"It's her own fault." How gender stereotypes penetrate the justice system

"She brought it on herself." How gender stereotypes penetrate the justice system

"The actions or inaction of the victim created the ground for the commission of the crime," — this phrase was included in a decision on a domestic violence criminal case by Judge G. Negmatov of the Urgut District Court.

Irina Matvienko, a gender expert and founder of the anti-violence project in Uzbekistan Nemolchi.uz, believes that such wording can fuel victim-blaming — shifting the responsibility for violence onto the victim herself. In a column for "Gazeta", she notes that the language of a judicial decision is capable of reproducing gender stereotypes and influencing how the state describes violence.

According to the case files, in 2023, Asal (name changed) and Shertoy Boymurodov got married. The husband occasionally left to work in Russia, and Asal got a job as a nurse at the district hospital. In July 2025, her father-in-law claimed he saw her with some man in a shop in the city center, accused her of infidelity, and informed his son, after which Asal was kicked out.

The woman was shocked by the slander, called her husband, and asked him to return. But he replied that he had no money for the trip, and so she decided to divorce him when he arrived. While she was waiting, another man proposed to Asal, and with her parents' consent, they performed a religious ceremony in October 2025.

On November 10, 2025, Asal, along with her father, came to the registry office to dissolve the marriage. Her husband and his father also arrived there. In his testimony, Boymurodov said that upon seeing Asal, he remembered what had happened to him in Russia due to his wife's fault, approached her, and kicked her in the face. They were separated by their fathers. In court, the accused spoke of repentance and love for his wife. He stated that he flew into a rage because of her alleged infidelity, the fact of which was not proven, and also because she was now with another man.

Thus, a mere accusation of infidelity became the reason why the woman was kicked out of her home, and then — a pretext to justify physical violence.

It is particularly alarming when such a stance is reflected in a court decision, which states that "the actions or inaction of the victim created the ground for the commission of the crime" (жабрланувчининг ўз ҳаракат ёки ҳаракатсизлиги мазкур жиноятни келиб чиқишига замин яратганлигини). Having studied thousands of court decisions, I have never encountered such wording in the reasoning section when the victim was a man or when a wife was in conflict with her husband over his infidelity.

The court's phrase that "the actions (inaction) of the victim created the ground for the commission of the crime" raises questions from the perspective of international standards of gender equality and women's access to justice.

Article 2(d) of the Convention requires states to refrain from engaging in any act or practice of discrimination against women by public authorities, and Article 5(a) — to take measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.

In its concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Uzbekistan, the CEDAW Committee has already recommended providing training for judges and raising awareness to eliminate judicial gender bias and persistent gender stereotypes.

In 2022, the guide was updated and expanded to South and Southeast Asia. This is an advisory practical tool for judges that clarifies how a gender perspective can be applied in judicial work.

The guide advises judges to consider whether there are unequal power relations or unequal treatment based on sex or gender in a specific case, and to avoid using gender stereotypes when hearing and resolving cases.

Among the stereotypes that judges must be able to recognize are, for example, those such as: "the man is the head of the family and must make family decisions," and "the woman must be submissive and obedient."

Separately, the guide recommends preventing the re-victimization of victims of violence and using inclusive and gender-sensitive language in court proceedings, decisions, and other judicial documents. In cases of sexual and gender-based violence, it calls on judges to exercise particular care when drafting court decisions.

International standards do not prohibit the court from considering the circumstances of the case. They require not turning a woman's personal life, her decisions, or her non-conformity to traditional ideas about the role of a wife into an explanation or justification for the violence committed against her. Even if the court establishes that the accused felt anger due to certain circumstances, it does not follow that the victim, by her actions, "created the ground" for the violence committed against her. This may describe the context of the conflict, but it should not become a gender-biased explanation or justification for violent behavior.

Gender discrimination in justice is evaluated not only through the prism of punishment. No less important are the court's reasoning, the evaluation of evidence, and the language the court uses to describe the victim and what occurred.

The CEDAW Committee notes that stereotyping can lead to the misapplication of the law and hinder holding perpetrators accountable. The Bangkok Guide, in turn, views the language of judicial decisions as part of gender-sensitive administration of justice and recommends avoiding gender stereotypes and re-victimization. Therefore, even if the accused received a punishment within the law, this does not yet mean that the reasoning section of the decision reflects a gender-sensitive approach to justice.

On January 9, 2026, a judge of the Urgut District Criminal Court, G. Negmatov, found Shertoy Boymurodov guilty of committing a crime under Part 3 of Article 126-1 (family (domestic) violence) of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan, and sentenced him to two years of correctional labor. At the same time, the decision also recorded that the actions or inaction of the victim "created the ground" for the commission of the crime.

Because of this, victim-blaming can arise — shifting the responsibility for violence onto the one who suffered from it. Victim-blaming can manifest not only in the phrase "she brought it on herself," but also in the language that state institutions use to describe violence. This happens when a crime against a woman is explained by her behavior, lifestyle, or non-conformity to someone's ideas of how a woman "should" behave.

The judge evaluates the circumstances of the case and delivers a decision on behalf of the state. Therefore, the judge's formulation that the actions or inaction of the victim "created the ground" for the crime can, at the state level, reinforce the notion that a woman is to some extent responsible for the violence inflicted upon her. However, it is important for everyone working in the justice system to remember: the responsibility for violence lies with the one who committed it.

A woman can make decisions that someone does not like, violate someone's ideas of what is "correct," end relationships, or start new ones — none of this can serve as a justification for violence. A court decision must establish responsibility for the crime committed, rather than reproduce the stereotype that the victim herself "created the ground" for the violence.