publications

<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

V. BETRAYING THE VICTIMS: THE OFFICIAL RESPONSE

The Police: Traditional Sympathies and Virginity Examinations

Jordanian police are known for mistreating criminal suspects. Prosecutor General Rawashdeh, for example, told Human Rights Watch that the police routinely beat detainees to obtain evidence: “[The] accused are beaten for evidence—I sent them to the forensic doctor—I would not take their confession.”75 These same police are also known for sympathizing with “honor” killers. As Asma Khader, minister of state and government spokesperson, has said, when “honor” killers turn themselves in to the police, the police “try to calm them down, give them a cigarette. The culture deals with them as heroes.”76

Added to the bias in favor of men who commit “honor” crimes is the virtual absence of training to deal with domestic violence. Currently, only fifteen to twenty police officers per year receive any training on domestic violence, according to Colonel al-Humoud, coordinator of the Family Protection Unit (FPU) within the Directorate of Public Security. The training lasts only a few days, too brief to be serious, and within the program there is no material dealing specifically with “honor” crimes.77

Police frequently require threatened women to be examined by a forensic doctor to determine whether their hymens are intact. Virginity exams reflect the presumption that families, communities, and the state have a legitimate interest in a woman’s sexual conduct. They involve pain, humiliation, and intimidation.78 These exams constitute cruel and inhuman treatment and are a violation of women's rights to physical integrity, sexual autonomy, and privacy. The practice was common in Jordan through the end of the 1990s when even a hint of suspicion had been aroused. Dr. Mu’men Hadidi, the nation’s chief medical examiner, told Human Rights Watch that police routinely sent girls and women for virginity examinations upon their families’ request without any evidence of sexual indiscretion. As he put it: “The easiest way to answer him [the accusing relative] was to have the exam and show that she did not have sex, to put the issue to rest.”79

Now, according to Dr. Hadidi, the protocol has changed and there must be evidence of a crime before a virginity exam can be required. This assertion was echoed by FPU Coordinator Al-Humoud, who spoke of the need for “strong evidence” to trigger the exam.80

Not all officials believe that the practice has changed. Issa Ayoub, legal advisor to the Public Security Directorate, told Human Rights Watch that if a woman is found with a man who is not a close blood relative or her husband—not necessarily in a compromising circumstance, but simply in the man’s company, even in a public place—the presumption continues to be that police “have to send” the woman for a virginity examination, and that “circumstances” would dictate whether such an examination was performed.81 According to FPU CoordinatorAl-Humoud, in circumstances involving an unmarried woman, a virginity exam “will avoid a crime” and therefore “it is good to do it.”82

Human Rights Watch met with three police officers assigned to the FPU who had received specialized training on domestic violence.83 Two of the three officers were women. Asked for their views on virginity examinations in the absence of a complaint of sexual abuse by the woman, one of the female officers said, “she should not be examined.” The male officer said, “it’s a decision for the girl.” The other female officer responded, “we should not open doors to suspicion.”84

Their superior, Colonel al-Humoud, was visibly surprised at his three subordinates’ “non-traditional” attitude. His version of what happens when a woman protests being examined was that the police “tell her the positives and the negatives.” He added that, if a father or brother wished to force a girl to have a virginity exam absent any complaint from her, “at a personal level, I would refuse [coercion]. But in our society, it is very complicated.”85

The Family Protection Unit: Excluding “Honor” Cases

The Family Protection Unit was established in 1998 within the Public Security Directorate with the mandate to protect women and children from domestic violence. It was meant to establish a “close working relationship between the police, social services, the judiciary, medical services, schools, NGOs and others.”86 Although women threatened with death for besmirching family honor were initially expected to be part of the FPU’s mandate, officials decided after only two months of operation to exclude from its purview physical abuse of adult women by a family member.As Colonel al-Humoud explained, the exclusion was based on pragmatism: “There are no shelters in Jordan… We need a safe house to send [threatened women] to, but there aren’t any. [We don’t want] to lose the trust of Jordan [by sending women to an unsafe place].”87 In other words, there is no point in saying the FPU will protect the women because it cannot do so.

