Transcript

May 9, 2024, 4:03PM

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 0:03

¿Perfecto, muchas gracias, EH?

Miguel Angel Oyarce Moraga started transcription

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 0:06

Bueno, bienvenidos bienvenidas a todos, voy a comenzar diciendo unas palabras en
español.
Agradecerles la participación a esta actividad.
El este seminario va a ser en inglés, pero por supuesto, si ustedes tienen cualquier
pregunta.
Mientras los expos tú eres, hablan de la bueno formulario por escrito en el chat en
español y yo la puedo traducir ya.
Que en ese sentido no se preocupen y nuevamente agradecerles su presencia y
comenzaré a hacer la presentación en inglés que hizo good afternoon.
Everybody on behalf of the faculty of law, the seminar serie Sony European, los
Tablets and the masters in public loewy welcome all of you to the prohibition of
violence against women and the International law, dice the first of a series of
seminarios.
Kids for bear in Win to address the dialogue between Europe and Latin America.
Olivares topics in the field of public globo.
We are the presence of authorities.
Profesor Students and the Public, Katherine Today Alonso, de Estudiantes de Arguin
to be connected lately, en YouTube.
¿Cuál increasingly International attention has been paid to the age of Viot?
Se Against Win IT has been recognized as violence against Winnie the violation of
the rights and fundamental freedoms of wine and obstáculo to the rhythm twitty
development and peace the reality Star Windows Live Jenny parts of the world needs
en efectivo, International legal framework.
Dar explicitly defines violencia en su woman y no olvides forms a human rights
violation.
Su reflexión, this very interesting topic.
We have the presence of two distinguished bikers.
Un week for big hero, Sandesh Sivakumaran Liliana Ronconi.
Thank you so much for Bing here your time and your presentation.

Miguel Angel Oyarce Moraga 2:05

No.

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 2:08

¿Eh?
¿Hay we give you Evelyn traduction of a sorry the interest ya?
Miguel Angel Oyarce Moraga 2:13
Sí, pero después Miranda.
Estoy en martes 7.

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 2:19

¿OK?
¿Amm sabes?
Ya dale, Eh.
Todo Aguilar y brigham Mario First Beach, you to the speakers, first of all Sandesh,
Sivakumaran juice, professor of international law at the university of Cambridge,
director of the other Paz center for international law, fellow of CARDS College en
Cambridge, Sandesh of topics en Public International, love his work has been said by
months the UK Netherlands de Colombia.
En Constitutional Court the International Criminal Court the International Logo
Mission and UN Comision Xfinity es Sandesh Edhit es ANASTASIA next que range of
States, international organizations and Governmental organizations, Sandesh
Regularly Trains, diplomats, Members and arm of arms.
Four points and International law and with this world Health hacen parte de Life of
The Beach Stevens ha.
¿Supervisor o Pelotudo?
Basinger de mí a Hasb�n en honor http.
En Ana el Sol, Liliana Ronconi profesora Santo Tomás y University in the Campusano.
Valeria hice, doctor of blood y from the universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Si es en especialista en escultura, actrices sin Flash, Jorge Tina Loira, profesor y legal
ciencia.
Oswell in the universidad de Buenos Aires, Puentes and now works in the Santo
Tomás University, Specialized in Human Rights y Quality Education, Gender and legal
education of social workers hace consultants on education and sexual education is
us.
En Latinoamérica Without speakers for accepting the invitation to participate in
diseminar sharing the reflections and xperience with speakers Arias to now the will
have a proximat light to percent starting with sandwich and followed by Liliana
Annette Presentations will proceed to add respuestas from the audience.
Día de Chat, Hans you can Ask Questions hasta It All you in Spanish and that will
translate, en que es necesario Now Alejandro, ver tu sándwich Sivakumaran for his
presentation on prohibición violence against Women and the international human
Rights law.

Sandesh Sivakumaran 5:01

Ver thanks thanks everyone for nada.
Guion.
Saber Efe you can let me now When.
Lights.

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 5:23

Es.
Ya voy, casi es perfectly tranquilo.

