1. Introduction
1. Violence against women is a
cross-border phenomenon, common to all member States of the Council of
Europe. According to a survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamental
Rights (FRA), one in three women in the European Union has experienced
physical and/or sexual violence since the age of 15, 8% of women
have experienced physical and/or sexual violence in the last 12
months before the survey interview and out of all women who have
a partner, 22% have experienced physical and/or sexual violence
by a partner since the age of 15.
In addition to being a violation
of fundamental human rights and an obstacle to achieving equality
between women and men, violence against women is a clear manifestation
of the unequal power relations between men and women.
2. Data collection is a process of gathering and measuring information
on variables of interest, and in this particular case, on all forms
of violence against women. Substantial and accurate data constitute
reliable evidence of the prevalence of violence against women. Well
analysed and presented, it is a concrete and powerful tool that
can increase both political will and resources allocated to combating
violence against women and to protecting women victims of violence
and that improves policy responses to this phenomenon.
3. In order to combat violence against women efficiently, there
is a crucial need for all stakeholders to understand the nature
and the prevalence of this phenomenon. Violence against women unfortunately
remains a silent problem for many victims. In this regard, data
collection is not just a technical issue. The existence of available
and reliable data is key to leading effective actions and efficient
advocacy – it is not an alternative or a complement to relevant
policy making but a prerequisite. However, if there has been a greater
advocacy for the development of systematic data collection on violence
against women in the past decade, there are still no global solutions
or standards applicable to it, neither at European level nor at
national level. All too often data collection by national institutions
is not co-ordinated and therefore lacks homogeneity, preventing
the adoption of targeted measures on violence against women both
at national and European levels. The Council of Europe Convention
on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic
Violence (CETS No. 210, “Istanbul Convention”) has acknowledged
these facts and contains binding provisions regarding data collection.
4. To ensure that policies implemented to combat violence against
women are based on accurate knowledge, Article 11 of the Istanbul
Convention provides that Parties shall “collect disaggregated relevant statistical
data on all forms of violence covered by this Convention” and “support
research in the field of all forms of violence covered by the scope
of this Convention in order to study its root causes and effects, incidences
and conviction rates, as well as the efficacy of measures taken
to implement this Convention”. It also obliges States “to conduct
population-based surveys at regular intervals to assess the prevalence
and trends in all forms of violence” and to ensure that the information
collected is available to the public. In addition, State Parties
are required to designate or establish one or more co-ordination
bodies (Article 10). However, the decision on how to ensure the
co-ordination, analysis and dissemination of data is left to the
Parties. The explanatory report of the Istanbul Convention underlines
the importance of regularly collecting representative and comparable
data for the devising and implementation of policies to prevent
and combat violence against women. It also recommends that “as a
minimum requirement, recorded data on victim and perpetrator should be
disaggregated by sex, age, type of violence as well as the relationship
of perpetrator to the victim, geographical location, as well as
other factors deemed relevant, such as disability”.
5. In order to have a better understanding of the issue in Europe,
systematic collection of data on violence against women must become
a reality in each and every Council of Europe member State. The
current situation is very diverse and there are different recording
systems in member States and sometimes within countries with federal
administrative structures. As a result, much existing information
cannot be compared. In this respect, the Gender Equality Commission
(GEC) of the Council of Europe noted that there is an “overall trend
toward building a foundation of police statistics on domestic violence,
but it is not yet clear whether the trend is also moving towards
comparable data across national borders”.
A
comprehensive and common approach is needed to efficiently combat
and ultimately end violence against women. This common approach has
to be undertaken both across national institutions – or any organisation,
public or private – collecting data in the field of violence against
women and across States, in order to allow comparison of the data
collected.
6. In preparation for this report, I carried out fact-finding
visits to Spain (Madrid) on 6 and 7 May 2015 and to Finland (Helsinki)
on 3 and 4 November 2015. I would like to thank the secretariats
of the Finnish and Spanish delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly
for their support in the preparation and conduct of the visits.
The interlocutors I met during my fact-finding visits all stressed
the usefulness of data on violence against women for their work.
