Victim blaming refers to the practice of attributing, wholly or in part, responsibility for violence suffered to the victim/survivor. This all-too-common phenomenon is rooted in deeply entrenched stereotypes, prejudices, inequalities and discriminatory social norms, particularly regarding gender and sexuality [1]. While victim blaming occurs across all social spheres, its consequences are particularly concerning in the judicial sphere, where it can constitute a major barrier to access to justice.

In the context of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), victim blaming can occur at every stage of the proceedings: when a complaint is filed, during the investigation, in the assessment of evidence, and even during hearings and decision-making. It may take the form of questions or reasoning that cast doubt on the victim’s credibility, morality, behaviour, choice of clothing, past relationships, alleged lack of resistance, or circumstances in which the violence occurred. It may also lead to the minimisation of the reported violence, a shift in focus from the conduct of the alleged perpetrator to that of the victim, or the imposition of disproportionate standards of proof.

At the international, regional and national levels, some jurisdictions have adopted measures to mitigate these risks. The International Criminal Court (ICC), for example, provides for a number of specific measures for victims/survivors of SGBV, particularly regarding the administration and admissibility of evidence (e.g. consent, prior sexual behaviour) [2].

Moreover, several international mechanisms have emphasised that blaming the victim/survivor, and stereotypes more generally, undermine effective access to justice and foster impunity. With regard to violence against women, including SGBV, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee), in General Recommendation No. 35, recognises that "[t]he application of preconceived and stereotypical notions of what constitutes gender-based violence against women, what women’s responses to such violence should be and the standard of proof required to substantiate its occurrence can affect women’s rights to equality before the law, a fair trial and effective remedy" [3].

Several regional and international courts and mechanisms have recognised that stereotypes and victim blaming constitute major obstacles to access to justice and may affect the impartiality of proceedings.

• CEDAW Committee, Vertido v. Philippines: The Committee found that a judicial decision based on preconceived notions about how a rape victim is expected to behave – particularly with regard to resistance, reaction, or credibility – was founded on discriminatory stereotypes capable of undermining access to justice (paras 8.4-8.9).
• European Court of Human Rights, J.L. v. Italy: The Court condemned the use by national courts of considerations relating to the victim’s private life, sexual orientation or behaviour in a case of sexual violence, reiterating that gender stereotypes must not influence judicial assessment (paras 134-143).
• Inter-American Court of Human Rights, González et al. ("Cotton Field") v. Mexico: The Court recognised that stereotypes relating to the victims’ behaviour or lifestyle had contributed to the authorities’ failure to act, to revictimisation and to impunity, thereby undermining women’s effective access to justice (paras 154, 196-208).