Sandesh Sivakumaran 5:28

Ya está OK Google Tax.
¿Stranger?
Eh te preocupes.
Human Rights, desde category only in the nineteen nineties, se realiza Ely with me
exception valens Women, Karen Tweets International human rights, only with guion
three and streets.
General, recommendation intenten the only on the elimination of discrimination
against with the ninety two the youman generalizables declaration on elimination of
Wall Street.
Which is a three and the American Convention on the prevention punishment and
the City o Valencia, Katherine with teeth in Maty four antes para ti en portals of the
Three instruments for restablecer la categoría.
Ballet Stabbing.
Pino, Reality letal.
A ver si want to talk is the process by which three instruments web created antes de
que contributions of the instruments.
¿Con qué fichas de the drafting process xps en creation?
Instruments de Influence of International Women's Human Rights groups and Health
Drafting process Freddy nada.
With one.
The principle Treaty on wings of the elimination discrimination.
3.
Include en especial reference to Valencia, Instrument the Time.
También se.
Reference to attacks on the físicas, integrity women that proposals not adopted
había xfinity xfinity that the time Valenzuela instruments, not the only on the Edge of
the international community to but incluyen of reference, the closet reference, we
can see in Seattle is the sex of the comments. Bueno.
Quote shake Vall, the propia mayores including legislation that of traffic en Win, en
exploitation of prostitution of woman subsidio Chavez asset Palencia Instrument
through.
Monitores de implementation of the guion, the side of the.
Rights Watch parties.
Pero reality fustes, reported on the Edge.
Sepulveda.
Hans Angel.
Twelve pon Valencia Instrument.
Guion, recomendacion twelve provided states, parties a autoportante matriz de taken
on preventing Bills Against Women, Seguidme.
Decidido que Maty Place Valenzuela Instrument has scully within the sky with the
competent of the comedy and stricken precisely because of the region of the
inclusión Edhit.
Grandes Convention Washington DC pero estamos Strickler states aquagest to the
position between.
Raw.
Ninety one of the Cat Stevens.
Necesito twenty four presented information to the City of Wall Street.
¿Antxon, en one de qué?
Alguien sabe, ninety, two, two.
De que Maty want to be active on the subject.
Of the World Conference on Human Rights, Watch to take place en ninety Three and
the Members of the media.
Elizabeth Boldt Draft generalmente guion Odger.
****.
¿Dónde está xfinity?
En el Min.
Time en ninety the President of The American Commission of the first.
The questions against is not present in any.
¿Existen Convention anda?
Se preparo Convention on the subject.
Second LIFE.
Consultar.
Un.
Leigh, Xfinity and Consulting, mended the drafting.
Jonathan Convention on the Subject.
Seattle.
A the Young and the States of human en match.
Ninety One Canada introduzca, Resolution on Valls Against.
¿Can you usas with you?
Tejido se trata.
With the time of my five World Conference will Smith Place Invasion.
Lee, saturday from the sitio que me tienes.
En eso está cada o sea sido de snot specifically the question.
Mi descanso.
Decidido que Matías, reciente de Adobe generalmente online.
Indicated quot this is nothing to be boing Angel.
Canta de Meeting of Weather Station.
The responsive.
Trade indicated that sido olvidado.
New Zealand the ****.
Guion, the implementation of existence Hans rather than the creation of adicional
standard one that should.
¿Existen instrumentos?
Limited sport the Resolution.
Las que Méndez, unidad de Framework for International instrumental, se te proposal
for pain opcional.
Protocolo de Sydney.
Ricardo Sprohnle, the key points.
The Three Sacred.
Iniciales, Katherine Dress Balenciaga Instrument of the National Human Rights.
O sea, es que.
Pintura.
¿What's agree that instruments?
¿Se puede en dónde está el stage of the process?
With experts se dio.
Expresa por.
Iniciativa en Fallout EXPRESIONES Sportback de Comision Katherine Xfinity TV.
A preliminary tax and that meeting was held in August of 1991 in Krakus.
The preliminary draft text was prepared, which the Commission considered and sent
to states for their observations.
The Commission on the status of women.
The CSW also opted for an expert meeting to consider the issue, and that expert
group meeting took place in November in 1981 in Vienna, Canada prepared the
principal working paper for that meeting, which was in fact drafted by Professor
Rebecca Cook and according to some of those who were present at the meeting, the
Canadian working paper reviewed the extent to which existing human rights treaties
dealt with the issue of violence against women, and concluded that none of those
existing treaties address the problem of violence against women directly.
And then a new instrument was justified.
The working paper reviewed possible approaching is possible instruments and
concluded that the drafting of an optional protocol to Seydor was the
recommendation, and that might be, as you recall, Canada's.
That was in that Canada's earlier position, a quote unquote, lively debate followed,
and that Canadian analysis was challenged.
It was challenged by addressing the potential drawbacks of preparing an optional
protocol to sedo.
The concern seemed to be that an optional protocol to see doll on violence against
women would suggest that violence against women was not covered by the seed or
itself not covered by the Convention itself.
