included working with “hospitals and indigenous organisations to promote early detection”, as well as training for those working with Emberá peoples, such as health workers, midwives, healers and others.
Source: (UNFPA, 2017[43]).
Missing women
“Missing women” was a concept first introduced in the late 1980s by Amartya Sen, who hypothesised that more than 100 million women were missing due to excessive female mortality. This phenomenon is the result of a systematic undervaluation of female children and results from neglect and higher female-infant mortality (Sen, 1992[44]).
All LAC countries exhibit a natural sex ratio at birth. The natural sex ratio at birth is 105, meaning that it is natural that for every 100 girls born there would be 105 boys born; however, when this ratio exceeds 105, this signals a potential son preference, as there are more boys between the ages of 0 and 4 years than one would expect (WHO, n.d.[45]). Nevertheless, scientific studies show that even the natural sex ratio at birth varies across time and place, and a range of between 105 and 107 is considered natural (Hesketh and Xing, 2006[46]). For this reason, despite the fact that there are more boys between the ages of 0 and 4 years in Cuba (105.6), Bahamas (105.4) and Jamaica (105.4) than one might expect, there is no evidence to suggest that this is the result of a systematic undervaluation of female children, as the ratio does not exceed 107.
Reproductive autonomy
Reproductive autonomy is restricted by insufficient accessibility of family planning tools, as well as by legal frameworks that restrict women’s access to reproductive healthcare such as abortion. Restricted reproductive autonomy can lead to higher rates of maternal mortality and hampers women’s and girls’ control over their bodies. The necessity of “universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services” is included in SDG Target 3.7; moreover, SDG Target 5.6 recognises the importance of “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights” (United Nations, 2016[10]).
Access to family planning remains a critical issue that hampers women’s and girls’ reproductive autonomy. In the LAC region, there are an estimated 14 million unintended pregnancies each year (Guttmacher Institute, 2018[47]). These unintended pregnancies could have been prevented, but due to inadequate programmes and services, in 2017, more than 24 million women of reproductive age in the region reported that they had an unmet need for modern contraception (Guttmacher Institute, 2018[47]). In 2019, on average, 11.3% of in-union women of reproductive age (15-49 years) reported having an unmet need for family planning, similar to the global average of 12%. Yet, the regional average in this indicator hides tremendous variation at the country level, as percentages range from 6% in Peru to 38% in Haiti (Figure 4.7). Furthermore, poor women and women living in rural areas often face greater difficulties in accessing reproductive health services, as poverty and remote locations compound their already limited resources. Additional barriers include lack of knowledge about contraceptive methods and sources of supply, as well as incorrect perceptions about the health risks of modern contraceptive methods.
Note: The variable “unmet need for family planning” measures the prevalence of unmet need for family planning among married or in-union women of reproductive age (15-49 years) who want to cease or delay childbearing but are not using any method of contraception. Data are missing for Dominica.
Source: (OECD, 2019[11]), Gender, Institutions and Development Database, https://oe.cd/ds/GIDDB2019.
Progress is slow in providing women with the right to terminate a pregnancy. While El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras and Nicaragua prohibit abortion under all circumstances, only three countries – Cuba, Guyana and Uruguay – provide women with the right to voluntarily end a pregnancy within a stated gestation period. In the remaining 22 LAC countries, there are nationally sanctioned justifications that enable women to have an abortion (Table 4.1). The most commonly legally accepted justification for an abortion is a serious threat to the woman’s life, which has to be certified by a doctor, or sometimes by two doctors. Due to diverse legal frameworks, scores for the “Reproductive autonomy” indicator range from 4 in Uruguay and Cuba, to 74 in Haiti. Despite the slow rate of change, social movements in the LAC region have made headway in opening up public debate about abortion, which remains a polarising issue (Box 4.5).
