Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Female Genital Mutilation as a Criminal Offence According to the Istanbul Convention

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Gender Competent Public Law and Policies

Part of the book series: Gender Perspectives in Law ((GPL,volume 2))

Abstract

The paper examines the provisions on female genital mutilation (FGM) from the Istanbul Convention. They stipulate that the State Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that certain intentional conducts are criminalized. These conducts are mutilation (expressed in various acts) of the genitals of women and girls, as well as coercion, procurement, and incitement to undergo any of these acts. The aim of the paper is to answer the following questions: What doctrinal aspects do the Articles 38, 41, 42, and 44–46 of the Convention entail, and to what extent are they specified? What about the controversial issue of consent? Are there particularities regarding the spatial and temporal dimensions of the crime? The answers to these questions reflect the nature of FGM as a highly gendered crime.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Lepcha and Paul (2021), p. 291.

  2. 2.

    For more on that see Acale et al. (2022).

  3. 3.

    Filho et al. (2021), p. 270.

  4. 4.

    Göttsche (2020), p. 1.

  5. 5.

    125,000 subjected and 44,106 at risk in 2019. For an overview and interactive map see: End FGM European Network, https://www.endfgm.eu/female-genital-mutilation/fgm-in-europe/.

  6. 6.

    137,000 subjected and 67,300 at risk in 2015. End FGM European Network.

  7. 7.

    87,600 subjected and 4900 at risk in 2019. End FGM European Network

  8. 8.

    For example, in Germany the number of genitally mutilated girls/women rose from 35,715 in February 2015 to 64,812 in December 2017. Awo et al. (2018), p. 7. The most current available data from Germany are from 2020: around 74,899 women and girls were subjected to FGM. Terre des Femmes (2020), https://www.frauenrechte.de/images/downloads/fgm/TDF_Dunkelzifferstatistik-2020-mit-Bundeslaender.pdf. From 2015 to 2017, the number of girls/women at risk rose there from 5956 to 15,540. Awo et al. (2018), p. 7. In 2020, the number was 20,182. Terre des Femmes (2020).

  9. 9.

    41,000 subjected and 4200 at risk in 2019. End FGM European Network, https://www.endfgm.eu/female-genital-mutilation/fgm-in-europe/.

  10. 10.

    15,907 subjected and 3652 at risk in 2020. End FGM European Network.

  11. 11.

    Sotiriadis (2014), p. 321.

  12. 12.

    WHO, Female genital mutilation, https://www.who.int/health-topics/female-genital-mutilation#tab=tab_1.

  13. 13.

    For example: UNICEF, Female genital mutilation, https://www.unicef.org/protection/female-genital-mutilation.

  14. 14.

    Braun and Böse (2020), p. 567; Diouf and Nour (2020), pp. 194–199; Awo et al. (2018), p. 8; Reisel and Creighton (2015), p. 49; Strunz and von Fritschen (2020), pp. 37–39.

  15. 15.

    Lovel (2017), p. 17.

  16. 16.

    Diouf and Nour (2020), p. 194.

  17. 17.

    Ofor and Ofole (2015), p. 112.

  18. 18.

    Strunz and von Fritschen (2020), p. 37.

  19. 19.

    Ofor and Ofole (2015), pp. 112, 113.

  20. 20.

    European Network End FGM, https://www.endfgm.eu/female-genital-mutilation/what-is-fgm/; Klein et al. (2018), p. 2.

  21. 21.

    Strunz and von Fritschen (2020), p. 39.

  22. 22.

    Ofor and Ofole (2015), p. 113.

  23. 23.

    Article 5 (1) of the Convention.

  24. 24.

    Article 5 (2) of the Convention.

  25. 25.

    Article 1 (1) (a) of the Convention.

  26. 26.

    Article 1 (1) (b) of the Convention.

  27. 27.

    Beside female genital mutilation (Article 38), those conducts are: psychological violence (Article 33), stalking (Article 34), physical violence (Article 35), sexual violence, including rape (Article 36), forced marriage (Article 37), forced abortion and forced sterilization (Article 39) and sexual harassment (Article 40).