Only by the Optional Protocol and since an optional protocol would only be binding
on states that became parties to it, a certain subset of states may well be parties to
Seidel, but not the optional protocol.
There was also a reference to other initiatives that were going on at the time, notably
the seed or committees intended study of violence, which would to be discussed in
1992, and so the expert group ultimately recommended as incremental approaches,
the strengthening of the Cedar committees, general recommendations on the
subject, the adoption of the Declaration on violence against Women and the
appointment of a special rapporteur on violence against women.
And it was said that only in the event that these measures proved unsuccessful in
eliminating violence against women, would an optional protocol be recommended.
So the decision taken by the CSW expert group was very much affected by the
decision of the CEDAR Committee to consider the issue of violence against women.
And it's next session the CSA expert group also prepared to declaration on violence
against women, considering that to be an effective way to crystallize an international
norm on the prohibition of violence against women.
International women's human rights groups were also interested in taking the issue
of violence against women.
Forward Donna Sullivan explains that women's human rights groups had a dual
strategy of promoting the integration of women's human rights into existing
instruments, as well as promoting new gender specific standards.
And she indicates that the approach to new standard setting was for many of us a
cautious 1 because, she says we wanted to avoid the implication that exist in norms
could not be applied to various forms of violence against women.
And so, she says.
Therefore, broad claims about a complete normative gap, a complete gap in the law,
would have been counterproductive.
And that's the concern that really underlined the the sort of critical reaction to the
Canadian proposal, the idea that there was a complete normative gap, complete gap
in the law.
Now, at the time, Sullivan was working for the International League for Human
Rights, the US based human rights NGO's, and she prepared an initial draft of a
general recommendation on violence against women, which she sent to Andrew
Burns, who was working with the International Women's Rights Action Watch.
Burns produced a revised draft, which was then submitted to Elizabeth Abbott, the
member of the Cedar Committee.
Who you might recall, was preparing a draft general recommendation, but once that
draft was handed over, there were limited interactions between Everett and Burns
and Sullivan about it.
Now, recently, Nina Reiners has addressed the general comments.
General recommendations of treaty bodies are drafted by what she calls a
transnational lawmaking coalition.
That is to say, with Treaty body members and outside actors who draft these general
comments together, I don't think that was the case here.
What we see here is more akin to the traditional lobbying on the part of human
rights.
NGOs Elizabeth Abbott did prepare a draft general recommendation and her
approach was one of wanting seed or to be as wide ranging as possible.
She says that there wouldn't be any issue of violence against women, which we
couldn't bring within the framework on of the Convention.
Now the International League for Human Rights, the NGO I just mentioned, it held a
seminar on violence against women shortly before the Cedar Committees 1992
session.
So again, it's the middle column on the slide.
That seminar was intended to help the Cedar Committee members draft a A legally
oriented or weighty general recommendation, because until that point, the feeling
was the seed or committee had made more resolution style recommendations and
one of the participants of the meeting recalls that the meeting informed much of the
committees work towards the recommendation.
So again, here you can see that that influence of NGO's coming through.
Now, by the time the Cedar Committee session came around in January of 1992,
there was a feeling in the committee that it's plans had been preempted by the cswe
expert groups proposal for a new instrument.
There was a feeling that it may have been more sensible for CSW to wait and see
what the Central Committee has said on the subject before embarking on a fresh
enterprise to create a new instrument.
But despite those concerns, the seed or committee revised and adopted the draft
general recommendation that had been prepared by Elizabeth Abbott, and that was
what would become General Recommendation 19.
Now, in March 1992, a month or so after the Cedar Committee adopted its general
recommendation, the draft declaration of the Siesta WX but Group was put before
the CSW, the Commission on the Status of Women, and although CSW Member
States supported the draft, a number of them felt that it required further work.
And so an intersessional working group meeting was established to further develop
the declaration, taking into crowd the declaration of the expert Group.
Prior to the meeting of that working group, the International human Rights Law
Group, another NGO circulated comments on the expert Group draft to a number of
states.
The comments were prepared by Donna Sullivan, who had by this time moved to the
International human Rights Law Group.
Now the Law Group sought to downplay its role.
Its stressed that it was not submitting its work as an NGO statement and it was not
making a general distribution.