Prohibition and criminalisation of abortion make it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality and poor health outcomes in the LAC region. Evidence shows that making abortion illegal does not prevent the practice, but rather pushes women to seek the procedure in ways that threaten their health and well-being (Berer, 2017[48]); (Guttmacher Institute, 2018[47]). The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the case-fatality rate for unsafe abortions in the LAC region is 30 per 100 000 (WHO, 2012[49]). Furthermore, in countries where the procedure is criminalised, many women avoid seeking post-abortion care that may save their lives (Zamberlin, Romero and Ramos, 2012[50]). Globally, it is estimated that 7 million women are admitted to hospitals due to unsafe abortions every year in developing countries; in the LAC region, this figure is estimated to be 760 000 (Guttmacher Institute, 2018[47]); (WHO, 2019[51]).
On 13 June 2018, Argentina’s Lower House voted in favour of a bill that would decriminalise abortion up to 14 weeks of gestation. This moment was the result of decades of hard work and advocacy on the part of more than 500 organisations, women’s movements, and millions of protesters. Yet, on 8 August 2019, the bill, called Interrupción Voluntaria del Embarazo (Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy), failed to pass the Senate (Global Fund for Women, 2018[52]); (Roja, 2018[53]). This result was not a failure, however, as it sparked both hope and a public conversation in Argentina about legalising abortion, which has long been stigmatised. Furthermore, the leaders of the movement planned to propose a new, refined project very soon to get the bill signed into law (Global Fund for Women, 2018[52]). This movement, although situated in the context of a battle for the legal right to abortion in Argentina, has not remained confined to that country.
Using the hashtag #AbortoLegalYa, women throughout the LAC region and around the globe have shown both their support and their own aspirations to have their reproductive autonomy protected by their governments. This emerging advocacy has been called Una Ola Verde (A Green Wave) or La Marea Verde (The Green Tide), after the green bandanas worn by the movement’s supporters (FRIDA The Young Feminist Fund, 2018[54]). On 8 August 2018, the day the Senate in Argentina voted on the bill, millions of women throughout the region and around the world demonstrated in solidarity in Berlin, La Paz, Lima, London, Miami, Mexico City, Paris and more (Women’s March Global, n.d.[55]). Furthermore, a myriad of slogans demonstrates the effect the movement has had outside of Argentina. For example, in Costa Rica and Paraguay, advocates for legal abortion organised under the slogans Si Argentina puede, Costa Rica también (If Argentina can, Costa Rica can too) and, similarly, Si Argentina puede, Paraguay también (Confederación Sindical de CCOO, 2018[56]).
Laws prohibiting abortion disproportionately affect society’s most vulnerable women. On the one hand, evidence shows that young women from working-class and poor families are the most likely to become pregnant as adolescents (Casas Isaza et al., 2014[57]). On the other hand, there are financial and logistical barriers that make terminating an unintended pregnancy a service only available for the wealthier members of society. Accessing a legal abortion for women living in countries where there are significant restrictions20 requires travelling abroad (Kulczycki, 2011[58]). In countries such as Mexico, where States decide on abortion policy, women must travel to the capital, Mexico City – where the procedure is legal until the 12th week of gestation – to terminate their pregnancies (Senderowicz, Sanhueza and Langer, 2018[59]).
Young girls (aged 9-14 years) face tremendous health risks in carrying pregnancies to term. The LAC region has one of the highest rates of adolescent pregnancy in the world, at 66.5 births per 1 000 girls aged 15-19 years, compared with the global rate of 46 births per 1 000 girls aged 15-19 years (PAHO, 2018[60]). In the absence of the right to legal abortions, these young girls must carry their pregnancies to term, facing many health risks. Maternal mortality remains one of the top causes of death among female adolescents and youth aged 15-24 years in the LAC region (PAHO, 2018[60]). Adolescents under the age of 15 years face more problems during labour and, as a result, the majority require caesarean sections. Further research shows that adolescent pregnancies more often result in complications such as infections, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, preterm labour, and more (Casas Isaza et al., 2014[57]).
Ensure that all women and men have affordable and secure access to high-quality family planning, and to sexual and reproductive health information and rights and services.
Provide age-appropriate sexual and reproductive health information and rights education in schools based on scientific evidence. Ensure that young people are aware of safe and effective methods of contraception, as well as of sexually transmitted diseases and infections and their prevention and treatment.