  28. 28.

    Council of Europe Explanatory Report. 2011, 34.

  29. 29.

    Council of Europe Explanatory Report. 2011, 34.

  30. 30.

    Council of Europe Explanatory Report. 2011, 34; WHO, Sixty-first World Health Assembly WHA 61.16, “Female genital mutilation”, 24 May 2008, 22.

  31. 31.

    See Sect. 3.

  32. 32.

    Marković (2012), pp. 306–324; Marković (2011), pp. 282–296.

  33. 33.

    WHO 2010, 2. As a guiding principle, the WHO highlights that “medicalization of FGM is never acceptable because this violates medical ethics since (i) FGM is a harmful practice; (ii) medicalization perpetuates FGM; and (iii) the risks of the procedure outweigh any perceived benefit”. WHO (2016, ix).

  34. 34.

    Kimani and Shell-Duncan (2018), p. 29.

  35. 35.

    Serour mentions the example of Egypt, where after reported deaths of girls who were cut in hospitals, the ban on FGM in public hospitals was renewed. Serour (2013), p. 147.

  36. 36.

    Council of Europe. Explanatory Report 2011, para. 198.

  37. 37.

    As Kimani and Shell-Duncan point out, a statistical overview of data from 25 countries showed no association between medicalized FGM among daughters and rates of decline in prevalence. Even more, in the two countries with the highest rates of medicalized FGM (Egypt and Sudan), the rates of FGM remain constantly high. Kimani and Shell-Duncan (2018), p. 29.

  38. 38.

    Article 38 (b) of the Convention.

  39. 39.

    Article 38 (c) of the Convention.

  40. 40.

    Article 46 (a) of the Convention.

  41. 41.

    Article 46 (e) of the Convention.

  42. 42.

    Article 46 (d) of the Convention.

  43. 43.

    Article 46 (i) of the Convention.

  44. 44.

    Article 42 (1) of the Convention.

  45. 45.

    See also Sect. 5.

  46. 46.

    Parents jailed over the female genital mutilation of daughter. 27 January 2020. The Irish Times. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/parents-jailed-over-female-genital-mutilation-of-daughter-1.4152765. Riordan, Alison. Father convicted of female genital mutilation of daughter, aged 1, to appeal conviction and sentence. 26 May 2020. Irish Examiner. https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-31001777.html.

  47. 47.

    FGM: Mother guilty of genital mutilation of daughter. 1 February 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-47094707.

  48. 48.

    Article 45 (1) of the Convention.

  49. 49.

    Explanatory Report, para. 232.

  50. 50.

    Explanatory Report, para. 232.

  51. 51.

    Lien (2017), pp. 201, 202.

  52. 52.

    See Sect. 4 of this paper.

  53. 53.

    Article 45, para. 1 of the Convention.

  54. 54.

    Explanatory Report, para. 232.

  55. 55.

    Johnsdotter and Mestre i Mestre (2015), p. 19.

  56. 56.

    UNFPA (2018), p. 63.

  57. 57.

    See Sect. 5 of this paper.

  58. 58.

    Serour (2013), p. 147.

  59. 59.

    Article 45, para. 2 of the Convention.

  60. 60.

    Amora, Natacha. Female Genital Mutilation in Portugal: collateral effects of its criminalisation. https://www.theiwi.org/gpr-reports/female-genital-mutilation-in-portugal.

  61. 61.

    In one case from Denmark, a girl of the age of 4 years from Eritrea underwent FGM in Sudan. Both parents were brought before court. The mother was sentenced to 2 years of prison, only 6 months unconditional. The father was acquitted presumably because FGM has been performed without his knowledge. Decision of the Frederiksberg Court, 23rd of January 2009. Johnsdotter and Mestre i Mestre (2015), p. 19.

  62. 62.

    Article 44, para. 1 (a) (b) (c) of the Convention.

  63. 63.

    If the offence is committed by or against one of their nationals or by or against a person who has her or his habitual residence in their territory. Article 44, paras. 1 and 2 of the Convention.

  64. 64.

    Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo (2015), STS 2750 from May 26, 2015.

  65. 65.

    Hermida del Llano (2017), p. 59.

  66. 66.

    Article 3 (d) of the Convention.

  67. 67.

    Council of Europe Explanatory Report (2011), para. 153.

  68. 68.

    Council of Europe Explanatory Report (2011), para. 153.

  69. 69.

    Council of Europe Explanatory Report (2011), para. 198.

  70. 70.

    Article 60 of the Convention.

  71. 71.

    Council of Europe Explanatory Report (2011), para. 313.

  72. 72.

    For more details on the particular requirements in general see Marković (2012), pp. 312–315.

  73. 73.

    Council of Europe. Explanatory Report (2011), para. 156.

  74. 74.

    Small et al. (2020), p. 469.

  75. 75.

    World Health Organization. 1997. https://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions#who_performs.

  76. 76.

    World Health Organization, Sixty-first World Health Assembly WHA 61.16, Female genital mutilation, 24 May 2008, https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA61-REC1/A61_REC1-en.pdf, 22.

  77. 77.

    Council of Europe. Explanatory Report (2011), para. 156.

  78. 78.

    The German Criminal Code has made the decision easier by introducing the legal standard of “good morals” (Gute Sitten) in Article 228 that counteracts an otherwise valid consent.

  79. 79.

    Marković (2012), p. 315.

  80. 80.

    Serour (2013), p. 147.

  81. 81.

    Johnsdotter and Mestre i Mestre (2015), p. 18.

  82. 82.

    Kimani and Shell-Duncan (2018), p. 30.

  83. 83.

    Braun and Böse (2020), p. 571.

  84. 84.

    Decision of the Mölndal District Penal Court, 2 Oct 2006. Johnsdotter and Mestre i Mestre (2015), p. 19.

  85. 85.

    Human Rights. Erste Anwendung der Strafnorm gegen Genitalverstümmelung. https://www.humanrights.ch/de/ipf/menschenrechte/folterverbot/genitalverstuemmelung-uebersicht-vernehmlassung.

  86. 86.

    Acale et al. (2022).

  87. 87.

    Serour (2013), p. 147.

  88. 88.

    Carranco. Gambian parents each given 12 years jail in genital mutilation case. 26 May 2013. El País. https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2013/05/26/inenglish/1369577191_732099.html.

  89. 89.

    Article 44 of the Convention.

  90. 90.

    Acale et al. (2022).

  91. 91.

    In the German Criminal Code (Article 5 [9], lit. a, b), for example, female genital mutilation from Article 226a counts as an offence for which, if committed abroad with specific domestic connection, German criminal law applies, regardless of the applicable law at the place where the offence was committed.

  92. 92.

    Article 38 of the Convention.

  93. 93.

    Articles 38 and 41 of the Convention.

  94. 94.

    Article 46 of the Convention.

  95. 95.

    Article 42 of the Convention.

  96. 96.

    Article 45 of the Convention.

  97. 97.

    The withdrawal of Turkey from the Istanbul Convention, its first signatory and name giver, in July 2021 points out a counter-development.

  98. 98.

    Article 44 of the Convention.

  99. 99.

    Serour (2013), p. 147.

  100. 100.

    See Article 39 of the Convention.

  101. 101.

    For example, the WHO emphasizes that their efforts concentrate on strengthening the health sector response to provide medical care and counselling to affected women and girls; building evidence by generating knowledge about the reasons, consequences and costs of FGM; and increasing advocacy to end FGM by estimating the health burden and the potential public health benefits and cost savings of preventing FGM. WHO 2020, Female genital mutilation. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation. When it comes to concrete programs, the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) has selected as examples of good practices the Chain Approach (Ketenaanpak) from the Netherlands and the Catalan protocol for the prevention of FGM from Spain. The evaluation criteria were “works well”, transferability and learning. European Institute for Gender Equality (2013), pp. 4–9.

  102. 102.

    Serour (2013), p. 148.