Rather, the hope was that the delegations to which the paper had been sent the
comments had been sent, might pick up at least some of the suggestions and push
them in the working group, and you can see actually on the slide that the words
written statement are being crossed out and instead what's been added is the phrase
informal comments and the comments of the Law Group would in fact play a
significant role.
In fact, some states treated the comments almost on a par with the draft of the
expert group and drew on them in the formulation of their own states positions.
The Intersessional working group meeting took place in Vienna in September 1992
and the working group revised the expert groups draft declaration and the
declaration was subsequently adopted by the CSW, then by the ECOSOC, and finally
by the UN General Assembly in December of 1993.
Back at the Inter American Commission after analyzing States and others comments
on the preliminary draft, Inter American Convention in October 1982, it was decided
to convene an intergovernmental meeting of experts with a view to preparing a draft
conventions.
There was a well to fast track the preparation of that convention with an eye to the
1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing.
The idea being that the Inter American Convention would be showcased as a
hemispheric achievement and aware of the work being undertaken at the CSW, the
Intergovernmental Group of Experts was mandated to take into account the work
being done by the UN on the issue.
The Intergovernmental Group of Experts held two sessions in 1993, following which
the text was approved and circulated to states or comments and later adopted by
the OAS General Assembly in June of 1994.
So from zero instruments at the start of 1982, by June of 1994, with three important
instruments on the subject specifically for international law together, the three
instruments made at least four important contributions.
First, they recognized violence against women as a human rights issue because up
until this point, the limited initiatives that have taken place on the subject,
particularly at the UN level, came out of the crime prevention and criminal justice
spheres of the UN, not the human rights sphere.
So we had an important shift through these through instruments through these three
instruments.
The second contribution is that the three instruments defined violence against
women, and third, they recognized violence against women in all its forms.
Up until this point, the limited attention had been paid to domestic violence, violence
in the family, so as an important but only a subset of violence against women and
4th the three instruments.
Recognize that states have obligations in respect of violence against women.
Also in the private sphere that's breaking down that public private divide.
In my final few minutes, let me just say a few words on the definition of violence
against women.
So particularly important feature of the three instruments is that they defined
violence against women and was, as was noted at several points in the drafting
processes, the definition of the problem was the first set was the first step in solving
it.
It was said that what cannot be defined cannot be legislated against now.
Initially, the drafters of the instruments adopted a bricolage type approach.
That is to say, they simply drool on whatever materials they had before then be they
domestic laws, studies, or guidance from expert groups.
But once draft definitions of violence against women have been prepared, the
drafters of the instruments quickly moved from bricolage to consistency.
And you can see a comparison of the definitions on the slide.
There's a very clear consistency across the definitions of violence against women in
those three instruments, we can see similar sorts of elements and sort of harm types
of harm.
We can see similarity in terms of wording, physical harm, sexual harm, psychological
or mental harm, Tomas suffering.
We can also see a similarity even in the order of wording, and that again really goes
to this point that these three instruments drafted at the same time should be seen
together because the drafting processes were very much linked, and that comes
through very clearly.
I think in those definitions, that's not to say that the definitions are identical.
There are important differences between them, but again, it does demonstrate the
relationship between the three drafting processes, and there are advantages and
disadvantages of similarity of definition in terms of advantages.
There are pragmatic as well as normative reasons which might favor consistency
across definitions or consistency of definition across instruments.
In practical terms, it's far easier for drafters of an instrument to design an instrument
and reach agreement on its terms if it uses language that is being used previously in
other instruments, especially if those other instruments involve the same parties, that
reduces the time it takes to reach agreement on particular wording and consequently
reduces the costs.
Normatively consistent language might lead to harmonization across international or
there's a shared understanding of a particular concept, and there's a shared
approach amongst States and that should in turn lead to, for example, consistency of
definition in states, domestic legislation, and it's notable that some states parties to
the interaction convention have adopted the Convention definition of violence
against women in their domestic legislation.