2. The
different methods of data collection
7. Different methods of data collection
will provide different results and different types of data collection
– population-based surveys and administrative data – exist. They
are distinguished in Article 11 of the Istanbul Convention. Firstly,
administrative data is collected by health-care services, social
services, law-enforcement agencies and non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) as well as judicial data recorded by judicial authorities, including
the public prosecutors. Secondly, population-based surveys imply
the collection of data that are statistically representative of
the target population so that they can be easily generalised to
the larger population. The explanatory report notes that “while
the first can shed light on the level of severity and frequency
as well as on the socio-economic and cultural factors leading to
violence against women and domestic violence, the second can contribute
to address capacity issues of government agencies and evaluate the
effectiveness of services provided for victims of such violence”.
8. Research has shown that “the highest percentage of administrative
data sources (30%) on gender-based violence is collected and kept
by the police
”. However, administrative
data must be collected among various institutions and agencies and
it should be mandatory for each institution collecting administrative
data in member States to ensure that data is disaggregated at least
by sex and made available to other institutions. More than merely
being a tool for measurement of the prevalence of violence against
women in a given context, administrative data enables monitoring
of the demand for services, the capacity of different sectors to
respond to the needs of women and girls victims of violence and
the level of services available within a community.
9. However, there are certain challenges to administrative data
collection. One in particular has a significant impact: administrative
data only counts experiences of women who report or seek help, meaning that
only a small portion of actual victims of violence against women,
which cannot be generalised, is taken into account. In addition,
due to different terminologies, reporting formats or indicators
used by service providers, it is not easy to compare data between
national institutions or to make sure that there is no overlapping
of recorded incidents – which can happen in the case of a woman
seeking help from different institutions. National authorities should
therefore set protocols and standards for the collection of data
by the police, social and health services and institutions relating
to the justice system (such as courts, prisons or prosecution offices). These
standards should be based on national guidelines on how to properly
register the information so it can be suitable for statistical and
analytical purposes. Moreover, standardised formats for data registration
should be developed and implemented in all these institutions. Collecting
and processing data electronically should be encouraged. It is also
important to analyse data collected by assistance services and helplines.
10. In order to have a complete overview of violence against women
in a given country, population-based surveys appear to be the most
reliable form of data collection as they are less subjected to under-reporting. Moreover,
official administrative data can be inadequate in relation to some
forms of violence. This limitation is due to the definition of violence
against women, which can be restricted to only some forms of violence
or to violence occurring only in specific settings, and to the legal
framework implemented in the country. As an example, in Finland,
data collection on violence against women is carried out by the
police for offences included in the criminal code. A yearly report
on violence against women is published on the police website and
is relayed by the press. Information on female genital mutilation
and forced marriage are not yet collected since they are not qualified
as specific criminal offences. This problem does not exist with
population-based surveys: their questions can encompass forms of
violence that are not criminalised under national legislation and
target any group of population of any geographical area.
11. I noted that there are gaps in terms of territorial coverage,
populations addressed and types of violence against women. With
regard to the population targeted by the surveys, some categories
of people are harder to reach. This is particularly the case for
victims of female genital mutilations and other traditional and
cultural practices, trafficking in women and sexual exploitation
or violence against migrants and undocumented workers, refugees
or women belonging to minority groups. The question of territorial
coverage is also important as regards the assessment of the full
extent of violence against women in a country. Moreover, data collection is
faced with another difficulty, namely to encompass every type of
violence. Indeed, there are some areas that are left out of the
scope of data collection, such as abuse during pregnancy, violence
against women who were under police protection or violence against
women by the police. Therefore, I should like to insist on the need for
multiple methods of data collection, tailored to the context in
which data will be collected and to the population targeted, allowing
for cultural differences and different perceptions to be expressed,
and on the importance of consistency to allow comparability between
the outcomes of different surveys.