Inam Asha, a full-time counselor at a non-profit women’s center in Amman, Jordan, would agree with the thrust of the director’s argument. She has counseled dozens of threatened women over the last fifteen years. When Human Rights Watch interviewed her she was counseling two women whose relatives had vowed to kill them. Once a woman is threatened by her family, Asha said, “there is a high probability of her murder,” not only because of the culture of impunity, but also due to a lack of protective social services.88

The Ministry of Social Development: No Shelter, Little Counseling

The Jordanian Women’s Union (JWU), an independent grassroots organization, runs a crisis hotline and a small, six-bed shelter in Amman, but it cannot nearly meet the needs of women who are victims of domestic violence, including women threatened to cleanse family honor. Women’s rights activists have lobbied for a safe shelter since their first conference on “honor” crimes in 1998.89 Despite repeated government promises to establish a shelter imminently, none yet exists. Activists told Human Rights Watch the shelter issue has been political charged; traditional elements in the government and parliament sympathize with the killers and blame the victims, they said. As one activist put it, some officials support the idea of a shelter merely because other countries have them, but are not willing to confront opponents to create one.90

Legislation to create a center for victims of domestic violence has been pending for many years, but it has been mired in much controversy, including controversy regarding whether “honor” crime victims would be included. The secretary-general of the Islamic Action Front and Jordan’s Minister for Islamic and Awqaf Affairsboth denied to Human Rights Watch that they lacked sympathy for the victims of “honor” crimes. Both expressed support for the pending proposal because it will establish a “clean shelter,” one in which the primary solution is understood to be marriage for the woman and her re-acceptance into the extended family and society. 91 “Your nuclear family is not the way here,” said the secretary-general of the Islamic Action Front. “In Jordan, the solutions are in the [extended] family.”92

As of mid-April 2004, there is still no shelter in Jordan, either for living victims of honor crimes or for victims of less lethal domestic violence. One reason for the delay is the many changes in the leadership of the Ministry of Social Development over the last several years.93 Virtually every ministry has had its say in the drafting of the law that will make the first shelter a reality, probably by summer 2004, according to those close to the process. The draft legislation for a shelter was approved by the government and is awaiting the king’s signature.94 The legislation neither explicitly includes nor explicitly excludes honor crime victims from the population eligible for access to the shelter, but, as a practical matter, they are not expected to be included “for the present.”95

The Department of Social Services, which comes under the Ministry of Social Development, offers counseling for family reconciliation. For many this can only mean marriage. If the man linked to the illicit behavior (or any other man) can and will marry the woman, the problem may be regarded as solved.96 Counselors may also try to find someone in the family to diffuse the threat and work toward a solution short of marriage. But reconciliation is rarely successful. Social attitudes are entrenched and counselors are in short supply in Jordan. The Department of Social Services has few psychologists;97 the JWU has only one, and other private groups are similarly understaffed.

Emigration, an extreme option, is hardly realistic, as most women do not have passports ­and cannot get one in their own names without the written permission of their husbands.98 Most also lack resources of their own or contacts abroad. Furthermore, as one women’s counselor notes, “sending women out of the country or hiding them is not legal, although these things are [sometimes] done.”99 One counselor told Human Rights Watch that she was trying to help a client get a visa to Canada.100 Human Rights Watch heard no reports of women seeking refuge at foreign embassies in Amman. Another client had rejected the possibility of seeking asylum in Syria because of harsh living and working conditions there.101

The reality is that if a woman faces a credible threat, there may be no alternative but to send her to the police for protection, and then ultimately to prison.

Administrative Governors and the Jweideh Women’s Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre

Jordan comprises twelve administrative districts, each headed by a governor who is subject to the Interior Ministry but who exercises wide authority within his district.102 A governor may, without process or review, detain and imprison any person to protect the public safety.103 When confronted with a woman who has no safe place to escape her murderous relatives and who has been sent to him by the police, an administrative governor often exercises his power to send her to prison for her protection.104 Then- Justice Minister Farisi Nabulsi told Human Rights Watch that governors will send threatened women to prison “only in exceptional cases.”105 But another official and an experienced human rights advocate stated that, in the “honor” context, governors opt for protective imprisonment as the norm.106

There are no accurate statistics on how many women live in prison in Jordan today for their own protection. According to Hana Afgani, the police major in charge of the Jweideh Women’s Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre, ninety-seven inmates were administrative detainees in mid-July 2003, when we visited.107 Major Afgani could not or would not tell Human Rights Watch how many of those administrative detainees were in the prison in order to protect themselves from family members. Eight were women who, having served a sentence for a crime, were not being released “for their own safety.” Major Afgani acknowledged that the other eighty-nine administrative detainees had not been convicted of any crime. It is unclear whether or not these detainees were ever criminally charged.

