Chapter XII Final clauses | Article 81 Notification | Riga Revision 1.0
Complete analysis using 8-Point Evaluation Framework with systematic gender asymmetry review.
ORIGINAL TEXT (Istanbul Convention, adopted May 11, 2011)
75 and 76;
d any amendment adopted in accordance with Article
72 and the date on which such an amendment enters into force;
e any reservation and withdrawal of reservation made in pursuance of Article 78;
f any denunciation made in pursuance of the provisions of Article 80;
g any other act, notification or communication relating to this Convention.
In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have signed this Convention.
Done at Istanbul, this 11th day of May 2011, in English and in French, both texts being equally authentic, in
a single copy which shall be deposited in the archives of the Council of Europe. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall transmit certified copies to each member State of the Council of Europe, to the non-member States which have participated in the elaboration of this Convention, to the European Union and to any State invited to accede to this Convention.
[Source: CETS No. 210, Article 81]
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: 0 (Negative-only scoring: each issue = -1 point)
v1.05 includes systematic gender asymmetry review
Issues Identified:
No significant textual issues identified in initial review.
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