12. During my fact-finding visit to Finland, I received information
about the use of crime surveys when collecting data on violence
against women. The Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy of
the University of Helsinki uses three crime monitoring instruments:
the Finnish Homicide Monitor (FHM), the Finnish Crime Victims Survey
(FCVS) and the Finnish Self-Report Delinquency Survey. The Finnish
homicide monitoring system was put in place in 2002 and collects
information on homicides annually. For every homicide, the police have
to fill out an electronic form with 80 questions. The answers form
the database of the Homicide Monitor. The FCVS consists in a 12-page
questionnaire with a specific focus on crime and fear of violence,
available in five languages. It is sent by post with an option to
participate online, to a random sample of 14 000 persons aged from
15 to 74 years with permanent residence in Finland. This survey
is carried out annually and there is an average participation rate
of 50%. The Finnish self-report delinquency study is conducted at
schools every four years, with a sample of 5 000 persons in the
9th grade (15-16 years old), and a response rate of 80%. These surveys
all contain specific questions on violence against women, although
they are not dedicated to this thematic. The European Homicide Monitor,
developed on the basis of the Finnish, Swedish and Dutch national
homicide monitoring systems, has been set up with funding of the
European Commission. A similar national system is currently being
developed in Denmark, Estonia, Norway and Switzerland. Other surveys such
as quality of work life surveys can provide useful information on
harassment, inappropriate treatment, physical violence or threat
of violence in the workplace.
13. Many surveys are often limited to domestic violence or violence
from an intimate partner. This is the reason why it is very important
to carry out specific surveys, dedicated to the issue of violence
against women, which will encompass all aspects of it. Luxembourg
has recently conducted a major study in order to identify the causes
and the origins of domestic violence.
It
included the analysis of available administrative data from the
last ten years and the results of a specific population-based survey.
This survey was conducted via anonymous questionnaires – answered
by both the victims and the perpetrators – which were available
in several languages. Several risk factors associated with the occurrence
of domestic violence were identified: demographic, cultural, educational
and economic background, physical and mental health, previous exposure to
violence as well as family history. On the basis of the results,
national recommendations to reinforce prevention, protection of
the victims and support for the perpetrators will be established.
3. The
development of indicators in the process of data gathering
14. In its Recommendation Rec(2002)5
on the protection of women against violence, the Committee of Ministers
recommended that States “promote research, data collection and networking
at national and international level”. To achieve an efficient and
reliable data collection, every aspect of it must be taken into account.
Indeed, technical aspects also depend on policies adopted on violence
against women and this particularly shows with regard to the development
of indicators.
15. “Indicators summarise complex data into a form that is meaningful
for policy makers. They constitute a key link between an evidence
base and policy making. … The purpose of indicators is that they
provide a simple summary of a complex picture, abstracting and presenting
in a clear manner the most important features needed to support
decision-making.”
Indicators
are therefore a means of converting the story of a woman into data
that can be compiled, analysed and used by national authorities
to develop legislations, policies and mechanisms to help women who
have been victims of violence. Moreover, indicators are a means
of measuring progress made by monitoring the policies and legal
frameworks already implemented by national authorities.
16. For a comprehensive overview of violence against women, the
development and use of common indicators is necessary as comparability
of the data can only be achieved if the different institutions gather
the same type of information. There is currently a lack of agreed
indicators and of model data collection systems. It is necessary
to reach an agreement on key indicators that are required to address
violence against women. In this regard, the Committee of Ministers
recommended that “research, data collection and networking at national
and international level should be developed, in particular in …
the preparation of statistics sorted by gender, integrated statistics
and common indicators in order to better evaluate the scale of violence
against women”.
However,
national specificities still need to be taken into account as the
factors that might prove relevant for the assessment of the prevalence,
the causes and the consequences of violence against women can be
different from one country to another.
17. There are existing tools at the international level for the
development of indicators. Firstly, the United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime (UNODC) International Classification of Crimes for
Statistical Purposes (ICCS), adopted in 2015. The aim was for the
ICCS to be “applicable for all forms of data on crime that are collected
at different stages of the criminal justice process (police, prosecution,
conviction, imprisonment) as well as in crime victimization surveys”.
The ICCS was designed to be used, at national level, as “a model
to provide structure and organise statistical data that are often
produced according to legal instead of analytical categories” and
at international level, as a tool capable of improving “the comparability
of crime data across countries” as “standardised concepts and definitions
allow for the systematic collection, analysis, and dissemination
of data”.
Under
this classification, a certain number of crimes can be related to
violence against women, such as murder and homicide, assault, defamation,
rape, harassment or stalking. This classification could be used
for administrative data collection as well as for population-based
surveys. Secondly, the International Classification of Diseases
established by the World Health Organization (WHO), which is used
to monitor the incidence and prevalence of diseases and to classify
them, could be used for more specific purposes, in particular with
regard to administrative data collected by health services. It also
contains references that can be related to gender-based violence,
such as sexual assault (including rape), other maltreatment (mental
cruelty or physical abuse), sexual abuse and psychological abuse.