According to other sources, most or all of the administrative detainees were women in need of protection from their families, but estimates of those under threat vary widely. Asma Khader, minister of state and government spokesperson, visited prisoners at the Jweideh Women’s Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre four months before Human Rights Watch and said that at that time there were approximately sixty such detainees.108 One of the incarcerated women told Human Rights Watch that there were now approximately sixteen such women though there had been about fortyuntil recently.109

A woman incarcerated on the order of an administrative governor may be released only with his consent.110 As a matter of custom and practice, such consent is given only when he deems it safe for her to leave and when a male family member commits himself to be responsible for her. Asma Khader, minister of state and government spokesperson, related that King Hussein himself had signed out a woman prisoner in a particularly egregious 1998 case.111 Human Rights Watch was told that no law requires a male family member as opposed to a female, but Major Afgani could not remember anyone but a male actually coming for a released detainee.

When asked, most of the officials we interviewed said they had no intention to follow the king’s lead and act decisively to support threatened women who are in prison. The president of the Court of First Instance (trial courts), Judge Mohammed Al-Ghazoo, said, “I cannot overthrow the social understanding overnight.”112 Colonel Fadel Al-Humoud of the Family Protection Unit, though saying he would favor allowing adult women detained solely for their own protection to decide for themselves when and whether to leave the prison, said he would do so publicly only “if there is support from other partners such as Parliament and others for such a change.”113

Ministry of Justice: Elusive Promises

Minister of Justice Farisi Nabulsi told Human Rights Watch that it was his understanding that the imprisoned women did not want to leave the Jweideh Women’s Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre. Human Rights Watch told him that the day before three of the four women interviewed had expressed their wish to leave (if they could do so privately and quietly), without having to be escorted by a male relative. The minister, in response, said he would “send a woman judge” to the prison the next day to verify if any of the women wanted to leave; if they did, he would ensure that they were permitted to do so “privately and quietly.”114

Human Rights Watch has since attempted repeatedly to verify whether the minister did in fact follow up on this pledge. For six months our inquiries have gone unanswered, both by the minister and by Jordan’s ambassador to the United States.115 We have been told, however, by two sources following these events closely that nothing has been done.116

The Judiciary

Among Jordan’s seven Courts of First Instance is the High Criminal Court, where all murder cases are tried. There are twelve judges on the High Criminal Court, sitting in panels of three. The first and only female judge on the High Criminal Court to date, Taghreed Hikmat, served for one year, 2002-2003, before being appointed to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.117

The prosecutor general advises the Court of Cassation, Jordan’s highest court, whether there was legal error in the decision of the High Criminal Court. The president of the Court of Cassation is appointed by the king and serves as the country’s chief justice.118 All death penalty cases are automatically appealed to this highest court, and they are reviewed by the full court, which consists of seven judges.

Those who represent women in “honor” situations speak of a systematic bias on the part of trial court judges. “Judges deal with these kinds of crimes in a facilitating way, understanding the man,” said human rights lawyer Hani Dahleh.119 A counselor for women under threat of violence believes that judges need “rehabilitation” in as much as they are “sons of the culture.”120 And even Prosecutor General Rawashdeh believes that judges’ thinking is biased and traditional, saying they “don’t need training, they need education.”121

