Chapter V Substantive law | Article 36 Sexual violence including rape | Riga Revision 1.0

1. Definitions: Are terms clearly defined? Is a sound logical framework present? Which logical fallacies appear (circular reasoning, false dichotomies, category errors, equivocation)? Citations required.

2. Legal Clarity: Based on sound logic, is the convention legally clear and understandable for enforcement? Can it be implemented consistently? Legal precedents cited.

3. Sovereignty Impact: Does this respect diverse legal systems and state sovereignty? Does it allow legitimate cultural and legal variation? International law sources cited.

4. Victim Protection: Does this genuinely enhance safety and protection for victims? Are there unintended harms to vulnerable groups? Research evidence cited.

5. Bad Actor Exploitability: Can this be weaponized for state repression, perpetrator manipulation, false accusations, or selective enforcement? Case studies cited.

6. Practical Feasibility: Can states actually implement this? Are resources, infrastructure, and institutional capacity requirements realistic? Implementation data cited.

7. Unintended Consequences: What negative externalities might emerge? Are there perverse incentives or unforeseen harms? Policy analysis cited.

8. Cultural Sensitivity: Does this allow for legitimate cultural variation while maintaining core protections? Does it impose specific ideological frameworks? Comparative cultural studies cited.

1. Definitions: Are terms clearly defined? Is a sound logical framework present? Which logical fallacies appear? Citations required.

2. Legal Clarity: Is the convention legally clear and understandable for enforcement? Can it be implemented consistently? Legal precedents cited.

3. Sovereignty Impact: Does this respect diverse legal systems and state sovereignty? International law sources cited.

4. Victim Protection: Does this genuinely enhance safety and protection for victims? Research evidence cited.

5. Bad Actor Exploitability: Can this be weaponized for repression, manipulation, or false accusations? Case studies cited.

6. Practical Feasibility: Can states actually implement this with realistic resources? Implementation data cited.

7. Unintended Consequences: What negative externalities might emerge? Policy analysis cited.

8. Cultural Sensitivity: Does this allow for legitimate cultural variation while maintaining core protections? Comparative studies cited.

❌ Undefined term (-1)
Text: “free will”
Issue: Philosophical concept, not legal standard

❌ Vague standard (-1)
Text: “context of surrounding circumstances”
Issue: Which circumstances? Conflicts with Art 42

❌ Undefined catch-all (-1)
Text: “other non-consensual acts”
Issue: No definition

❌ No threshold (-1)
Text: “other acts”
Issue: Boundary unclear

❌ Evidentiary standard missing (-1)
Text: “voluntarily”
Issue: Burden of proof unclear

❌ Contradiction (-1)
Text: “context matters (36.2) vs culture excluded (Art 42)”
Issue: Inconsistent

❌ Gender asymmetry – CRITICAL (-1)
Text: “penetration…of the body”
Issue: Only covers being PENETRATED – excludes ‘made to penetrate’ (MTP)

❌ Male victim erasure (-1)
Text: “penetration of”
Issue: Woman forcing man to penetrate her = NOT rape under this definition

❌ Incomplete definition (-1)
Text: “vaginal, anal or oral penetration”
Issue: Made to penetrate NOT covered

❌ Harmful stereotype (-1)
Text: “penetration-only”
Issue: Reinforces false narrative only men rape – CDC data shows near-parity when MTP included

Revision principles: Clarity, consistency, cultural sensitivity, sovereignty respect, victim protection, exploitability reduction

Option A: [Gender-symmetric revision with rationale and sources]

Option B: [Alternative approach with rationale and sources]

Option C: [Minimalist revision with rationale and sources]

Each option includes: Legal precedents, implementation feasibility, cultural impact assessment, stakeholder perspectives

💭 STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES:
Consider views from: Victim advocacy groups, legal scholars, cultural/religious communities, implementation practitioners, state sovereignty advocates, human rights organizations, gender equality advocates, and others affected by this article.

📌 Navigation:
← Article 35 | All Articles | Article 37 →

About Riga Revision 1.0: Comprehensive article-by-article critique using the 8-Point Evaluation Framework, rigorous technical documentation standards, and multi-stakeholder perspectives. This is a FIRST DRAFT prepared with AI assistance. Version 2.0 and beyond will be prepared by human experts.

Resources: Evaluation Framework | 8 C’s of Technical Writing | All Articles

Disclaimer: This analysis represents critical examination from multiple perspectives and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources and qualified legal professionals.