![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
A major impediment to justice for rape in Bangladesh is the colonial rule of corroboration, which requires judges to verify the truthfulness of a rape complainant’s testimony with other evidence. Medical evidence is the most commonly sought mode of corroboration and can be used to contradict the complainant’s own testimony. The corresponding rule of resistance in turn guides how the rule of corroboration takes on a scientific character, whereby injuries in specific parts of the complainant’s body are sought by doctors and judges as corroborative “signs of rape”. If no “signs of rape” are found, this observation is then noted in the medical report and used to discredit the testimony of a rape complainant, by indicating that either the sexual intercourse was consensual or the rape accusation is false. This paper shows how the unfettered operation of these two rules gives birth to the “science of disbelief” in rape cases, whereby the institutional disbelief in a rape complainant’s testimony is justified on ostensibly scientific grounds and largely restricts their right to seek justice. It illustrates how the science of disbelief was created and preserved through successive legal and institutional reforms in Bangladesh. This paper challenges the long-held yet seemingly unquestioned notion in Bangladesh that medical evidence should be the primary basis through which rape can be proved in court by analysing the pernicious jurisprudence and legal standards this assumption has created.
Résumé
Un entrave majeure de la justice en cas de viol au Bangladesh est la règle coloniale de la corroboration, qui exige des juges qu’ils vérifient la véracité du témoignage d’un plaignant pour viol avec d’autres éléments d’appréciation. Les preuves médicales constituent le mode le plus fréquemment recherché de corroboration et peuvent être utilisées pour contredire le témoignage du plaignant. La règle de résistance correspondante guide à son tour la manière dont la règle de corroboration assume un caractère scientifique, selon lequel les lésions dans des parties spécifiques du corps du plaignant sont recherchées par les médecins et les juges comme des « signes de viol » corroboratifs. Si « aucun signe de viol » n’est trouvé, cette observation est notée dans le rapport médical et utilisée pour discréditer le témoignage d’un plaignant pour viol, en indiquant que soit le rapport sexuel avait été consensuel soit que l’accusation de viol est fausse. Cet article montre comment l’application sans entraves de ces deux règles donne lieu à la « science de la méfiance » dans les affaires de viol, où l’incrédulité institutionnelle dans le témoignage d’un plaignant est justifiée sur des bases ostensiblement scientifiques et restreint nettement son droit à demander justice. Il illustre comment la science de la méfiance a été créée et préservée par les réformes juridiques et institutionnelles qui se sont succédées au Bangladesh. L’article remet en question la notion acceptée de longue date et apparemment incontestée au Bangladesh selon laquelle les preuves médicales devraient être la base principale sur lesquelles un viol peut être prouvé au tribunal en analysant la jurisprudence et les normes juridiques pernicieuses que cette hypothèse a engendrées.
Resumen
Un gran impedimento a la justicia por violación en Bangladés es la regla colonial de corroboración, que dispone que jueces verifiquen con otra evidencia la veracidad del testimonio de la persona que denunció la violación. La evidencia médica es el modo más buscado de corroboración y se puede utilizar para contradecir el testimonio de la denunciante. A su vez, la regla correspondiente de resistencia guía la manera en que la regla de corroboración asume un carácter científico, por lo cual lesiones en partes específicas del cuerpo de la denunciante son buscadas por médicos y jueces como “señales corroboradoras de la violación”. Si no se encuentran “señales de violación”, esta observación se anota en el informe médico y se utiliza para desacreditar el testimonio de denuncia de violación al indicar que el coito sexual fue consensual o que la acusación de violación es falsa. Este artículo muestra cómo la aplicación sin restricciones de estas dos reglas da a luz a la “ciencia de la incredulidad” en casos de violación, por lo cual la incredulidad institucional en el testimonio de la denunciante de violación se justifica por razones aparentemente científicas y restringe en gran medida su derecho a buscar justicia. Ilustra cómo la ciencia de la incredulidad fue creada y preservada por medio de sucesivas reformas legislativas e institucionales en Bangladés. Este artículo cuestiona la noción de larga data pero aparentemente no cuestionada en Bangladés de que la evidencia médica debe ser la principal base mediante la cual la violación puede ser comprobada en corte al analizar la jurisprudencia y normas jurídicas perniciosas creadas por este supuesto.
Acknowledgements
This paper was developed as part of SRHM's Mentoring Programme on Rights and Evidence-based Knowledge Creation. I am grateful to Dr. Dipika Jain for providing valuable guidance and advice which greatly helped me in developing this paper. I thank Eszter Kismödi, Sundari Ravindran and Arundhati Char for providing thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I am also grateful to Sara Hossain, Mahbuba Akter and other colleagues at BLAST for facilitating discussions which helped me identify the research questions explored in this article, and to Esrat Jahan Siddiki and Tasmiah Juthi for their research assistance with case law.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
* Other than science, this provision also deals with experts relating to foreign law, art and identity of hand writing or finger impressions.
† Section 32A, VAW Act.
‡ The Rape Law Reform Coalition is a collective of 17 rights-based organisations as well as inidividual experts and activists advocating for reform of rape legislation in Bangladesh. The Coalition is led by the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) as its secretariat, and supported by UN Women as part of its Combating Gender Based Violence Project in Bangladesh (CBGV) Project.
§ For the full list see: Huda 2020, 45–46.Citation24 The six law reports are: Dhaka Law Reports (DLR), Bangladesh Legal Decisions (BLD), Bangladesh Law Times (BLT), Bangladesh Law Chronicles (BLC), Mainstream Law Reports (MLR) and Appellate Division Cases (ADC). The electronic version of the Bangladeshi Supreme Court judgments cited in this paper were accessed through the Bangladeshi case law database BDLex (a subsidiary of Manupatra), which compiles the judgments reported in these six law reports. I have used the equivalent law report citations in the footnotes, however, the paragraph numbers in the electronic version of the judgments in BDLex occasionally differ by a couple of numbers from that of the hard copy version published by the law reports.
** These articles are sourced from Bangladesh Journals Online (BanglaJOL), an open-access database.
†† See for example: Horon vs. StateCitation37 discussed above, where an eight day delay in lodging the first information report was as a ground of appeal and acquittal.