Human Rights Watch interviewed four judges who have sat on the High Criminal Court concerning article 98 and their views on “honor” crimes.122 Judge Mohammed Al-Ghazoo, the current president of the Court of First Instance, stated that suspicion of a “bad act”—that is, the “unlawful and dangerous act” set out in the statute—was not sufficient to invoke protection under article 98; there had to be proof. But he and his colleagues made clear that this did not mean proof of a woman’s actual sexual misconduct. Nor was it necessary that the victim commit an act that violated a law. Rather, the appearance of misconduct, or a violation of religion or custom, is enough to constitute an “unlawful and dangerous act,” to besmirch family honor, in these judges’ opinion.123 To illustrate a sufficiently provoking act, Judge Ibrahim Abu Taleb, presiding judge of the High Criminal Court, posed the following hypothetical case: a brother hears that his unmarried sister is pregnant; she refuses to tell him if it is true; and he kills her. If his suspicion is correct he benefits from article 98. If his suspicion were incorrect, Judge Taleb said, he could not benefit. However, Judge Taleb considered that if a woman were “in a place where [her family’s] honor is affected,” that is a sufficiently “bad act” to justify the application of article 98.124 When asked if he was satisfied with the routine application of article 98,Judge Al-Gazoo, said, “no, I am not satisfied.” But, he added, “that is the culture of the Arab world.” And Judge Al-Gazoo himself opined that a woman who stays out all night with a boyfriend has engaged in a provocation.125

Government officials and independent lawyers told Human Rights Watch that the courts were beginning to show more sensitivitytoward victims. In September 2002, for example, the Court of Cassation overturned the trial court’s application of article 98 in a case where the defendant killed his sister two months after learning of her “wrongdoing.”126 (She had sexual relations with a man she later married, but the brother did not approve of the marriage.)Referring to this case, Prosecutor General Rawashdeh said, “ten years ago, the Court of Cassation would have accepted the honor excuse in [this] case. Now things have changed. We do not accept that honor excuses any crime.” Judge Taleb also told Human Rights Watch that “courts go overboard on the fit of fury defense and they [the Court of Cassation] [now] send cases back.”127

A prominent criminal defense attorney, Zahra al-Shourabati, believes that in the past few years, even lower courts have begun to require better proof of “fury” and “bad acts” than they did in the past. She cited a case from 2000 of a boy who killed his sister based upon a letter from a friend impugning her chastity; because of insufficient proof of a “bad act” on the victim’s part, he was not afforded the benefit of article 98. Ten years ago, she said, his sentence would have been reduced.128 A women’s rights activist also saw some evidence of progress: “When I am in the courtroom, the judge questions the [prosecuting] witness more technically regarding the relationship of the victim and other man.”129 Judge Hikmat, the only woman to serve on the High Criminal Court, said: “Some of the judges in the past applied [article 98] according to their own beliefs and culture. Now they do not. We started applying it in a new way, a humanitarian way.”130

Such observations are hopeful. On the other hand, in a case decided in 2002, a man was given the benefit of article 98 although he acted upon information in an anonymous letter.131 And in a 2001 case, the Court of Cassation reversed an “honor” killer’s ten-year sentence, consideringit too harsh. The man had murdered his pregnant sister as she lay in the hospital following a suicide attempt.132



75 Human Rights Watch interview with Sabr Yassin Rawashdeh, general prosecutor, Amman, July 15, 2003. See also Human Rights Watch, “The Reaction In Jordan in Jordan: A Death Knell for Free Expression (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1997) available at http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/jordan/Jordan-02.htm

76 Human Rights Watch interview with Asma Khader, attorney and human rights activist, Amman, July 12, 2003. In October 2003, Asma Khader became minister of state and government spokesperson.

77 Human Rights Watch interview with Colonel Fadel Al-Humoud, coordinator, Family Protection Unit, Directorate of Public Security, Amman, Jordan, July 14, 2003.

78 See Human Rights Watch, A Matter of Power: State Control of Women's Virginity in Turkey (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1994).

79 Human Rights Watch interview with Dr. Mu’men S. Hadidi, chief medical examiner of Jordan and director of the National Institute of Forensic Medicine, Amman, July 14, 2003. See also, Mu’men Hadidi, “A Review of Sixteen Cases of Honour Killings in Jordan in 1995,” International Journal of Legal Medicine, (2001), p. 357-359

80 Human Rights Watch interview with Colonel Fadel Al-Humoud, director of Family Protection Unit, Directorate of Public Security, Amman, July 14, 2003.