It also includes the possibility to indicate who the perpetrator
was: a spouse or partner, a parent, an acquaintance or a friend, official
authorities, unspecified person, etc. These systems of classification
could well serve as a basis for the development of common and uniform
indicators specifically designed for data collection on violence
against women, both at national and international level.
18. It is also crucial to consider the reasons why violence against
women is happening and not only its consequences. Indeed, assessing
the extent of violence against women is not enough to fully encompass
the problem. There are numerous and various roots of violence against
women and it can prove difficult to assess them with common indicators
as this must be done in a wider context relating to power, male
dominance and inequality. In this regard, indicators play a key
role. There is a need to use sociological indicators, as data can reveal,
for example, what difficult experience in childhood can increase
the risk of becoming a victim of violence later, but also to look
at how violence is perceived in different countries.
19. Co-ordination is also needed among national institutions.
With the aim of establishing comparable indicators, the Government
of Slovenia, with the participation of all ministries, is developing
a national database on indicators, meaning that the data will be
comparable among all administrations.
The
use of codified questionnaires could also offer a solution at national
level. These questionnaires could be used by all services collecting
administrative data and ensure that the same wording is always used
to refer to the same acts or situations.
20. Another issue with regard to indicators is the negative impact
of gender-neutral legislation on data collection. Indeed, in order
to identify gender-based violence, information on the sex of both
the victim and the perpetrator are needed. This information is not
systematically collected in member States, which prevents the measurement
of violence against women through administrative data in those States
where a gender-neutral legislation has been adopted. During a hearing
held in June 2015 by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination,
Ms Sylvia Walby, Professor of sociology and UNESCO Chair in Gender
Research at Lancaster University, underlined that it was crucial
to make sure that data is always disaggregated by sex. She also emphasised
the importance of always registering the relationship between the
victim and the perpetrator, in order to be able to determine whether
it was domestic violence or not and if it constituted intimate partner violence
or if the violence was perpetrated by another member of the family.
The Gender Equality Commission of the Council of Europe reported
that “most member States systematically record sex of victim and
perpetrator for all criminal offences, and 31confirm that the police
systematically record the relationship”.
I can only stress the
need to improve disaggregation of data by sex, age and the relationship
between the victim and the perpetrator in existing data but also
to systematically incorporate it in every new process of data collection.
21. The issue of multiple discrimination should also be taken
into account. As explained by Mr Viorel Riceard Badea (Romania,
EPP/CD) in his report on “Equality and non-discrimination in the
access to justice”, “a refugee woman may face racial discrimination
but also gender discrimination, on separate occasions (sequential discrimination),
at the same time but at several levels (additive discrimination)
or by the effect of the interaction of all grounds of discrimination
with each other (intersectional discrimination)”.
In this example, it would
be very important to ensure that the acts of violence directed at
this woman and registered as acts of racial discrimination are also
registered as acts of gender-based violence. States should therefore
make sure that all women victims of violence are visible, that none
of them are left out of the scope and that their needs as women are
taken into account. In this specific context, data can tell which
groups of women suffer disproportionately and become the basis for
the adoption of targeted policies. As an example, in Finland, it
is not permitted to collect data on ethnicity, sexual orientation
or disability, which can lead to a lack of specific information
with regard to the prevalence of violence against women in specific
groups. Finally, I would like to underline that population-based
surveys must include a comprehensive sampling frame that does not
exclude marginal and disadvantaged groups of women.
4. Definition
of violence against women
22. At the level of the Council
of Europe, there are two main definitions of violence against women.
The first one was contained in Committee of Ministers Recommendation
Rec(2002)5, where violence against women is defined as “any act
of gender-based violence, which results in, or is likely to result
in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women,
including threats of such acts, coercion, or arbitrary deprivation
of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life”. It includes
violence occurring in the family or domestic unit, within the general
community, violence perpetrated or condoned by the State or its
officials and the violations of human rights of women in situations
of armed conflict. The second definition is the one provided by
Article 3 of the Istanbul Convention, where violence against women
“is understood as a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination
against women and shall mean all acts of gender-based violence that
result in, or are likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychological
or economic harm or suffering to women, including threats of such
acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring
in public or in private life”. Under the Istanbul Convention, the
acts to be criminalised as amounting to violence against women are
physical violence, sexual violence including rape, forced marriage,
psychological violence, stalking, female genital mutilation, forced
abortion and forced sterilisation, sexual harassment and aiding
or abetting and attempting to commit such offences. The definition
presented in the Istanbul Convention should be used by all State
Parties and signatories.
