The Dutch approach to female genital mutilation in view of the ECHR<br> The time for change has come
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.114Keywords:
female genital mutilation, criminal law, positive obligation, statutory reportAbstract
Worldwide female genital mutilation (FGM) is acknowledged as a serious violation of human rights which needs to be actively combated. However, in Europe France has been the only state to have prosecuted cases of FGM: until 2007 37 cases were tried. As for the Netherlands, (assumingly) FGM is practised on a relatively small, but regular basis. Nevertheless, no cases have been prosecuted; moreover, there have few reports of (alleged) FGM to the Centre for Advising and Reporting on Child Abuse. For the past decade the Dutch Parliament has urged the Dutch government to develop a more robust policy towards FGM, including intervention by the criminal justice system. However, to date the Dutch government has opted for a policy focusing on prevention and medical/social assistance, including a preference for a (non-)statutory reporting code. Recommendations to introduce mandatory reporting, in order to enable the transfer of information needed to enable the criminal justice authorities to intervene, have been turned down. In doing so the Dutch government is neglecting the positive obligations embedded within the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), prescribing that states should offer adequate and effective protection against serious forms of ill-treatment (article 3 ECHR) and/or serious violations of physical integrity (article 8 ECHR), especially to vulnerable persons. Moreover, according to the ECtHR in cases of serious violations, intervention by the criminal justice system is indicated. Thus, retaining a policy which provides no guarantees for the transfer of information needed to provide for effective and adequate protection results in a potential violation of the ECHR by the Dutch government. There is an urgent need for a change of policy. Moreover, as a result of the consistent political pressure by Parliament, the Dutch government has taken a recent interest in the way in which the French handle FGM. However, as legal and cultural conditions differ, copying the French policy is not an option. Nevertheless, there is one step that the Dutch should take: the introduction of mandatory reporting of FGM.Downloads
Published
2010-01-19
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Copyright (c) 2010 The Author(s)
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant Utrecht Law Review right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Utrecht Law Review.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in Utrecht Law Review.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Once accepted for publication, the final version of the paper must be provided. A completed and signed copyright form, which will be sent by the Managing Editor, must accompany each paper. By signing the form the author states to accept the copyright notice of Utrecht Law Review. The copyright notice for authors is also included in the copyright acceptance form.