Adopt a human rights-based approach to sexual and reproductive health and rights. Secure women’s and girls’ sexual and reproductive health and rights so that they are not forced to seek unsafe medical procedures such as illegal abortion.
Adopt international declarations and standards acknowledging that women’s decisions about their own bodies are personal and private.
Within the “Restricted physical integrity” dimension, progress has undeniably been made since 2014, but significant barriers to protecting women’s and girl’s rights in this regard remain. Legal frameworks restricting women’s physical integrity continue to exacerbate the vulnerability of women in the LAC region. Even as violence against women has gained increased attention from policy makers, legislation remains insufficient, especially regarding sexual harassment. While most LAC countries have sexual harassment laws which cover the workplace, more needs to be done to protect women in public spaces and online. Seven countries21 do not provide legal protection from sexual harassment, and among those that do, six22 do not prescribe criminal penalties.
Legislation alone is not enough to eradicate violence against women, as gender norms lead some men and women to see various forms of this type of violence as acceptable. For example, the relatively high percentage of people in the LAC region who justify domestic violence enables the practice to continue. Moreover, practices such as child marriage, drug and alcohol abuse, and firearms ownership increase women’s risk of experiencing violence at home and in public.
Laws limiting the circumstances in which women can legally seek an abortion, and criminal penalties associated with performing this procedure, restrict women’s reproductive autonomy. In the absence of full and free rights to make decisions about their own bodies, LAC women, especially the most vulnerable and marginalised, find their health and well-being at risk. Evidence shows that even when abortion is not legal, women and girls continue to attempt the dangerous procedure, often suffering adverse health outcomes as a result. Marginalised women are especially disadvantaged, as they are often not able to access healthcare facilities. In addition to the implementation of the necessary legal reforms, access to modern contraceptives, age-appropriate sexual education, and improved healthcare infrastructure could help reduce the high rate of unintended pregnancies in the LAC region.
References
[23] Alvarenga, M. (2018), Analizan uso del brazalete electrónico para prevenir feminicidios, https://www.asamblea.gob.sv/node/7918 (accessed on 19 November 2019).
[48] Berer, M. (2017), “Abortion Law and Policy Around the World: In Search of Decriminalization”, Health and Human Rights, Vol. 19/1, pp. 13-27, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473035/.
[26] Bott, S. et al. (2014), Violence against Women in Latin America and the Caribbean: a comparative analysis of population-based data from 12 countries, PAHO & CDC.
[9] Brendel, C., S. Gürtner and D. Valera Loza (n.d.), Violence against women and its financial consequences for businesses in Peru Executive Summary, https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2014-0251en-violence-women-financial-consequences-peru.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2020).
[27] Campbell, J. et al. (2003), Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From a Multisite Case Control Study Femicide Cases.
[57] Casas Isaza, X. et al. (2014), Stolen Lives: A Multi-Country Study on the Health Effects of Forced Motherhood on Girls 9-14 Years Old, Planned Parenthood, https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/uploads/filer_public/db/6d/db6d56cb-e854-44bb-9ab7-15bb7fc147c5/ppfa-stolen-lives-english.pdf.
[6] CEPAL (2019), Informe regional sobre el examen de la Declaración y la Plataforma de Acción de Beijing en los países de América Latina y el Caribe a 25 años de su aprobación, http://www.cepal.org/apps (accessed on 30 March 2020).
[20] Comité de Segurimineto del Sistema de Seguridad Pública (2016), Informe: Despositivos de Control Telematico Brazalete Electronico, Comité de Segurimineto del Sistema de Seguridad Pública, https://www.buenosaires.gob.ar/sites/gcaba/files/informe_brazalete_electronico_0.pdf.
[56] Confederación Sindical de CCOO (2018), Por el Derecho al Aborto Legal, Seguro y Gratuito, Confederación Sindical de CCOO, Madrid, http://www.ccoo.es/d4cbfb2a8fdc262744598e4681c75308000001.pdf.
[32] ECLAC (2018), Afrodescendent women in Latin America and the Caribbean: Debts of equality, ECLAC, Santiago, https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/44387/1/S1800725_en.pdf.