23. At national level, States have different definitions of violence
against women or domestic violence in their legislation – and there
is no co-ordination at international level. For these reasons, there
can be no real comparison between countries. Some countries may
indeed focus on domestic violence while other countries will also
include violence that is occurring outside a sentimental relationship.
For example, a given State will consider intimate partner violence
only as an aggravating feature – which, as such, can only be prosecuted under
other crimes – while under the legislation of another State, it
is a separate offence criminalised under the scope of domestic violence.
24. In Spain, the definition of violence against women covers
all physical and psychological acts of violence (including attacks
on sexual freedom, threats, coercion or arbitrary denial of freedom)
carried out against a woman by a man who is or has been her spouse,
or who is linked to her by a similar sentimental relationship, even
without cohabitation. It therefore limits the scope of gender-based
violence to violence occurring in the context of a sentimental relationship,
past or present. The definition does not take into account forms
of violence occurring outside of this context, such as forced prostitution,
trafficking in women, forced marriage or female genital mutilation.
Such a limitation results, on one hand, in many women being left
out of the scope and, as a consequence, not being offered protection
measures or legal aid and, on the other hand, in incomplete and
inaccurate data that do not fully show the extent of violence against
women in the country. In order to further data harmonisation and
comparability, it is necessary that States implement a complete legislative
framework, which will comply with the requirements of the Istanbul
Convention and encompass all forms of violence against women.
25. Moreover, I would like to stress that indicators are developed
on the basis of the definition of violence against women which is
currently used at national level, meaning that a limited definition
will lead to limited indicators. During my fact-finding visit to
Spain, in May 2015, I met with the Sub-Director General for Social Statistics
of the National Institute of Statistics, who underlined that data
is collected only as far as the law allows. Indeed, if the definition
of gender-based violence is enlarged, so will the indicators related
to the forms of violence suffered by women. In order to make data
collection evolve, national legislation must be updated or adopted
in accordance with the Istanbul Convention, and in particular with
the definition of violence against women provided therein. The representative
of Statistics Finland whom I met during my fact-finding visit considered
that the gaps in the definition of violence against women were the
most important challenge when collecting data on violence against
women.
5. The
impact of under-reporting on data collection
26. One of the main challenges
of data collection relates to the invisibility of many victims.
According to the survey conducted by FRA, victims reported the most
serious incident of partner violence to the police in 14% of cases
and the most serious incident of non-partner violence in 13% of
cases.
This problem can be found in each and every
European country: a macro-survey led by the Spanish Government in
2011 has shown that only one fourth of women report to the police,
meaning that three quarters of women victims of violence are not comprised
in official data. In 2012, only 19.2% of victims of fatal gender-based
violence had previously reported the situation. Similarly, in France,
217 000 women declared that they had suffered physical and/or sexual violence
from their partner or ex-partner during the last year: among them,
only 15% reported it to the police.
27. FRA published alarming figures about violence against women
in Finland in its EU-wide survey: 47% of women had experienced physical
and/or sexual violence by a partner and/or a non-partner since the
age of 15 (EU average: 33%). During the fact-finding visit, Ms Pia
Holm, Chief Superintendent at the National Police Board of Finland,
stressed that only one third of the calls made to the alarm centre
112 for domestic violence led to complaints to the police. The Finnish
police was currently carrying out research to investigate the reasons for
the differences between the number of calls and the complaints made
to the police.
28. The invisibility of victims is caused by the fact that only
official data is gathered, that is to say only the data concerning
women who have reported the situation they were enduring is collected
and analysed in the reports issued by the government. Most of the
time, official data is therefore inconsistent with the reality of violence
against women in the country. I would like to underline that shortcomings
in this regard will lead to inaccurate data, which will most probably
lead to the adoption of poor policies, given that the development
of new policies on violence against women would be built upon non-reliable
evidence. In this context, population-based surveys become even
more important as they are a means of measuring the hidden violence.
