Chapter II Integrated policies and data collection | Article 7 Comprehensive and coordinated policies | Riga Revision 1.0
Complete analysis using 8-Point Evaluation Framework with systematic gender asymmetry review.
ORIGINAL TEXT (Istanbul Convention, adopted May 11, 2011)
1 Parties shall take the necessary legislative and other measures to adopt and implement State-wide effective, comprehensive and co-ordinated policies encompassing all relevant measures to prevent and combat all forms of violence covered by the scope of this Convention and offer
a holistic response to violence against women.
2 Parties shall ensure that policies referred to in paragraph
1 place the rights of the victim at the centre of all measures and are implemented by way of effective co-operation among all relevant agencies, institutions and organisations.
3 Measures taken pursuant to this article shall involve, where appropriate, all relevant actors, such as government agencies, the national, regional and local parliaments and authorities, national human rights institutions and civil society organisations.
[Source: CETS No. 210, Article 7]
8-POINT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
Evaluation Criteria: This article is assessed using the following 8 criteria with proper citation of sources:
All analyses must include:
- Academic sources (peer-reviewed journals, legal scholarship)
- Primary sources (legal documents, official reports, case law)
- Diverse perspectives (multiple ideological and cultural frameworks)
- Implementation data from multiple jurisdictions
- Expert opinions from various stakeholder groups
ISSUE IDENTIFICATION
Score: -2 (Negative-only scoring: each issue = -1 point)
v1.05 includes systematic gender asymmetry review
Issues Identified:
Text: “comprehensive policies”
Issue: Implementation unclear
Text: “violence against women framework”
Issue: Domestic violence gender-neutral in theory but women-focused in context
PROPOSED REVISIONS
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
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.
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.
Responses