Human Rights as a Security Threat: Lawfare and the Campaign against Human Rights NGOs

In this article, I show how the term lawfare is being deployed as a speech act in order to encode the field of human rights as a national security threat. The objective, I claim, is to hinder the work of human rights organizations that produce and disseminate knowledge about social wrongs perpetrated by military personnel and government officials, particularly evidence of acts emanating from the global war on terrorism—such as torture and extrajudicial executions—that constitute war crimes and can be presented in courts that exercise universal jurisdiction. Using Israel as a case study, I investigate the local and global dimensions of the securitization processes, focusing on how different securitizing actors—academics, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, policy makers, and legislators—mobilize the media, shape public opinion, lobby legislators and policy makers, introduce new laws, and pressure donors to pave the way for a form of exceptional intervention to limit the scope of human rights work.     

Alleged Biological Father Incest: A Forensic Approach

Paternal incest is one of the most serious forms of intrafamilial sexual abuse with clinical, social, and legal relevance. A retrospective study was performed, based on forensic reports and judicial decisions of alleged cases of biological paternal incest of victims under 18 years old (n = 215) from 2003 to 2008. Results highlight that in a relevant number of cases: victims were female; the abuse begun at an early age with reiteration; the alleged perpetrator presented a history of sexual crimes against children; sexual practices were physically poorly intrusive, which associated with a forensic medical evaluation performed more than 72 h after the abuse, explain partially the absence of physical injuries or other evidence—these last aspects are different from extrafamilial cases. In conclusion, observations about paternal incest are likely to exacerbate the psychosocial consequences of the abuse and may explain the difficulty and delay in detect and disclose these cases. Few cases were legally prosecuted and convicted.     

Victims of Intimate Partner Violence. The Physician’s Intervention in the Portuguese National Health Service

This study intends to characterize the current situation in Portugal regarding intimate partner violence (IPV) disclosure by the victims and its detection and report by the National Health Service (NHS) professionals, in order to promote the health and protection of the former. We interviewed 101 adult victims of IPV who sought care in the NHS. The results reveal that a relevant number of victims did not disclose the abuse to NHS physicians (18.8 %). According to the victims, in 57.9 % of the cases, physicians did not suspect IPV. In cases where there actually was suspicion (based on specific evidence and markers) or where there was no concealment of such type of violence, 52.3 % of the physicians did not inform the victims about the risks this situation posed to them, 89.8 % did not mention their obligation to denounce the case (as it is foreseen by the Portuguese law), and the number of injuries they described was lower than the one described in the forensic medical reports.     

The new regulation of abortion in Spain

The enactment of Law 2/2010 on Sexual and Reproductive Health and on Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy represents a radical change in the regulation of abortion in Spain. The law moves from the medical indication model that has been in place since 1985 (which established certain cases in which abortion was legal) towards a time-limit model that, with some exceptions, allows free abortion during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. Along with the hot debate that this fundamental change has caused, other features of the law have also arisen as a source of conflict, including the regulation of the informed consent of underage women for having an abortion and the rules regarding the conscientious objection by healthcare professionals.     

The admissibility and persuasiveness of expert evidence

Parenting plan evaluators are expert witnesses who offer their opinion. Courts in common law jurisdictions generally do not accept evidence of an opinion as it is not considered to be reliable evidence from which to establish a fact. An exception to that general principle is expert opinion evidence. In short, an opinion from a person with specialized knowledge or expertise about the area in which they are an expert may be sufficiently reliable to form an evidentiary basis from which to make a finding of fact, provided the opinion meets certain criteria. These criteria will be discussed in this article, as well as what is relevant, reliable and persuasive evidence. The relevant legal principles will be examined in an historical and contemporary, theoretical and practical context. The authors reflect on their considerable experience as consumers of expert evidence and apply this to parenting plan evaluations, as well as considering future challenges in the field.