Others have used the Convention definition as a baseline and broadened it out to
include other forms of violence, notably economic violence and patrimonial violence.
And as they've broadened out the definition rather than narrowed it, we still have a
Common Core definition across states parties, namely that definition of the Inter
American Convention.
And that consistency of definition has also enabled the argument that the
prohibition on violence against women has passed into customary international law.
It's easier to argue that the prohibition is passed into custom if the definition of
violence against women, for example in states domestic legislations, is consistent
across instruments, it's harder to make that argument if the definition varies widely
across domestic legislation.
But despite those very real merits of consistency of definition, there are also potential
drawbacks.
1st is Bruno Pizzati.
His cautioned dinner.
The different context language might be reproduced unthinkingly, uncritically, almost
by rote.
Right.
We have a definition here.
Let's simply copy and paste it over here and that overlooks potential limitations or
ambiguities or gaps in the text, and we can see that perhaps with the concept of
economic harm which was emitted from these early definitions and only included a
decade or so later in the Maputo Protocol.
2nd we might need to think about the type of instrument where dealing with,
because what might be appropriate for a soft or instrument might not be
appropriate for a binding treaty, right?
There's a difference between obligations which are binding and obligations, or or
norms, which we find in an instrument that's not binding.
And 3rd if we take from the global level to the regional level, it might mean that
regionally relevant issues are not sufficiently considered.
So the declaration on the elimination of violence against Women, for example, lists
among its manifestations of violence against women, diary related violence and
female genital mutilation, FGM that those were dropped from the list of
manifestations.
In the end, American Convention, presumably because they were not relevant to the
region.
However, regionally relevant manifestations were not added, despite some states
such as Trinidad and Tobago, suggesting inclusion of, for example, unlawful, killing in
the list of manifestations of islands because in its view that was very common in all
societies of the region.
Now, regardless of those potential drawbacks, the contribution of these three
instruments for the understanding of the notion of violence.
OK, the domain should not be overlooked.
So if I start to wrap up now, in conclusion, I think these three instruments do a
number of things.
First of all, as I said, from zero instruments at the start of 1992, by June of 1994, so a
little over two years later we had three important instruments which have been
adopted, but far from being a foregone conclusion.
The process of creating those instruments which challenging in a number of respects,
there were those institutional tensions between the cswe proposal and the work of
the CEDAR Committee.
There was also a dialogue between the processors with the Interamerican
Commission process being mandated to take into account the work that was going
on at the CSA.
There was also that early set back with Canada's original proposal for a binding
optional protocol to see Del simply falling away.
The actors involved are also notable.
Canada was the driving force behind the declaration.
The Interamerican Commission of Women was the driving force behind the
Interamerican Convention and Elizabeth Everett was the driving force behind General
Recommendation 19.
Expert groups played that pivotal role in the drafting of the in the early drafts of the
instruments, following which state momentum quickly followed an international
women's human rights groups exerted quite a lot of influence, but largely behind the
scenes.
UH-3 processes were also spurred on by the then upcoming World conferences.
The seed or committee selected the topic for its contribution to the 1993 World
Conference on Human Rights and Canada and the Inter American Commission were
keen on developing their instruments in time for the 1995 Fourth World Conference
on Women, so the role of world conferences as catalysts for the preparation and
adoption of these instruments should also be noted, and of course, finally, we should
not lose sight of the particular moment in time in which these instruments were
being drafted.
The Cold War had ended and this was a moment of resurgence for international law.
Also in other areas and women's, human rights groups have also done the initial
work of playing of violence against women and women's rights more broadly on the
agenda of the international community.
As I said, one of the important instruments of the three in one of the important
contributions of the three instruments is that definition we've seen that although the
draft has started off by opting for that bricolage type approach, they quickly moved
towards consistency and that consistency has had a number of advantages, but
potentially also some disadvantages.
And finally, paying close attention to how these instruments were drafted may offer
some insight not only for international law making generally, but also the possible
development of a global treaty on the elimination of violence against women, which
is currently being considered.
And with that, I will end there and I will stop sharing my screen.