81 Human Rights Watch interview with Issa Ayoub, legal advisor, public security directorate, Amman, July 16, 2003.

82 Ibid.

83 Human Rights Watch interview with police officers, Amman, July 14, 2003. Names withheld and are on file with Human Rights Watch.

84 Ibid.

85 Human Rights Watch interview with Colonel Fadel Al-Humoud, coordinator, Family Protection Unit, Directorate of Public Security, Amman, July 14, 2003.

86 Official pamphlet, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, “Public Security Directorate” (copy on file at Human Rights Watch).

87 Human Rights Watch interview with Colonel Fadel Al-Humoud, coordinator, Family Protection Unit, Directorate of Public Security, Amman, July 12, 2003.

88 Human Rights Watch interview with Inam Asha, counselor, Effat Al-Hindi Center for Counseling and Legal Services, Amman, July 14, 2003.

89 Human Rights Watch interview with Nadia Shamroukh, vice president, Jordanian Women’s Union, Amman, July 13, 2003.

90 Ibid.

91 Human Rights Watch interviews with Abdul Latif Arabiyat, secretary-general, Islamic Action Front, Amman, July 13, 2003 and Ahmad Hilayel, minister of Islamic and Awqaf Affairs, Amman, July 14, 2003.

92 Ibid.

93 Human Rights Watch interview with Fadel Al-Humoud, coordinator, Family Protection Unit, Directorate of Public Security, Amman, July 14, 2003.

94 Qarar 923: Nitham Dar Himayyat al-‘Usra Lisanat 2004 [Decision 923: The Establishment of a Shelter for the Protection of the Family in 2004] on file with Human Rights Watch. Procedurally, the legislation will come into force thirty days after its publication in the Official Gazette.

95 Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with Reem Abu Hassan, human rights lawyer, and Asma Khader, minister of state and government spokesperson, January 23, 2004.

96 Human Rights Watch interview with Inam Asha, counselor at Effat Al-Hindi Center for Counseling and Legal Services, Amman, July 12, 2003 and with Abdul Latif Arabiyat, secretary-general, Islamic Action Front, Amman, July 13, 2003.

97 Human Rights Watch interview with Inam Asha, counselor, Effat Al-Hindi Center for Counseling and Legal Services, Amman, July 12, 2003.

98 A “temporary law” passed while Parliament was suspended in 2001-2002, abolished this law but the abolition has not yet been ratified by the new Parliament.

99 Human Rights Watch interview with Nadia Shamroukh, vice president, Jordanian Women’s Union, Amman, July 13, 2003.

100 The client is a young unmarried Christian woman whose Muslim boyfriend, unlike any other male in her milieu, is willing to marry her despite the fact that she is not a virgin. Her brother says she has so disgraced the family that he cannot find a bride, and he threatens to kill her. She gets some moral support from her mother. The church bishop reportedly has refused to intervene.

101 Human Rights Watch interview with Inam Asha, counselor, Effat Al-Hindi Center for Counseling and Legal Services, Amman, Jordan, July 12, 2003.

102 According to an official website: “The governorates are an extension of the central government, and are supervised by the Ministry of the Interior. Governors enjoy wide administrative authority, and in specific cases they exercise the powers of ministers.” Available at http://www.jordanembassyus.org/governme.htm#THE%20EXECUTIVE%20BRANCH (retrieved March 17, 2004).

103 The Prevention of Crimes Act of 1954 gives the governors the power to detain “without bond” individuals who constitute a “danger to society.” The Royal Commission on Human Rights has called for limitations on the power of the governors but the government has opposed it. Human Rights Watch interview with Reem Abu Hassan, human rights lawyer, Amman, July 16, 2003.

104 Human Rights Watch interview with Nadia Shamroukh, vice president, Jordanian Women’s Union, Amman, July 13, 2003.

105 Human Rights Watch interview with Farisi Nabulsi, minister of justice, Amman, July 16, 2003.

106 Human Rights Watch interview with Colonel Fadel Al-Humoud, coordinator, Family Protection Unit, Directorate of Public Security, Amman, July 14, 2003; Human Rights Watch interview, Nadia Shamroukh, vice president, Jordanian Women’s Union, Amman, Jordan, July 13, 2003.

