PRIVACY OF RAPE VICTIMS: INADEQUATE PROTECTION FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (Authored By SHERIN FARHANA EV & M Shamima Parveen (Assistant Professor)
Author Name: SHERIN FARHANA EV (CRESCENT SCHOOL OF LAW)
Title: PRIVACY OF RAPE VICTIMS: INADEQUATE PROTECTION FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
[1] Kinjal Sharma, Genocide- A crime against
humanity, IPLEADERS BLOG (Jan. 26, 2022, 12:29 P.M),
https://blog.ipleaders.in/genocide-a-crime-against-humanity
[1] Article 253 of The Constitution of India
Citation
[1] William J. Davey, “The WTO
Dispute Settlement Mechanism”, (2003) (Research paper No 03-08, University of
Illinois, College of Law).
[1] Magda Shahin, “WTO Dispute Settlement for a middle-income
developing country: the situation of Egypt” in Gregory Shaffer, Manfred Elsig.
(eds.), The Law and Politics of WTO
Dispute Settlement, 275-276 (oxford University press, California, Irvine,
ed. 2016).
[1] Ibid.
[1] Gregory Shaffer “The challenges of WTO law – strategies for
developing country adaptation” World
Trade Review 177 (2006).
[1] James HeadenPfitzer and Sheila Sabune, “Burden of Proof in WTO
Dispute Settlement: Contemplating Preponderance of the Evidence” 9 International
Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, p.5-6(2009).
[1] Ross Becfroft, The Standard
of Review in WTO Dispute Settlement: Critique and Contention, (Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd., ed. 2012).
[1] Ibid.
[1] Stefan Zleptnig, “The Standard of Review in WTO Law: An Analysis of
Law, Legitimacy and the Distribution of Legal and Political Authority” Vol. 6
European Integration online Papers (EIoP), p.6,13. (2002). Available online,
http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2002-017a.htm,
visited on 10th Oct, 17
[1] Matthias Oesch, “Standards
of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution”, 6 J. INT'L ECON. L. P.637-39 (2003)
[1] Ibid.
[1] Supra note. 23
[1]De nova has a literal
English translation of ‘ Anew’. See Concise
Law Dictionary, Sweet and Maxwell, (2005)
[1] William Wade, Administrative
Law, 309-10(Oxford University Press, 10th ed. 2009)
[1] Macquarie Dictionary (5th ed. 2009).
[1] Holgar Spamann, “Standard of Review for World
Trade Organisation Panels in Trade Remedy Cases: A Critical Analysis”, 38(3) Journal of World Trade, p.
81-82(2004)
[1] Ibid note. 74
[1] See Appellate Body Report , Japan-Alcoholic
Beverage II, 13-14.
[1] See Article 3.2 of DSU
[1] The function of panels is to assist the DSB in discharging its responsibilities
under this understanding and the covered agreements. Accordingly, a panel
should make an objective assessment of the matter before it, including an
objectiveassessment of
the facts of the case and the applicability of and conformity with the relevant
covered agreements and make such other findings as well to assist the DSB in
making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in the covered
agreement.
[1]See
Appellate Body Report, European Community- Measures Concerning Meat and Meat
Products (Hormones), 115, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R Jan. 16, 1998)
[1] Ibid. Note 34.
[1] Holgar Spamann, “Standard
of Review for World Trade Organisation Panels in Trade Remedy Cases: A Critical
Analysis”, 38(3) Journal of World Trade,
p. 540(2004)
[1] Catherine Button, The Power
to Protect: Trade Health and Uncertainty in the WTO, p.168, (Hart
publishing, 2004)
[1] Panel Report, United States-Measure Affecting Import of Woven Wool
Shirt and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/R, adopted 23 May 1997, as upheld by
Appellate Body Report WT/DS33/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, 343.
[1] See Appellate Body Report, US-Wool shirts and
Blouses, para340.