References

  • Acale M, Marković I, Strand S (2022) Gender competent criminal law. In: Giegerich T et al (eds) Textbook law and gender. Springer, Cham. (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Awo G, Gueye I, O’Dey D, Zerm C (2018) Weibliche Genitalverstümmelung im Flüchtlingskontext. Plan International Deutschland e.V, Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun K, Böse M (2020) A close look at the German and Australian Anti-FGM Framework-Concerns. About equal protection and equal application. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik (12):566–583

    Google Scholar 

  • Diouf K, Nour N (2020) Female genital mutilation/cutting. In: Ades V (ed) Sexual and gender-based violence. Springer, Cham, pp 191–212

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Filho WL, Azul AM, Brandli L, Lange Salvia A, Wall T (2021) Gender equality. Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Göttsche AL (2020) Weibliche Genitalverstümmelung/Beschneidung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hermida del Llano C (2017) La mutilación genital femenina desde la perspective jurídica española. Bajo Palabra. Revista de Filosofía (15):47–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnsdotter S, Mestre i Mestre RM (2015) Female genital mutilation in Europe: an analysis of court cases. In: European Commission – Directorate General for Justice. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimani S, Shell-Duncan B (2018) Medicalized female genital mutilation/cutting: contentious practices and persistent debates. Curr Sex Health Rep 10:25–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein E, Helzner E, Shayowitz M, Kohlhoff S, Smith-Norowitz TA (2018) Female genital mutilation: health consequences and complications—a short literature review. Obstet Gynecol Int 2018:7365715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepcha N, Paul S (2021) Exploring violence against children under sustainable development goals. In: Filho WL, Azul AM, Brandli L, Lange Salvia A, Wall T (eds) Gender equality. Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals. Springer, Cham, pp 286–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Lien I-L (2017) Prosecution of the offence of female genital mutilation/cutting in Norway. Int J Law Policy Fam 31:191–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovel H (2017) WHO classification of FGM omission and failure to recognize some women’s vulnerability to cosmetic surgery. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 43(1):78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Institute for Gender Equality (2013) Good practices in combating female genital mutilation. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, pp 4–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Marković I (2011) Pristanak povređenog u krivičnom pravu. In: Ignjatović Đ (ed) Kaznena reakcija u Srbiji kao ključ pravne države I. Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Beograd, pp 282–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Marković I (2012) Preduzimanje medicinskih zahvata kao osnov isključenja protivpravnosti, sa posebnim osvrtom na nedostatak pristanka povređenog. In: Ignjatović Đ (ed) Kaznena reakcija kao ključ pravne države II. Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Beograd, pp 306–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofor MO, Ofole NM (2015) Female genital mutilation: the place of culture and the debilitating effects on the dignity of the female gender. Eur Sci J 11(14):112–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisel D, Creighton SM (2015) Long term health consequences of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Maturitas 80:48–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serour G (2013) Medicalization of female genital mutilation/cutting. Afr J Urol (19):145–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Small E, Sharma BB, Pavlova Nikolova S, Tonui BC (2020) Hegemonic masculinity attitudes toward female genital mutilation/cutting among a sample of college students in Northern and Southern Sierra Leone. J Transcult Nurs 31(5):468–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sotiriadis G (2014) Der neue Straftatbestand der weiblichen Genitalverstümmelung, § 226a StGB: Wirkungen und Nebenwirkungen. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik (7-8):320–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Strunz C, Von Fritschen U (2020) Formen der weiblichen Genitalverstümmelung. In: Von Fritschen U, Cornelia S, Roland S (eds) Female genital mutilation. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 37–39

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO (2016) WHO guidelines on the management of health complications from female genital mutilation. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549646

Internet References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Law, Department of Criminal Law, Belgrade, Serbia

    Ivana Marković

Authors
  1. Ivana Marković
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivana Marković .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

    Marko Davinić

  2. University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

    Svetislav Kostić

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Marković, I. (2022). Female Genital Mutilation as a Criminal Offence According to the Istanbul Convention. In: Davinić, M., Kostić, S. (eds) Gender Competent Public Law and Policies. Gender Perspectives in Law, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14706-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14706-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-14705-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-14706-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation