UNODC is supporting policymakers, practitioners, activists and development partners in discussing and promoting the use of multi-stakeholder in-depth reviews to prevent femicide (also referred to as “gender-related killings of women and girls”).
The Office published an analysis of existing practices concerning Domestic Homicide Reviews or Domestic Violence Fatality Reviews and Femicide Observatories and organized a technical expert meeting in 2023. This page answers key questions and highlights issues that should be considered, without being exhaustive or prescriptive.
UNODC Background Paper on Femicide Review Committees
General Assembly resolutions 68/191 and 70/176 on taking action against gender-related killing of women and girls
The methodology of multi-stakeholder in-depth death case reviews has been used in the last decades in different countries as part of Domestic Homicide Reviews or Domestic Violence Fatality Reviews to improve responses to domestic violence and prevent related deaths. It includes the following distinctive features:
The review entails an in-depth examination of all factors related to the killing, including previous interactions between victims/perpetrators and governmental and non-governmental agencies, and considering the perspectives of families and social networks of the victims/perpetrators.
The review is carried out by a multi-disciplinary team of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders from a variety of sectors, such as health care, law enforcement, child welfare, gender-based violence services, among others, including families and social networks.
The aim of the review is to identify lessons and recommend changes to improve institutional responses across agencies/sectors and to prevent future killings.
The review is separate from administrative, civil or criminal legal proceedings or disciplinary procedures. However, it can contribute to the formulation of public policy and efforts towards making institutions more accountable and people-centered.
Multi-stakeholder in-depth femicide reviews have the potential to reinforce a whole-of-society approach to address gender-based violence against women (GBVAW)[1], including its most devastating manifestation, i.e. femicide.. Experience shows that such reviews can enhance multi-sectoral and coordinated responses among relevant governmental and non-governmental agencies, and promote an understanding of GBVAW as a problem that requires holistic, multi-sectoral interventions, including but going beyond criminal justice responses in individual cases.
Multi-stakeholder in-depth femicide reviews are focused on learning, understanding the lived experiences of victims and perpetrators through a deep multi-sectoral examination of the case, including services often not considered in the aftermath of femicide, such as social services or health care. Such reviews are retrospective and go a step beyond collecting information or identifying risk factors, such as jealous or controlling behaviour, prior victimization or access to weapons. Multi-stakeholder in-depth femicide reviews do not necessarily require the establishment of new mechanisms but represent a methodology that can be used as a tool to drive change in society and enhance femicide prevention.
[1] References to women include girls.
Given that gender-based violence targets or affects women disproportionately, focusing on killings that result from or occur in the context of such violence is important, considering international obligations and political commitments on the elimination of discrimination and violence against women. This does not negate the value of also reviewing cases beyond the types covered by the UN Statistical framework for measuring the gender-related killing of women and girls (also referred to as “femicide/feminicide”), such as suicides, killings of children in the context of violence against their mothers or cases in which a woman kills her abuser or deaths of women because of homelessness or health issues related to GBVAW; as well as near death cases or attempted killings , among others.
A key consideration is whether and how the safety for the people who would be involved in a review can be ensured. In situations where such safety cannot be guaranteed, femicide reviews should be avoided based on a do-no-harm approach. For example, this may be the case where femicides are committed in the context of armed conflict or humanitarian crises, by organized criminal groups or in settings where the criminal justice system is unable to deal effectively with cases and where alleged perpetrators are at large.
Ideally, a minimum package of essential services should be in place (including social services, such as housing / shelters, health services, police and justice services). Recommendations from a multi-stakeholder in-depth femicide review can strengthen the accessibility and quality of such services, and even promote their creation, where there are gaps in their existence or availability.
Multi-stakeholder in-depth femicide reviews may be useful, both in countries where there is strong political will to enhance responses to GBVAW in general and femicide in particular and in countries where political will might be weaker. Often led by strong advocacy from civil society and women’s rights organizations, many countries have adopted laws, national strategies and action plans on GBVAW and/or femicide, femicide observatories and multi-sectoral coordination mechanisms, which could be enhanced by and make use of multi-stakeholder in-depth femicide reviews. Equally, multi-stakeholder reviews may provide the groundwork to create the political will for change. Working alongside other stakeholders creates a learning environment from which a groundswell of support may be created. Combined with the release of thematic reports and media interest in the work, effective stakeholder engagement can also be used to garner political will for change.
Multi-stakeholder in-depth femicide reviews are different and separate processes from criminal or other legal or disciplinary proceedings, and they should not be used to produce out-of-court evidence. As a safeguard to avoid compromising the integrity of such proceedings or any interference, a case should only be included in a review after a final or a first instance decision has been handed down by the judicial authorities. It is important to remember that multi-stakeholder in-depth femicide reviews do not attribute administrative or disciplinary responsibility, nor do they preclude any disciplinary proceedings within a specific institution, which might be initiated during a femicide review or in light of the findings of such a review.
A useful starting point for deciding the type of cases to review in-depth is the UN Statistical framework for measuring the gender-related killing of women and girls (also referred to as “femicide/feminicide”), which includes not only killings by an intimate partner or other family member, but also killings by other known or unknown perpetrators.[1]
There may be a need for a selection of cases or an initial pilot phase. While reviewing all cases in a given period allows for a wider breadth of insights and a greater potential to stimulate system-wide improvements, this may not be feasible in low and middle-income countries, or countries with too high numbers of cases. By contrast, this may be feasible in specific contexts, such as rural provinces with a low number of cases. Selecting cases for review may entail prioritizing specific types of cases or choosing a limited number of different cases. Relevant considerations include the following:
⮚ Intimate-partner and family-related killings of women tend to be the most prevalent form of gender-related killing of women, globally.
⮚ High-profile or exceptional cases do not necessarily represent the most common forms of femicide occurring in the country or territory and may not provide all the lessons to be learned by relevant agencies.
⮚ The review of different case types will provide different information about specific communities and systems (e.g. cases of women killing men or the killing of a woman’s new partner by a former partner may provide additional insights, as well as cases affecting women with disabilities or indigenous women, among others).
⮚ If some cases are selected for review, the impact of not selecting other cases on the families of people involved in non-selected cases should be considered and managed.
[1] It lists 8 characteristics concerning the modus operandi or context of a homicide are considered as indicative of gender-related killing of women and girls: i) the homicide victim had a previous record of physical, sexual or psychological violence/harassment perpetrated by the author of the killing; ii) the homicide victim was a victim of a form of illegal exploitation, for example, in relation to trafficking in persons, forced labour or slavery; iii) the homicide victim was in a situation where she was abducted or illegally deprived of her liberty; iv) the victim was working in the sex industry; v) sexual violence against the victim was committed before and/or after the killing; vi) the killing was accompanied by mutilation of the body of the victim; vii) the body of the victim was disposed of in a public space; viii) the killing of the woman or girl constituted a gender-based hate crime, i.e. she was targeted because of a specific bias against women on the part of the perpetrator(s).
It is desirable for multi-stakeholder in-depth femicide reviews to have a basis in law. Experience shows that this facilitates access to data and information while meeting confidentiality and data protection requirements. It may also facilitate access to funding and provide for continuity of reviews over time, transcending individual governments and legislatures.
Existing legislation may be sufficient to enable reviews. This may include:
⮚ Broader laws on domestic violence or other forms of GBVAW, especially where such laws envisage broad prevention programs and multi-agency mechanisms.
⮚ Existing institutions with a legislative or executive mandate (e.g. Coroner or Ombudsperson), with powers that enable reviews, including concerning access to records and information from diverse agencies.
⮚ General legislation on mortality reviews or death reviews also provides the basis for different kinds of review and regulate confidentiality requirements (otherwise individual agreements or memoranda of understanding between institutions may be needed).
Creating a legal basis, whether in the form of specific legislation on femicide reviews or their express inclusion in existing laws, may have certain advantages. It may regulate access to information and address confidentiality issues, identify and commit all stakeholders to carrying out reviews on a regular basis and to the implementation of their recommendations, as well as facilitate public awareness, information and advocacy. Legislation may also be important to set out general principles and approaches for the governance of femicide reviews, including doing no harm.
Within broader rules set in law or regulation, it is good practice for reviewing teams to determine the terms of reference for the review, considering also inputs from families and social organizations/services where appropriate. Terms of reference should set out the objective and scope of the review and the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders conducting the review. The terms of reference may also address confidentiality requirements.
Important considerations concerning the scope of the review include the identification of all sectors and agencies that will be part of the review, the time frame of the review, generic or case-specific questions to explore in the review, as well as the opportunities and support for participation of families and social networks of the victims and perpetrators. The temporal scope of the review should be sufficient to allow an understanding, not only of the more immediate context or time leading up to the death/killing, but ideally also the life course of the victim and the perpetrator, to identify instances where they sought help and where institutions and service providers missed opportunities. It would be worthwhile to also review the aftermath of the killing, to understand the impact on family survivors, for example children of both victims and perpetrators, as well as the responses by institutions and service providers involved in the aftermath, including police and justice professionals.
Terms of reference should include clear definition of roles and responsibilities, with a view to promote mutual support through effective division and sharing of workload among team members. Experience shows that working in small groups and keeping the composition of groups stable contribute to trusted relationships. It is also important to define the functions of the chair, as well as secretariat/coordinator and support staff, including a data analyst and a facilitator to guide the discussions, if needed.
A key challenge is identifying the institution with the primary responsibility to convene and coordinate the review while ensuring a multi-stakeholder process. That institution should be able to bring stakeholders together and to obtain relevant information and data, as well as to communicate with policy makers to monitor the implementation of recommendations arising from multi-stakeholder in-depth femicide reviews. The level of independence of this institution is a relevant consideration, as experience shows the importance of the review process being viewed as independent from other government systems and processes.
The creation of a specific institution or committee is not always necessary and should be avoided where an appropriate multi-stakeholder body already exists. For example, femicide observatories with a consistent inter-agency work may be well placed to convene relevant stakeholders to carry out in-depth femicide reviews. Other possible examples of convening institutions include Ombudsperson or Coroner’s offices, or existing muti-sectoral GBVAW coordinating bodies, for example national mechanisms for advancement of women or other mechanisms at sub-national or local level. Selecting the most appropriate convening institution may require consideration of the level of public trust and will depend on the organization of the State and services (for example, federal or unitary), available resources, and territorial particularities or complexities.
A crucial element for effective femicide reviews is their multi-stakeholder character. This requires the intervention of all agencies and services that were or should have been in contact with the victim and the perpetrator. Review teams should be composed in a way that provides a balance of forces among the different institutions and perspectives involved.
Governmental and non-governmental agencies/services should be involved in such reviews. This includes the health sector, including mental health and counselling services; specialized services and organizations working on GBVAW; justice agencies, including family justice, police, prosecution, prison and probation services; social services, including housing and employment agencies; and child protection and services for children who are involved as direct or indirect victims (schools, nurseries, child protection agencies, etc). Where appropriate, participation of people with lived experience from minority groups (for example, indigenous people, transgender women, people with disabilities, etc.) is also crucial and should be undertaken appropriately, and be meaningful rather than tokenistic. The participation of CSOs should receive adequate support.
A key challenge is keeping the size of the team carrying out the review manageable, while providing flexibility to involve all relevant stakeholders and specialized expertise when needed. One way of striking this balance is through a larger advisory group to support the review team, or conducting independent interviews with stakeholders where their involvement was small but still relevant to the review.
Independence of the review team is important to increase trust and maintain the integrity of the review process. For example, team members should not be involved with the individual cases being reviewed. Independence can be strengthened through the inclusion of academia and civil society organizations as well as the appointment of an independent chair, who does not belong to any of the public agencies involved in the review.
Review teams should also ensure a certain level of expertise on GBVAW. Over time, they may become communities of practice and foster a culture of inter-institutional cooperation.
Experience shows that stakeholders who have a senior or decision-making role within their own institution are in a better position to ensure that the review and its recommendations can be accepted and acted upon by their respective institutions. Depending on the how reviews are organized, they may be part of the review team or of a broader multi-stakeholder panel that facilitates access to information, critically evaluates the role of their organization and supports the development of actionable recommendations.
The voluntary participation of families and social networks (friends, co-workers, employers, etc.) of victims/perpetrators should be encouraged. They may provide not only access to data and personal information, but also context and qualitative information that often remains invisible to institutions, including a view of existing services from a perspective very close to that of victims/perpetrators. Due consideration of families’ concerns and perspectives can also contribute to their own mourning or healing process and may even constitute an element of reparation for them. This will only be achievable if the purposes of the review, and their role within the review, are clearly explained, so families know what will be done with the information they share and what to expect as an outcome of the review. Some civil society organizations provide advocacy and support for families’ involvement as an integral part of the review process.
Review teams should consider the value of involving the local community. Civil society organizations, including those promoting the rights of women and LGBTIQ+ people, social, cultural and religious groups can provide specific knowledge and understanding of victims/perpetrators, including those from minority groups, as well as insight on local and social factors involved in the case, and its impact in the community. Participation of civil society organizations can also enhance transparency and accountability, particularly where there is a lower level of trust in public institutions.
Perpetrators themselves may also provide valuable information if they are heard during the review. Their perspectives on what interventions might have altered their trajectory can be complemented by professionals that are in contact with them in the prison or corrections system, with appropriate safeguards.
Confidentiality is the main safeguard for the process and the people involved. All information shared during the review should be protected, including the identity of the people invited to the review.
The participation of families and social networks of victims/perpetrators should always be voluntary. Safety concerns should be assessed in consultation with the people concerned and considering the particularities of each case. For example, in cases of so-called “honour” killings, human trafficking, or gang violence, there may be an ongoing risk of violence against the family of the victim. Safeguards for families should include advocacy, support and care, to guarantee their central role in the review process, to ensure their concerns are addressed and avoid secondary victimization. Special measures should be taken when children are invited to take part in the review.
Vicarious trauma is a frequent challenge for professionals working on GVBAW. It can result from listening to stories of victimization, reviewing case files, hearing about or responding to the aftermath of violence and other traumatic events day after day. It is important to ensure the safety and wellbeing of review team members is also important. Especially those carrying out reviews on a repeated basis should have access to the psychosocial services that may be available to other front-line workers. Other measures could include providing a clear briefing about the potential impact on review team members and funding for counselling or dedicated leave days after reviews.There are three main outcomes of multi-stakeholder in-depth femicide reviews: learnings and effects from the review process, recommendations, and public reports.
⮚ The review process itself is a unique opportunity for learning among stakeholders, to be aware of the complexities of cases of GBVAW, to identify gaps and weaknesses in their individual and collective response and reinforce the need for collaboration and coordination. The review process can strengthen a common understanding of the needs of victims/perpetrators -and their families- as well as of each agency role and capacities. The review process can also have effects on surviving families and communities, if their concerns and perspectives are heard and contribute to the learning and recommendations of the process.
⮚ Following each individual review, recommendations are made to the diverse agencies involved. Recommendations should be co-developed with the concerned institutions, and should be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic/reliable, and timely (SMART criteria). It is good practice for recommendations to include an action plan for implementation, specifying what change is expected, and be targeted to specific actors/agencies for follow-up. The implementation of recommendations should be monitored to detect and address any unintended consequences.
⮚ Public reports based on aggregate findings of individual reviews should be published on a regular basis . Decisions on whether to publish anonymized individual reviews should consider confidentiality requirements and safety concerns. Thematic reports (focusing in one aspect or area, for example, one sectoral response, a type of crime or group affected by the crimes, or certain risk factors) should be also published regularly. Public reports should also include disaggregated statistical data gathered from all gender-related killings of women. All data should be collected in line with the International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes and the UN Statistical framework for measuring the gender-related killing of women and girls (also referred to as “femicide/feminicide”) to ensure standardized data collection and comparability. Published data should be available for studies, research or data analysis. Reports should identify general trends in relation to the crimes and the recommendations issued, and their implementation.
Effective monitoring is crucial to track the implementation of recommendations and enable an understanding of the impacts of multi-stakeholder in-depth femicide reviews. All stakeholders involved in the review should monitor the implementation of recommendations within their respective governmental and non-governmental agencies and services. Monitoring may also include periodic reports to the parliament and/or other relevant authorities concerning the findings of reviews and implementation of recommendations. A dedicated mechanism for the follow-up of recommendations, such as a case action team separate from the review team, may facilitate monitoring and reporting on the implementation of recommendations, even across different reviews.
Consideration should be given to the formulation of indicators of achievement, possibly even beyond actions taken to implement the specific recommendations. These may include, for example, the degree of impact of recommendations beyond specific agencies or beyond the changes recommended, the impact of reviews in families and communities, the degree of influence on legislators and other decision makers, shift in attitudes related to GBVAW, including funding, etc.
Civil society organizations (CSOs), including feminist groups, families of victims and criminal justice professionals have been crucial in advocating for in-depth multi-stakeholder reviews of killings in different countries. Families and social networks of victims/perpetrators, as well as local communities can be involved in the dissemination of public reports and recommendations from femicide reviews, and have a role to play in prevention and awareness raising of GBVAW.
In some cases, existing mechanisms for data collection on GBVAW have been aware of the need of going one step beyond quantitative data collection and initiate in-depth reviews.
High profile cases have also been a catalyst for initiating in-depth reviews. The role of journalism and media is critical in making visible the need of such reviews after these crimes. They are also critical in disseminating FR’s outcomes, including their aggregate findings and recommendations, and for fostering a climate supportive of change.
Public reports and recommendations can be included in training courses/curricula of relevant institutions (police, health sector, justice sector, etc.), in partnerships with CSOs and academia.