[1]See, Appellate Body Report Japan-Agricultural product II, WT/DS7/R,
adopted 19th March 1999, as modified by Appellate Body Report
WT/DS7/AB/R, DSR 1999:I, 315.
[1] See,Appellate Body Report, United States-Anti Dumping Measures on
Certain Hot-Rolled Steel products from Japan,
WT/DS184/AB/R adopted 23 August 2001, DSR2001: X, 4697.
[1] See, Appellate Body Report
US-Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan.
WT/DS192/AB/R, adopted 5th nov 2001: XII, 6027.
[1] See, Appellate Body Report, Argentina-Safeguard
Measures on Import of Footwear Footwear(EC), WT/DS121/AB/R, adopted 12th
Jan 2000, DSR2000:I,515.
[1] Supra note 43.
[1] See, Appellate Body Report, United States-Definitive Safeguard
Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities,
WT/DS166/AB/R, adopted 19th
Jan 2001, DSR2001:II 717.
[1]ibid
[1] See, Appellate Body Report, United States-Measures Relating to
Zeroing and Sunset Reviews, WT/DS322/R, DSR2007:I,3.
[1] See, Article 11 of Dispute Settlement Understanding, which provides
that the function of the panel is to assist the Dispute Settlement Body in
discharging it responsibility under this understanding. Panel should make an
objective assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment
of the fact of the case and the applicability of the conformity with the
relevant covered agreements, and make other such findings as will assist the
DSB in making the recommendation or in giving the ruling provided in the
covered agreement.
[1] Supra note 37. P.551
[1] Example of adversarial provisions include: 1.
DSU Appendix 3, Paragraph 5 (working procedure) which states: At its first
substantive meeting with the parties, the panel shall ask the party which
brought the complaint to present the case. Subsequently, and still the same meeting,
the party against which the
complaint
has been brought shall be asked to present its point of view. The DSU also
permits the parties to settle their disputes at any stage during panel or
Appellate Body proceedings, and complaints may withdraw complaint at any time.
[1] Holgar Spamann, “Standard
of Review for World Trade Organisation Panels in Trade Remedy Cases: A Critical
Analysis”, 38(3) Journal of World Trade,
p. 551(2004)
[1] Supra note 24
[1] See Appellate Body Report, EC-Hormones (Para 133.)
[1] Andrew D. Mitchell, ‘Good Faith in WTO Dispute Settlement’, 7(2) Melbourne Journal of International Law,
339 (2006).
[1] Tania S. Voon and Alan Yanovich, “The Fact
aside :The Limitation of WTO Appeals to Issues of Law’ 40(2)Journal of World Trade
p. 251-258 (2009)
[1] Ross .Becroft, ‘The Standard of Review Strikes Back: the US-Korea
DRAMS Appeal’ 9(1) Journal of International Economic Law, p. 207(2006)
[1] Matthias Oesch, Standard of
Review in WTO Dispute Resolution, p.42(Oxford University Press, 2003).
[1] Ibid.
[1] D.M. McRae, “The WTO in International Law: Tradition
Continued or New Frontier?”3(27)
Journal of International Economic Law, pp. 32-33 (2000).
[1] A. Das and J. Raghuram, ‘One Too Many: Significant Contributions of
India to the WTO Dispute Settlement Jurisprudence’, in A. Das and J.J.
Nedumpara (eds.), WTO Dispute Settlement
at Twenty,75 (Springer Nature, Singapore, 2016).
[1] See, DSU arts. 3.12, 12.8. the WTO website.
World Trade Organization 2015: Understanding the WTO: available from: https://www.wto.org/
[viewed october 1, 2017].
[1] John J. Barceló III, ‘Burden of Proof, Prima Facie Case and
Presumption in WTO Dispute Settlement’, Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Paper
119, (2009).
[1] H. Richard, Gaskin, Burdens of Proof in Modern Discourse, p.4 (Yale, 1992).
[1] D. Petko Kantchevski, The Differences Between the Panel
Procedures of the GATT and the WTO: The Role of GATT and WTO Panels in Trade
Dispute Settlement, 3 BYU Int’l L.
& Mgmt. Rev. 79, 97
(2006).
[1] Appellate Body Report on United
States—Measures Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses
from India
WT/AB/DS33/R.
[1] Ibid note.61
[1] See Appellate Body Report, Japan – Apples, para. 166; and
Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes,
para. 82.
[1] See, Appellate Body Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and
Methodology For Calculating Dumping Margins (“Zeroing”), WT/DS294/AB/R (18
April 2006) Para. 220.
[1] Supra note. 60. P. 135.
[1] Ibid note 66.
Citation
[1] The nature of federalism, division of rights
into justiciable or non-justiciable, provisions as to language etc. are such
devices at the service of Constitution makers.
[1] There was an average of 2.29 deferral by law clauses found in the
Constitutions with deferrals being comparatively more common in Africa and
South Asia than anywhere else (infra footnote 4)
[1] Dixon, Rosalind & Ginsburg, Tom. (2011). Deciding Not to
Decide: Deferral in Constitutional Design. International Journal of
Constitutional Law. 9. 10.1093/icon/mor041.
[1] Ibid.
[1] Ibid.
[1]Ibid. footnote 2
[1] Ibid. footnote 4
[1]Ibid footnote 4
[1]Ibid footnote 4
[1]Javier Martinez-Lara, Building Democracy in
Brazil (1996) cited in Dixon, Rosalind & Ginsburg, Tom. (2011). Deciding
Not to Decide: Deferral in Constitutional Design. International Journal of
Constitutional Law. 9. 10.1093/icon/mor041.
[1] Article 6 (3) of The Constitution of the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
[1] Article 6 (2) of The Constitution of the
People’s Republic of Bangladesh 1972
[1] Article 44 of The Constitution of Nepal
2015
[1] Article 3 and Article 169 of The
Constitution of India 1949
[1] Article 105 (4) of Constitution of The
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 1978
[1] Article 87 (2) of Constitution of The
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 1978
[1] Article 302 of the Constitution of India & Article 151 (2) of The Constitution of
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
[1]
Articles 15 to 23 of the Constitution of The Islamic Republic of
Pakistan 1973, Articles 14 to 35 of the Constitution of India 1949, Articles 17
to 25 of the Constitution of Nepal 2015, Articles 36 to 45 of The Constitution
of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh 1972, Article 15 of the Constitution of
The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 1978
[1] Article 19 of the Constitution of the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 & Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of
India 1949.
[1] Article 95 &96 of the Constitution of the
People’s Republic of Bangladesh 1972
[1] The Citizenship Act 1955 in India and The Bangladesh
(Adaptation of Existing Laws) Order, 1972 Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions)
Order, 1972 in Bangladesh
Citation
[1]Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India
and Ors 1984 AIR 802
[1]Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan 1983 AIR 328
Citation
1 A.S. Anand, Victims of Crime — The Unseen Side, (1998) 1 S.C.C. (Jour) 13, 3-13
2 N.R. Madhava Menon, Victim’s rights and criminal justice reforms, The Hindu, Mar. 27, 2006, available at http://www. thehindu.com/2006/03/27/stories/2006032703131000.htm.
3 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, G.A. Res. 40/34, U.N. Doc. A/RES/40/34 (Nov. 29, 1985).
4 Bajpai, G.S. (2006). Psycho-social consequences of victimization in rape. International Perspectives in Victimology, Vol. 2, No. 1. pp. 67-81.
5 Chockalingam, K. (1985a). Problems of victims of crime and their families, in Readings in Victimology, (Ed.) Raviraj Publications. Chennai: India, pp.73-90.
Citation
1. Tal Z. Zarsky, Information
Privacy in Virtual Worlds: Identifying Unique Concerns Beyond the Online and
Offline Worlds, 49 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 231 (2004
2. David R. Johnson, How
Online Games May Change the Law and Legally Significant Institutions, 49
N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 51 (2005).
