Combating feminicides and other forms of violence requires concrete and effective actions. Last week, the government of Quebec took a step forward by allowing the imposition of anti-rapprochement bracelets to complete the arsenal intended to protect victims of misogynistic violence. In another register, Judge Pierre Béliveau, of the Superior Court, applied the laws protecting the right to privacy and condemned a man who published personal information and intimate images for revenge to compensate his victim.
A few weeks ago, the European Court of Human Rights issued a unanimous decision ruling that states have a responsibility to protect citizens from acts of cyberviolence, including posting intimate photographs online without permission, harassment and identity theft. This ruling concludes that Russia violated the right to respect for private life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, for failing to adequately protect Mr.me Volodina against the repeated cyberviolence of her former companion. He had created false profiles in his name, published his intimate photos, followed his movements and had issued death threats on social media.
The Court observed that despite the fact that they had the necessary legal tools to prosecute M’s partnerme Volodina, Russian authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation or examine what could and should have been done to protect her from the recurring online harassment to which she was subjected. This amounts to a violation of the State’s obligation under the European Convention on Rights to ensure sufficient protection for Mr.me Volodina against serious abuse.
The unauthorized posting of the victim’s intimate photographs, the creation of fake profiles in her name on social media and the monitoring of her movements using a GPS tracking device violated her privacy. For the Court, these acts constitute a real humiliation and a lack of respect likely to generate anxiety, deep distress and a feeling of insecurity. This undermines the dignity of the person who is the victim of such behavior.
Physical and psychological integrity
The Court specifies that the concept of private life encompasses the physical and psychological integrity of a person whom the States have the mission to protect, including against the dangers emanating from private individuals. Already, in other decisions, the Court had agreed that acts of cyberviolence, cyberstalking and malicious identity theft are forms of violence against women and minors. Given the vulnerability of the people concerned, these behaviors are likely to harm their physical and psychological integrity. In particular, in a decision rendered in February 2020, the Court wrote that “cyberstalking is currently recognized as an aspect of violence against women and girls and that it can present itself in various forms, among which online privacy breaches […] and the taking, sharing and manipulation of data and images, including intimate data ”. For the Court, cyberviolence is intimately linked to offline, or “real” violence. It should therefore be seen as another facet of the complex phenomenon of domestic violence. The Court finds that sexual partners are often the most likely perpetrators of cyberstalking.
The Court goes further by affirming that States have an obligation to put in place and effectively apply a system aimed at punishing all forms of domestic violence, whether they occur offline or online, and ” offer sufficient guarantees to victims.
Duty of care
The Court also observed that the acts of cyberviolence perpetrated against Mr.me Volodina were serious enough to require a criminal response from national authorities. The public interest and the protection of vulnerable victims against offenses affecting their physical or psychological integrity required the establishment of mechanisms to identify the perpetrator and bring him to justice. The remedies before the civil courts, which might have been appropriate in less serious situations, would not have made it possible in the present case to achieve these objectives. As for the possibility of issuing orders aimed at prohibiting certain behaviors or forms of cyberviolence, the European Court considers that these measures did not offer sufficient protection to victims of domestic violence who find themselves in a situation similar to that of Mr.me Volodina.
Of course, as such, this decision of the European Court of Rights is not directly applicable in Canada. Likewise, it is not known whether the Russian authorities will rush to follow up on this decision. But there is an important reminder here. The protections enshrined in the laws to ensure the protection of the dignity and privacy of individuals presuppose the duties of States to act to put in place effective measures to ensure real protections, in particular to those affected. vulnerable people.
Our lawmakers will soon have to complete our laws protecting dignity and privacy to ensure that prohibited behaviors on dry land are also punished when they occur in social networks or other online spaces. To those who rush to cry censorship, it should be remembered that it is the state’s responsibility to put in place effective and proportionate means to protect against cyberviolence.