[17] ECLAC (2018), At Least 2,795 Women Were Victims of Femicide in 23 Countries of Latin America and the Caribbean in 2017 | Press Release | Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, https://www.cepal.org/en/pressreleases/eclac-least-2795-women-were-victims-femicide-23-countries-latin-america-and-caribbean (accessed on 19 November 2019).
[16] ECLAC (2018), Femicide, the most extreme expression of violence against women, http://www.cepal.org/en/work-areas/gender-affairshttp://oig.cepal.org/en (accessed on 20 March 2020).
[29] Essayag, S. (2017), From Commitment to Action: Policies to End Violence Against Women in Latin America and the Caribbean. Regional Analysis Document, UNDP and UN Women , Panama, https://www.latinamerica.undp.org/content/rblac/en/home/library/womens_empowerment/del-compromiso-a-la-accion--politicas-para-erradicar-la-violenci.html.
[21] Frayssinet, F. (2019), Latin America Resets Its Strategy against Femicides | Inter Press Service, http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/04/latin-america-resets-strategy-femicides/ (accessed on 19 November 2019).
[54] FRIDA The Young Feminist Fund (2018), #AbortoLegalYa: La marea verde llega al Congreso en Argentina, https://youngfeministfund.org/2018/06/abortolegalya/#content_1 (accessed on 19 November 2019).
[52] Global Fund for Women (2018), UPDATED: Women’s Groups in Argentina Reach Historic Moment in Abortion Rights Effort - Global Fund for Women, https://www.globalfundforwomen.org/argentina-abortion-rights-historic-win/ (accessed on 19 November 2019).
[5] Gobierno de la República Dominicana (2019), Plan Nacional Igualdad y Equidad de Género (PLANEG III), https://oig.cepal.org/sites/default/files/2019_planeg_iii_dom.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2020).
[39] Gobierno de México (2019), Mesas técnicas para la revisión de los casos de los feminicidios y homicidios dolorosos de mujeres y niñas, https://www.gob.mx/inmujeres/articulos/mesas-tecnicas-para-la-revision-de-los-casos-de-feminicidios-y-homicidios-dolosos-de-mujeres-y-ninas?idiom=es (accessed on 2 June 2020).
[7] Gobierno de México (2019), Plan Emergente para Garantizar la Integridad, la Seguridad y la Vida de las Mujeres y las Niñas en México, https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/444283/plan_emergente_para_garantizar_integridad_seguridad_y_vida_de_mujeres_en_mexico.pdf (accessed on 31 March 2020).
[12] Gobierno de Panamá (n.d.), Ley 7 de 14 de Febrero de 2018, http://www.css.gob.pa/Ley%207%20-%2014%20de%20febrero%202018%20-%20Que%20adopta%20medidas%20para%20prevenir%20prohibir%20y%20sancionar%20actos%20discriminatorios%20y%20dicta%20otras%20disposiciones.pdf (accessed on 19 May 2020).
[15] Gobierno de Paraguay (2016), Ley No. 5777, https://www.bacn.gov.py/leyes-paraguayas/8356/ley-n-5777-de-proteccion-integral-a-las-mujeres-contra-toda-forma-de-violencia (accessed on 19 May 2020).
[14] Gobierno del Perú (2018), Decreto Legislativo No. 1410, https://busquedas.elperuano.pe/download/url/decreto-legislativo-que-incorpora-el-delito-de-acoso-acoso-decreto-legislativo-n-1410-1690482-3 (accessed on 19 May 2020).
[22] Gobierno Nacional República de Panamá (2013), Ley 82 Tipífica el Femicidio y la Violencia contra la Mujer, Gobierno Nacional República de Panamá, https://oig.cepal.org/sites/default/files/2013_pan_ley82.pdf.
[47] Guttmacher Institute (2018), Abortion in Latin America and the Caribbean, https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/abortion-latin-america-and-caribbean (accessed on 19 November 2019).
[38] Hanser, R. (2001), “Domestic Violence Against Women in Latin-America”, Crime & Justice International, Vol. 17/54, pp. 5-6, 26, 27, https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=189980.
[30] Heinemann, A. and D. Verner (2006), “Crime and Violence in Development: A Literature Review of Latin America and the Caribbean”, No. 4041, World Bank, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4041.
[46] Hesketh, T. and Z. Xing (2006), “Abnormal sex ratios in human populations: Causes and consequences”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 1-03/36, pp. 13271-13275, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569153/#.
[28] Instinto de Vida (2017), Latin America can reduce homicide by 50 percent in 10 years.
[35] Kidman, R. (2017), “Child marriage and intimate partner violence: A comparative study of 34 countries”, International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 46/2, pp. 662-675, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw225.
[36] Kimelblatt, M. (2017), Reducing Harmful Effects of Machismo Culture on Latina American Domestic Violence Laws: Amending the Convention of Belém do Pará to Resemble the Istanbul Convention, https://www.gwilr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ILR-Vol-49.2_Meredith-Kimelblatt.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2019).
[58] Kulczycki, A. (2011), “Abortion in Latin America: Changes in Practice, Growing Conflict, and Recent Policy Developments”, Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 42/3, pp. 199-220, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41310730.
[1] MESECVI and OAS (n.d.), Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belém do Pará) Status of signatures and ratifications, MESECVI and OAS, http://www.oas.org/en/mesecvi/docs/Signatories-Table-EN.pdf.
[25] Ministerio de la Mujer y la Equidad de Género de Chile (2018), Ministra Plá impulsa uso de brazalete electrónico para proteger a mujeres víctimas de violencia, https://www.minmujeryeg.gob.cl/prensa/noticias-prensa/noticias-destacadas-home/ministra-pla-impulsa-uso-brazalete-electronico-proteger-mujeres-victimas-violencia/ (accessed on 19 November 2019).
[42] Moloney, A. (2015), Colombia’s Embera tribe hopes to eradicate FGM by 2030, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-colombia-girls-fgm/colombias-embera-tribe-hopes-to-eradicate-fgm-by-2030-idUSKBN0LA2FX20150206#ktiOrmAtyJKLFybg.97 (accessed on 19 November 2019).
[37] Nuñez, A. et al. (2016), “Machismo, marianismo, and negative cognitive-emotional factors: Findings from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos Sociocultural Ancillary Study.”, Journal of Latina/o Psychology, Vol. 4/4, pp. 202-217, https://doi.org/10.1037/lat0000050.
[13] OAS (1994), Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women “Convention of Belem do Para”, https://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-61.html (accessed on 19 May 2020).
[11] OECD (2019), Gender, Institutions and Development Database (GID-DB) 2019, https://oe.cd/ds/GIDDB2019 (accessed on 18 May 2020).
[4] OECD (2019), Social Institutions and Gender Index 2019, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SIGI2019 (accessed on 18 May 2020).
[19] OECD (n.d.), Social Institutions and Gender Index, https://www.genderindex.org/ (accessed on 18 May 2020).
[8] OECD Development Centre (2019), Mexico Country Profile, OECD, https://www.genderindex.org/wp-content/uploads/files/datasheets/2019/MX.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2019).
[60] PAHO (2018), Latin America and the Caribbean have the second highest adolescent pregnancy rates in the world, https://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14163:latin-america-and-the-caribbean-have-the-second-highest-adolescent-pregnancy-rates-in-the-world&Itemid=1926&lang=en (accessed on 19 November 2019).
[53] Roja, C. (2018), Un grito en Latinoamérica: ¡Aborto libre y seguro para todxs!, el Desconcierto, https://www.eldesconcierto.cl/2018/09/28/un-grito-en-latinoamerica-aborto-libre-y-seguro-para-todxs/ (accessed on 19 November 2019).
[44] Sen, A. (1992), “Missing women: social inequality outweighs women’s survival advantage in Asia and north Africa”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 304/6827, pp. 587-588, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.304.6827.587.
[59] Senderowicz, L., P. Sanhueza and A. Langer (2018), “Education, Place of Residence and Utilization of Legal Abortion Services in Mexico City, 2013–2015”, International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 44/2, pp. 43-50, https://doi.org/10.1363/44e6318.
[24] Serrano, R. (2019), Unen esfuerzos para reformas de ley que permitan el uso de brazalete electrónico, https://www.asamblea.gob.sv/node/8407 (accessed on 19 November 2019).
[31] St. Bernard, G. (2002), Data collection system for domestic violence, ECLAC, https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/27504.
[33] Taylor, A. et al. (2019), “Child Marriages and Unions in Latin America: Understanding the Roles of Agency and Social Norms”, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 64/4, pp. S45-S51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.12.017.
[2] The World Bank (2018), Compendium of International and National Legal Frameworks on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, The World Bank, Washington, DC, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/828661517490252879/pdf/123108-REVISED-WP-PUBLIC.pdf.
[43] UNFPA (2017), In Colombia, efforts to end FGM are empowering women to be leaders, https://www.unfpa.org/news/colombia-efforts-end-fgm-are-empowering-women-be-leaders (accessed on 19 November 2019).
[41] UNICEF (2013), Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change, UNICEF, New York, https://www.unicef.org/cbsc/files/UNICEF_FGM_report_July_2013_Hi_res.pdf.
[34] UNICEF (n.d.), Breaking the Cycle: Understanding and addressing the intersections of violence against children and violence against women in Latin America and the Caribbean, https://www.unicef-irc.org/article/980-breaking-the-cycle-understanding-and-addressing-the-intersections-of-violence-against.html (accessed on 20 March 2020).
[10] United Nations (2016), Sustainable Development Goal 5, Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg5 (accessed on 15 November 2019).
[3] United Nations (1979), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
[18] UNODC (2013), El uso de brazaletes de monitoreo electrónico como alternativa al encarcelamiento en Panamá, UNODC, https://www.unodc.org/documents/ropan/TechnicalConsultativeOpinions2013/Opinion_2/Opinion_Consultiva_002-2013_ESPANOL.pdf.
[51] WHO (2019), Preventing unsafe abortion, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/preventing-unsafe-abortion (accessed on 11 December 2019).
[40] WHO (2018), Female genital mutilation, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation.
[49] WHO (2012), Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems, WHO, Geneva, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70914/9789241548434_eng.pdf;jsessionid=7D7261384A06937FFF02CB773EEB6FBE?sequence=1.
[45] WHO (n.d.), Sex Ratio, http://www.searo.who.int/entity/health_situation_trends/data/chi/sex-ratio/en/ (accessed on 6 September 2019).
[55] Women’s March Global (n.d.), La Lucha Continua, https://womensmarch.global/abortolegalya/english/.
[50] Zamberlin, N., M. Romero and S. Ramos (2012), “Latin American women’s experiences with medical abortion in settings where abortion is legally restricted”, Reproductive Health, Vol. 9/34, https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4755-9-34.
Notes
← 1. SIGI scores range from 0 to 100, with 0 indicating no discrimination and 100 indicating absolute discrimination.
← 2. El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras and Nicaragua.
← 3. Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Paraguay.
← 4. Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay.
← 5. Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela.
← 6. Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.
← 7. Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Costa Rica, Guyana and Uruguay.
← 8. Chile, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay and Peru.
← 9. Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay.
← 10. Argentina, Cuba and Haiti.
← 11. Chile, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Haiti, Jamaica, Peru and Venezuela.
← 12. Belize, Ecuador, El Salvador, Jamaica and Mexico.
← 13. Antigua and Barbuda’s plan was valid over the period 2013-18.
← 14. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.
← 15. We acknowledge the existence of multiple biases, underreporting and data limitations related to statistics on sexual violence.
← 16. Chile, Cuba, Haiti, Jamaica and Peru.
← 17. Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Cuba and Haiti.
← 18. Brazil (increased by 3 percentage points), Dominican Republic (increased by 3 percentage points) and Haiti (increased by 0.8 percentage points).
← 19. Data are unavailable for Venezuela.
← 20. Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.
← 21. Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago.
← 22. Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Costa Rica, Guyana and Uruguay.