AIDS LEGAL NETWORK
SUBMISSION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
ON THE CRIMINAL LAW (SEXUAL OFFENCES AND RELATED MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILL (2006)
Introduction
Thank
you for giving us the opportunity to make a submission on the Criminal Law
Sexual Offences and Related Matters Amendment Bill.
The AIDS Legal Network (ALN) is a human rights organisation committed to the
promotion, protection and realisation of fundamental rights and freedoms of
people living with, and affected by, HIV and AIDS; through capacity building,
education and training, research, networking, lobbying and advocacy activities.
We focus primarily on the promotion and advancement of the principles of
equality, non-discrimination, human dignity and the equal enjoyment of all
rights and freedoms. A main goal of the ALN is to address discriminatory
practices and attitudes, to promote behavioural change and to facilitate a
holistic human rights-based response to HIV and AIDS.
We will begin by stating that in principle we commend the amendments to the
sexual offences legislation as it attempts to provide a comprehensive legal
framework within which sexual offences in all its various forms can be dealt
with. Furthermore, we would like to commend the Bill for attempting to afford
complainants of sexual offences the maximum and least traumatizing protection
that the law can provide, as well as to protect complainants and their families
from secondary victimisation and traumatisation through the development of an
effective, responsive and sensitive criminal justice system; and to recognise
the needs of 'victims' of sexual offences through timeous, effective and
non-discriminatory investigation and prosecution. (Section 2)
While we in principle support the Bill, we are, however, concerned about
particular provisions in the Bill, especially with regard to services for
victims of sexual offences and compulsory testing of sexual offenders (Chapter
5), as well as pertaining to the admissibility of character and previous sexual
history as evidence (Amendment to Section 227 of the Criminal Procedures Act,
No 51 of 1977). Thus, this submission focuses primarily on the issue of
compulsory HIV testing and the admissibility of prior sexual history as
evidence.
We take cognisance of the continuous increase of sexual offences in all its forms,
and we are especially concerned by the fact that a disturbingly high percentage
of sexual offences are committed against children 1. We recognise that current
legislation fails to provide adequate protection for victims and survivors of
sexual offences. We strongly believe these legislative shortcomings not only
impede the prosecution of perpetrators, but also subject victims/survivors of
sexual offences to further victimisation by the criminal justice system and
thus, potentially discourage other victims of sexual violence and abuse from
laying a charge and seeking justice.
Services for victims of sexual offences and compulsory DIV testing of sexual
offenders
Provision of treatment
Recognising the importance of access to medical services, we, in principle,
commend the Bill for providing services to victims of sexual offences.
However, acknowledging especially the importance of comprehensive medical
treatment and care, including psychological support, it is of great concern
that the Bill does not mention the provision of any psychological support to
the victim of sexual violence. Especially, since the provision of, and access
to, psychological support is of utmost importance in assisting the
victims/survivors of sexual violence to cope with the experience and to regain
some sense of control over their lives. In addition, experiences have shown
that victims/survivors of sexual offences who receive psychological support are
less likely to withdraw the case, and are better equipped to deal with the strains
of the court proceedings. It is, therefore, not only crucial for the well being
of the victim/survivor, but also for the successful prosecution of sexual
offences cases that psychological support is provided. In addition, it is
argued that psychological support needs to be made available free of charge to
the victim/survivor, especially considering high levels of unemployment and
poverty combined with high costs for psychological treatment and support.
Particularly in the context of the link between sexual violence and HIV, it is
of utmost importance that the victim of sexual violence has access to
post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), including HIV pre- and post-test counseling.
It has to be commended that the Bill provides for access to PEP free of charge.
However, the Bill limits the access to PEP, since the victim of a sexual
offence is only eligible for PEP if the victim '(a) lays a charge with the
South African Police Service in respect of an alleged sexual offence; or (b)
reports an incident in respect of an alleged sexual offence in the prescribed
manner at a designated health establishment' (Section 31(2)).
This seems to indicate that the criminal justice requirements of a case are
given priority over the need for the victim of a sexual offence to immediately
access PEP. The potential impact of this limitation is that many
victims/survivors who fail to report and/or are not 'ready to report' will have
no access to the treatment and thus, may have to face the compound trauma of HI
V, which could have been largely avoided with immediate treatment.
The access to PEP seems further limited in that the Bill only provides for the
provision of PEP in designated health establishments. Recognising the need for
immediate access to PEP, it is of utmost importance that this treatment is
available and accessible in all healthcare facilities, especially considering
the distances victims/survivors of sexual offences have to travel before
reaching a healthcare facility, let alone a designated healthcare facility.
Furthermore, we note with great concern that the Bill limits the provision of
medical treatment to PEP. Thus, the Bill seems to disregard the need for
comprehensive medical treatment for victims of sexual offences, including the
treatment for possible transmission of other sexually transmitted infections,
the prevention of possible pregnancy and the treatment of injuries to any part
of the body resulting from the assault.
