Chapter II Integrated policies and data collection | Article 10 Coordinating body

🚧 RIGA REVISION 1.0 [FIRST DRAFT]
Complete analysis using 8-Point Evaluation Framework with systematic gender asymmetry review.

📌 Navigation:
← Article 9 | All Articles | Article 11 →

ORIGINAL TEXT (Istanbul Convention, adopted May 11, 2011)

Article 10 – Coordinating body

1 Parties shall designate or establish one or more official bodies responsible for the co.ordination, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and measures to prevent and combat all forms of violence covered by this Convention. These bodies shall co-ordinate the collection of data as referred to in Article 11, analyse and disseminate its results.

2 Parties shall ensure that the bodies designated or established pursuant to this article receive information of

a general nature on measures taken pursuant to Chapter VIII.

3 Parties shall ensure that the bodies designated or established pursuant to this article shall have the capacity to communicate directly and foster relations with their counterparts in other Parties.
[Source: CETS No. 210, Article 10]

8-POINT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

Evaluation Criteria: This article is assessed using the following 8 criteria with proper citation of sources:

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.

🎓 CITATION REQUIREMENTS:
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: -1 (Negative-only scoring: each issue = -1 point)

v1.05 includes systematic gender asymmetry review

Issues Identified:

❌ Vague standard (-1)
Text: “[multiple]”
Issue: Implementation unclear

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

💭 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 9 | All Articles | Article 11 →

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.