29. It is of crucial importance to study the reasons behind under-reporting
in order to be able to counter their effects and encourage women
to report. One of the main deterrents is the fear of reprisals,
be it physical, psychological, financial or even legal. According
to the FRA survey on violence against women,
for
about one quarter of the victims, feeling ashamed or embarrassed
about the events was the reason for not reporting. As mentioned
by the representatives of NGOs I have met in Madrid, shame and guilt
are also an important deterrent and women always need psychological
support before considering filing a report. I would also like to underline
that women who are victims of domestic violence have to report on
someone with whom they had or currently have an intimate relationship.
For this reason, they may try to deal with the situation privately
before reporting to the police or turning to a civil organisation
for help, hoping that they will be able to change it. In addition,
one should not forget that women might fear the economic consequences
on the family that reporting may have. Indeed, women are often afraid
that they will not be able to financially support their children,
or themselves, if they leave their abusive partner. In this respect,
economic violence is a form of violence against women, but also
appears as a side effect of other forms of violence and a deterrent
for reporting.
30. Irregular migrant women will quite often refrain from reporting
violence for fear of being returned. In this regard, I would like
to stress that the enjoyment of certain basic rights is not conditional
upon legal status. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance
(ECRI) has unequivocally recommended that irregular migrants who
co-operate in judicial proceedings should not be expelled. Generally
speaking, women must trust the system and its representatives and
have confidence in their ability to listen to them with all the
attention they need before considering filing a report. During my
fact-finding visit to Spain, the NGOs representatives I met underlined
that the lack of trust in the authorities was preventing women from
reporting. They recalled that many victims were coming to them and
not to the police as they felt they would not be sufficiently believed, listened
to or protected. This problem is also faced by women with intellectual
disabilities, as they are often “regarded as being less credible
or able to make a statement”.
31. Solutions are available to tackle this issue. The most important
factor is to implement a mechanism to avoid double victimisation.
After discussing this issue with the Spanish Chief of the Monitoring
and Control of Family Violence of the National Police, I was informed
that one of the objectives to be achieved by the police was to ensure
the presence of a specialist of gender-based violence in every police
station, with the aim of avoiding secondary victimisation and encouraging
reporting. Preventing secondary victimisation is currently a major
focus of the police, in particular concerning vulnerable groups
such as migrants, elderly people or people with disabilities. In
this regard, it was recalled that there was a special training on
gender-based violence for all professionals dealing with this issue
and that the final aim was to unify all specialists working on violence against
women so that the victim would not have to tell her story more than
once.
32. Awareness-raising is also crucial. States should make sure
that women are aware of the resources that are available to them.
In order to better combat the effects of economic violence, States
should also ensure that victims of domestic violence have access
to free legal aid. Austria has managed to successfully counter these
obstacles by adopting a specific law in 2009 – the Second Act for
Protection against Violence – that ensures psychosocial and legal
assistance in courts for victims of violence during criminal and
civil proceedings. Assistance is provided by victim protection organisations,
intervention centres and violence prevention centres. Psychosocial
assistance includes accompanying the victim to the police when making
a report, informing them about and preparing them for criminal proceedings,
accompanying them to questioning at court and to the trial. Legal
court assistance consists in legal representation in criminal proceedings
by a lawyer for the protection of the rights of the victim. It should
be noted that, during criminal proceedings, legal assistance is
free of charge.
6. The
issue of data protection
33. Considering the significance
of the collection of data on violence against women, respect for
the principles of data protection such as investing in accurate
data and ensuring robust anonymity of the data processed is of fundamental
importance. Data protection is a necessary guarantee for victims’
safety. As already mentioned with respect to under-reporting, fear
of retaliation is very present. Indeed, knowing that their testimony
– translated into data through the use of indicators – will be protected
and anonymous can clearly be an incentive for women willing to speak
out but afraid to do so. This applies to both administrative data
and population-based surveys. In this regard, data collection on
violence against women must take place within the legal framework
set up for general data collection and particularly – because of
the sensitivity of this type of data – for data security and confidentiality.
34. Article 65 of the Istanbul Convention provides that “personal
data shall be stored and used pursuant to the obligations undertaken
by the Parties under the Convention for the Protection of Individuals
with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108)”
(hereinafter “Convention No. 108”).
35. Article 5 of Convention No. 108 requires that personal data
undergoing processing be “adequate” (littera c)
and “accurate” (littera d).
Adequate data means that the data collected and processed should
be sufficient and relevant in relation to the purpose of the processing:
it is about evaluating what is really needed to achieve this purpose.
The accuracy of the data collected is a crucial question for the
efficiency of any statistical data processing. As far as statistical
indicators are a representation of a collective phenomenon from a
bulk data collection of individual cases, data collected must be
precise in order to ensure the reliability of the indicators. This
data quality requirement therefore contributes to the effectiveness
of public policies based on statistical analysis.
36. In particular, and with regard to the security of data after
its storage, Article 7 of this convention provides that “appropriate
security measures shall be taken for the protection of personal
data stored in automated data files against accidental or unauthorised
destruction or accidental loss as well as against unauthorised access, alteration
or dissemination”. Another safeguard is provided by Article 6 which
sets out the principle that “personal data concerning health or
sexual life may not be processed automatically unless domestic law provides
appropriate safeguards”.
37. In that context, the question of anonymity is another important
aspect to address. Article 4.8 of the appendix to Committee of Ministers
Recommendation No. R (97)18 on the protection of personal data collected and
processed for statistical purposes requests that sensitive data
(for instance data concerning health or sexual life) processed for
statistical purposes be collected “in a form in which the data subjects
are not identifiable”. Article 2 of Convention No. 108 defines personal
data as “any information relating to an identified or identifiable
individual” and data will be considered anonymous only as long as
it is impossible to re-identify the person or where re-identification
would require unreasonable efforts and means. Where a person is
not identifiable, data is said to be anonymous and is not subject
to the data protection requirements.
38. Data anonymisation, which is the technical process by which
elements of data are stripped out in order to de-identify the person,
is thus of particular importance in the context of systematic collection
of data on violence against women. The risks of re-identification
should be carefully considered as in the age of open data, with
greater access to a huge variety of data repositories, such risks
have increased significantly. As previously underlined, only “adequate”
data should be processed and article 4.7 of Recommendation No. (97)
18 underlines that “identification data shall only be collected
and processed if this is necessary”.
39. I would also like to underline that the European Union has
set up a strong framework with regard to data protection, starting
with Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which provides
that “[e]veryone has the right to the protection of personal data
concerning him or her. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes
and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some
other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the rights
of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her,
and the right to have it rectified”. In this context, there are
official regulations in place concerning statistics and data collection,
and especially Regulation (EC) No. 223/2009 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on European Statistics – known
as the “Statistical law” – which is the primary framework providing
the rules and principles on the functioning of the European Statistical
System with the aim of ensuring the coherence and comparability
of European statistics. It also contains provisions on the protection
of, the transmission of and the access to confidential data. These
provisions are supplemented by legislative acts
on the processing, use and
movement of personal data. In order to protect the rights and freedoms
of individuals, the principles of confidentiality and privacy of
the data collected – both during data collection and in the processing
and storage of data – are set out in Principle 5 of the European
Statistics Code of Practice,
which provides
that “the privacy of data providers (households, enterprises, administrations
and other respondents), the confidentiality of the information they
provide and its use only for statistical purposes are absolutely
guaranteed”. Moreover, the Code of Practice provides that data privacy
must be guaranteed by law and that penalties should be prescribed
for any wilful breaches of statistical confidentiality. Finally,
staff shall be provided with guidelines and instructions on the
protection of data confidentiality, be it in the collection phase or
in the dissemination phase.
7. The
participation of civil society in the process of data collection
40. Data collected by NGOs gives
visibility to violence against women – in particular regarding forms
of violence against women not covered by national laws – which the
government does not give through its official data. This can particularly
be seen when one compares official data and civil society data,
as civil society figures sometimes count twice as many victims of
gender-based violence than the official figures do. It is therefore
essential to consider the issues of both co-operation and co-ordination
of the national government with NGOs. I can only stress the importance
of creating synergies between the work undertaken by the national authorities
and the work of the NGOs which are in direct contact with the women
victims of violence. In general, NGOs should be included in the
process of development and implementation of data collection and collaboration
should be strengthened, also with regard to the development of policies.
41. During my fact-finding visit to Spain, the Government Delegate
on Gender-Based Violence underlined that important work was being
done to create synergies with civil society. Many NGOs and women’s associations
are members of the State Observatory on Gender-Based Violence and
participate in meetings aiming to develop new strategies and policies
to combat violence against women. Moreover, the annual report of
the State Observatory on Gender-Based Violence is sent to these
NGOs, which have the possibility to make proposals with regard to
the information contained in this report. However, all the representatives
of the NGOs I met in Madrid expressed their regret that the institution
in charge of the National Strategy for the Eradication of Violence
against Women did not use the data they sent each year or give them
any feedback. They expressed their wish to see all these data compiled
and analysed.
42. In my opinion, data, both from official institutions (gathered
by the police, health services, courts, etc.) and from NGOs, should
be gathered at national level by an institution responsible for
data collection and/or analysis of the data collected. As indicated
above, under the Istanbul Convention (Article 10), States Parties are
required to designate or establish one or more official bodies responsible
for the co-ordination, implementation, monitoring and evaluation
of policies and measures to prevent and combat all the forms of violence
covered by the convention. These bodies shall co-ordinate the collection
of data and analyse and disseminate its results. This would allow
the government to centralise, on one hand, the official administrative data
gathered by national institutions, and, on the other, the unofficial
data gathered by the NGOs and women’s organisations. Having the
possibility to analyse and compare data obtained from both of these
sources would have the potential to give a better overview of the
situation within a specific country. In Finland, a co-ordination body
overseeing the implementation of the Istanbul Convention and the
collection of data on violence against women is to be set up under
the Ministry for Social and Health Affairs by April 2016. There
is also not yet a harmonised system of data collection for shelters,
which are funded by the State and managed by different NGOs. The
national co-ordination body which will be set up will also collect
data gathered by the shelters via harmonised questionnaires. In
addition, the setting up of a national helpline for victims of gender-based violence
is foreseen. Once in place, information about the number of calls
and the situation of the persons seeking help will help to get a
better understanding of the scale of violence against women in the
country.
43. Co-ordination among NGOs should also be encouraged by member
States. Indeed, the data collected by different NGOs is not always
comparable as they do not use the same indicators when gathering
information for their own use. However, along with population-based
surveys, these unofficial data are a means of unveiling the hidden
violence. Indeed, many women will not report to the police but will
seek help and support from NGOs. During my fact-finding visit to
Madrid, all representatives from NGOs expressed the need for better
co-ordination among them as regards data collection and underlined
that a common method of data collection would make it more efficient.
It seems only logical to me that such a common method of data collection
should be based on the method used by the government: administrative
data from State institutions and data from the NGOs should use common
indicators in order to make it possible to make comparisons between
these two sources. Although it is not necessarily up to the State
to develop such a common method for the use of the NGOs, national
authorities could participate in the development of guidelines for
data collection by civil society.
8. Conclusions
44. A global approach, at European
level, is needed to effectively combat and eventually end violence against
women. This is a common problem that has no boundaries and needs
a common solution.
45. It should not be forgotten that, without appropriate data,
there can be no adequate response to violence against women. Efficient
policies to combat violence against women cannot be prepared nor
implemented without comparable, harmonised and homogenised data.
46. It is therefore of primary concern that States ensure the
systematic collection of administrative data and gather information
via population-based surveys. They should also agree on the definitions
and terminology to be employed in relation to violence against women
and adopt definitions covering all the forms of violence included
in the Istanbul Convention.
47. Comprehensive and systematic data collection on violence against
women, with a combination of official reports and population-based
surveys, can provide an overview of the prevalence of this phenomenon. Adequate
resources should therefore be allocated by member States to this
end.
48. The protection of victims should be at the centre of every
action to combat violence against women. Following the political
commitment of the ratification of the Istanbul Convention, member
States of the Council of Europe should step up efforts to reach
out to the whole population and try to provide assistance to all
victims of violence, including invisible victims, who do not trust
the authorities and do not report violence.
49. Putting an end to violence against women requires a mobilisation
of political will and administrative and financial resources in
the long term. I am convinced that a lasting commitment with concrete
actions can contribute to making a difference. Investing in the
co-ordination of actions and the systematic collection of data on
violence against women will constitute a step in the right direction.