Recommendations
We strongly recommend that the Bill provide for comprehensive medical care
and psychological support for victims/survivors of sexual offences as
recommended by the South African Law Reform Commission.
We further recommend that immediate access to PEP, including HIV pre-and
post-test counseling be provided to victims/survivors of sexual offences in all
healthcare facilities, irrespective of whether or not the offence has been
reported.
Compulsory HIV testing
The provision of compulsory HIV testing of sexual offenders, as included in
the Bill, is of great concern, since we strongly believe that any form of
compulsory testing violates a person's fundamental human rights. Compulsory
testing violates one's right to bodily autonomy and to make informed decisions
about medical procedures (Constitution, Section 12(2)), as well the right to
privacy (Constitution, Section 14).
Notwithstanding that the Bill, in an attempt to minimise the violation of
rights, provides clauses dealing with prima facie evidence required for the
application of compulsory HIV testing (Section 34(3), the use of the HIV test
result (Section 37), as well as with issues relating to the confidentiality of
the outcome of the application (Section 39) and the result of the HIV test
(Section 40), the fact remains that compulsory HIV testing is a human rights
violation.
Furthermore, it is important to note, that the decision by the victim/survivor
of sexual violence whether or not to access and/or to adhere to the treatment
of PEP is, and has to be made, independent of the HIV test result of the
accused. Especially considering limitations in the accuracy of HIV test
results, including the fact of the window period, it is of utmost importance
that the victim/survivor's decision whether or not to access PEP, as well as to
adhere to the treatment of PEP, is not influenced by the HIV test result of the
accused. It is argued that a negative HIV test result of the accused may lead
to a false sense of security and the subsequent interruption of the treatment
and thus, potentially places the health of the victim/survivor at risk.
In addition, there are a number of concerns to be raised with regards to the
provisions of compulsory HIV testing of the accused, including:
We, therefore, strongly recommend the provisions of compulsory HIV
testing to be removed from the Bill.
Evidence of character and previous sexual history
The Bill’s attempt to protect the complainant in a sexual offences case from
further victimisation through limiting the admissibility of evidence relating
to the complainant’s previous sexual history is commendable.
However, it is argued that the very fact of the possibility of the
victim/survivor's prior sexual history being admissible as evidence suggests
that there are circumstances within which rape, as one of the sexual offences,
would be 'less of a crime', due to the complainant's prior sexual history
before the rape has any bearing on the occurrence of the rape. We strongly
believe that such an implication is not only unacceptable, but also minimises
the seriousness of rape as a criminal offence, suggesting that the right to be
free from all forms of violence (Constitution, Section 12) might be limitable
for the victim/survivor of such violence in light of her or his prior sexual
behaviour.
Limiting the criteria for the admissibility of such evidence, as provided for
in the proposed Amendment to Section 227 of the Criminal Procedures Act, gives
recognition to the fact that prior sexual history allowed as evidence in sexual
offences cases is often used to establish the complainant's promiscuity.
However, it also has to be recognised that this evidence often leads to the
misconception and feeds into prevailing beliefs that the victim/survivor 'asked
for it' and/or ‘deserved it’, due to prior sexual behaviour.
Furthermore, it is argued that any discretion given to the court in deciding
whether or not evidence relating to the complainant’s prior sexual history is relevant
open’s the possibility of prejudice and further victimisation of the
complainant, as well as minimizing the gravity of the offence. Allowing such
evidence, by virtue of the kind of evidence it is, is not only prejudicial to
the complainant, but also discriminatory towards women, considering that most
complainants in sexual offences are female. In addition, it can be argued, that
the admissibility of the complainant’s prior sexual history is in violation of
the constitutionally guaranteed right to dignity (Section 10), the right to
privacy (Section 14) and the right to be tree from all forms of violence
(Section 12).
Recommendations
We therefore strongly recommend that the prior sexual history of the
complainant be inadmissible under all circumstances, since we are convinced
that such evidence cannot be relevant in sexual offences cases. Instead, such
evidence is prejudicial to the complainant.
Conclusion
We would like, once again, to welcome the release of the 2006 Sexual
Offences Bill and commend the proposed amendments to current sexual offences
legislation in an attempt to provide a comprehensive legal framework pertaining
to sexual offences.
Furthermore, it is our sincere hope that the recommendations made will prove
useful and that they be carried forward and given due consideration.
We hope that the forthcoming changes to current sexual offences legislation
will indeed provide complainants of sexual offences with 'the maximum and least
traumatising protection that the law can provide’.
Thank you for your time.
Dr Johanna Kehler: National Executive Director
19 June 2006
This submission is endorsed by: Rape Crisis Cape Town Trust
PMG note:[ Footnotes not included]