107 An administrative detainee is incarcerated by order of an administrative governor for reasons of public safety, either because he deems her a probable recidivist or a danger to society or for her own protection. Fifty-one of the inmates were awaiting trial, and fifty-six had been sentenced. Human Rights Watch interview with Maj. Han Afgani, the Jweideh Women’s Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre, Amman, July 15, 2003.

108 Human Rights Watch interview with Asma Khader, attorney and human rights activist, Amman, July 12, 2003. In October 2003, Asma Khader became minister of state and government spokesperson.

109 Human Rights Watch interview with Kefah Ali, detainee, Jweideh Women’s Correctional and Rehabilitation Centre, Amman, July 15, 2003.

110 Penal Code, article 40.

111 A woman who had served her prison term refused to leave prison if she could not have custody of her daughter who had been born outside of marriage—which is not permitted in Jordan. The king obtained a stipend for her and escorted the woman and her daughter out of prison. Human Rights Watch interview with Asma Khader, attorney and human rights activist, Amman, July 12, 2003. In October 2003, Asma Khader became minister of state and government spokesperson.

112 Human Rights Watch interview with Judge Mohammed Al-Ghazoo, Amman, July 16, 2003.

113 Human Rights Watch interview with Colonel Fadel Al-Humoud, coordinator, Family Protection Unit, Directorate of Public Security, Amman, July 14, 2003.

114 Human Rights Watch interview with Farisi Nabulsi, minister of justice, Amman, July 16, 2003.

115 Human Rights Watch interview with Karim Kawar, Jordanian ambassador to the United States, Washington D.C., October 7, 2003.

116 Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with Asma Khader, minister of state and government spokesperson, Amman, January 24, 2004 and Rana Husseini, journalist, Amman, February 24, 2004.

117 Human Rights Watch interview with Taghreed Hikmat, judge, Amman, July 13, 2003.

118 Most appeals from a Court of First Instance go to the Court of Appeals, but murder cases are an exception; they go directly to the Court of Cassation.

119 Human Rights Watch interview with Hani M. Dahleh, trustee, Arab Organization for Human Rights, Amman, July 12, 2003.

120 Human Rights Watch interview with Inam Asha, counselor, Effat Al-Hindi Center for Counseling and Legal Services, Amman, July 12, 2003.

121 Human Rights Watch interview with Sabr Yassin Rawashdeh, general prosecutor, Amman, July 15, 2003.

122 Human Rights Watch interview with Ibrahim Abu Taleb, presiding judge; Mohamad Ibrahim, judge; Najeh Al-Diat, judge; Azam Obeidat, judge; Mohmad Abu Roman, public prosecutor for the High Criminal Court, Amman, July 16, 2003.

123 Five current and former judges from the High Criminal Court agreed that this was a sufficient “bad act” under Art. 98. Human Rights Watch interview with Ibrahim Abu Taleb, presiding judge; Mohamad Ibrahim, judge; Najeh Al-Diat, judge; Azam Obeidat, judge; Mohmad Abu Roman, public prosecutor for the High Criminal Court, Amman, July 16, 2003

124 Human Rights Watch interview with Judge Ibrahim Abu Taleb, Amman, July 16, 2003.

125 Human Rights Watch interview with Judge Mohammed Al-Ghazoo, Amman, July 16, 2003.

126 Rana Husseini, “Three-month honour killing sentence overturned, Irbid man to be retried,” The Jordan Times, September 9, 2002.

127 Human Rights Watch interview with Presiding Judge Ibrahim Abu Taleb, Amman, July 16, 2003.

128 Human Rights Watch interview with Zahra Al-Shourabati, attorney, Amman, July 12, 2003.

129 Human Rights Watch interview with Asma Khader, attorney and human rights activist, Amman, July 12, 2003. In October 2003, Asma Khader became minister of state and government spokesperson.

130 Human Rights Watch interview with Taghreed Hikmat, Amman, Jordan, July 14, 2003.

131 Rana Husseini, “Man walks free after serving 3 months for murder,” The Jordan Times, May 24, 2002.

132 Rana Husseini, “Court tribunals invoke article 98 to set three murderers free,” The Jordan Times, April 2, 2001.


<<previous  |  index  |  next>>April 2004