3. Wollfgang Kleinwachter, From
Self-Governance to Public-Private Partnership: The Changing Role of Governments
in the Management of the Internet Core Resources, 11 Loy. L.A. L. Rev.
1103 (2003).
4. Jack M. Balkin, Law
and Liberty in the Virtual Worlds, 49 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 63, 67 (2005
5. The Internet
Domain Name System (Part I): Hearing Before the
Subcomm.
on Basic Research of the House Comm. on Sci., 105th Cong.. (1997)
[1] United Nations Convention on Law of the sea,
Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397
[1]
ICJ (1994)
[1]Supra Note 1.
[1] Martin A. Rogoff, An Overview of Existing
Maritime Boundary Disputes and recommendations for their Settlement, 15 ocean
and coastal L.J. (2010).
[1]
A Asgeirsdottir, M.C. Steinwand, Dispute settlement mechanisms and maritime
boundary settlement, Rev. Ind. Organ 10 (2015) 119-143
[1]
Aceris Law, law of the sea dispute settlement mechanism, International
Arbitration Attorney Network, (2015)
[1]ITLOS,
2012, Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between
Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal
[1] PCA, 2014, The Bay of Bengal maritime boundary
arbitration between People’s Republic of Bangladesh and republic of India.
[1]
Haroon Habib, Bangladesh wins maritime dispute with India, The Hindu, July 9,
2014
[1]
ICJ, 2021, Maritime Delimitation in the Indian ocean, Somalia v. Kenya
[1]
ICJ, Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean sea and the Pacific ocean, 2018
[1] Monjur Hasan, He Jian , Wahidul Alam, and K.M.
Azam Chowdhury, Protracted Maritime Boundary Dispute and maritime laws, Journal
of International Maritime safety, (2019)
[1] Graham S. Pearson, The Threat of Deliberate Disease in the 21st Century,
18, BWP: Reasons for Concern, Courses of Action, 10, 14 (1998)
[1]Sheldon Harris., Japanese
biological warfare research on humans: a case study of microbiology and ethics,
666(1), Ann N Y Acad Sci ,21, 24-25 (1992) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb38021.x
[1] M. Leitenberg, The Korean War Biological Weapon Allegations: Additional
Information and Disclosures, 24(3), Asian Perspective, 159–17
(2002) http://www.jstor.org/stable/42704276
[1]Seeley, T. D., Nowicke, J. W., Meselson, M., Guillemin, J.,
& Akratanakul, P, Yellow rain, 253(3),
Scientific American,128-137 (1985) https://www.jstor.org/stable/24967794
[1] Staff Reporter, “Delhi University, photocopy service
in the dock over piracy”, The Hindu, August 14, 2012
[1] Id
[1]Infringement of copyright
[1]Sampsor and
Murdock v. Seaver-Radford Co., 140
Fed Cas 539 (541)
[1]The Indian Copyright Act 1975
[1]The Indian Copyright Act 1975
[1]Academy
of General Education, Manipal v. B. Manini Mallya 2009 (39) PTC 393 (SC).
[1]Fair dealing with any work not being used for a computer
program, for the purpose of private or personal use including research.
[1]The
Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Narendra
Publishing House and Ors. 2008 (106) DRJ 482 {TA \l "Syndicate of The
Press of The University of Cambridge on Behalf of The Chancellor, Masters and
Schoolv, B.D. Bhandari & Anr.andThe
Chancellor Masters And Scholars of The University of Oxfordv. Narendra
Publishing House and Ors.
[1]Rangarajan {TA \l "Chatrapathy
Shanmughan v. S Rangarajan"
\s "Chatrapathy Shanmughan v. S Rangarajan" \c 1}, (2004) 29 PTC
[1]A fair dealing with any work not being a
computer program for the purpose of private or personnel use
[1] Government of India study on piracy of copyright,
2011 by ministry of human resource development