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 34:57

Thank you so much, Professor Sandesh Sivakumaran for this very interesting analysis
of the development of the recognition of violence against women and also how the
role that different actors have played isn't in this development.
And so I have a lot of questions.
Hopefully I will have the time to speak at the end of the the seminar.
Now I hand over to a Liliana Ronconi, Professor Liliana Ronconi we her presentation.
Where have girls been?
Lessons learned and challenges in the agenda of sexual violence in the Inter
American Court of Human Rights.

LILIANA MABEL RONCONI 35:42

Thank you Daniela.
It's made my presentation.
Umm can you see?

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 35:51

Yes, perfect.

LILIANA MABEL RONCONI 35:52

Yes.
One moment. Yeah.
Thank you Daniela for the invitation.
It's a great honor for me to be here and and thank you for for the the this debate
about this interesting topic and and thank you Professor Sandy, for for your amazing
presentation and following the line developed by the by the Professor Sandeep, I will
talk about something more specific in my this presentation.
I want to talk about that balance of children's right, sexual rights and the state
obligation in case of sexual violence against girls in the Inter American Court of
Human Right.
To this end, sorry I I my point to this end to this and I first I will give an introduction
and then I will describe thick 3 cases resolved by the Inter American Court of Human
Rights, the case BLP versus Nicaragua.
The case, whose Bárbara SIM versus Ecuador in the case angular Losada versus
Bolivia.
Uh, it is important to highlight the significance of the of the BLP case since it was the
first to determine state responsibility for violence against theirs in a context of of
sexual violence.
With this information, I will discuss the reparation that were ordered by the American
Court.
I am interesting in in focusing on reparation.
Consider that they that these are not isolated cases, but only we need cases that
reveal the situation of sexual violence against hers in the region.
I conclude that exist clear standard to resolve the to resolve cases that involve sexual
violence and childhood.
However, they it is also to it, it's also possible to identify some inconsistencies in the
Inter American Court argumentation.
Uh, my first point and the last decades when was marked by achievement regarding
the recognition of children's right specifically in many, many countries in the region,
have ratified the Convention on the Rights of Child and even and have even approve
internal or domestic regulation of the right of children.
In addition, the state recognized the women's right.
In fact, electronic lot of Latin American state have assumed different obligation
through the ratification of CEDAW and BELANDO baracco mention.
As Professor Sandy explained where this treaty, this treaty, are very important for the
conceptualization of violence.
And in certain case, the state assumes similar obligation in their constitutional or
legal system.
However, there are worrying statistic regarding sexual violence against women, and
specifically against young girls in the region.
For example, high rate of teenage pregnancies, family size and others think that
American Court of Human Rights has protected women's from sexual violence from
the case cottonfield onwards and on the other hand, they, the American court, also
recognize that voice Angel attached or special protection on the case from the case
which Morales onwards.
However, it is only recently you can see here in in 2018 that the Inter American Court
of Human Rights is start to giving attention to girls sexual rights.
So what are the standard developed by the Inter American Court in case of sexual
violence against her?
I will talking about about the three cases, but these three cases have some common
characteristic.
First, they involve their who are victim of sexual violence by a family member or a
close authority.
2nd in all these cases, local authorities failed to provide a response in line with
human rights standards, specifically intersecting right of trial and right of women.
And finally, this case involved there.
Who was live in context of poverty?
All of these, these three things are common circumstances in our region or the
poverty, the situation of, of the international justice, local justice and uh, the the first
case is the case.
Beer. Beer.
Sosnick Arangua and in this case an 80 years old girl who was victim of rape by her
father.
Karma, that land the situation when she took her daughter to the Medical Center
because she report pain in the annual region.
As a result, her mother denounce her father for the crime of rape against her
daughter.
As part of this criminal process, the girl had a medical examination in which it has
privatized through various humiliating acts and degrading comments.
Although the right, although the right, the right was proven, the father was released
and declared innocent in 2018, the Inter American Court condemned Nicaraguan
state for the violation of various human rights and and it is possible to highlight
various standard developed by the Inter American Court.
In this first case about it this topic, first luck of view, the initials reinforced reinforced
by Chandra and childhood condition in the criminal process.
For right, the core House already developed standard regarding the obligation of a
state to warranty due diligence in case of violence against women, but in this specific
case, the court also understood that this new division can to be reinforced because
the victim was retired.
For that, the participation of girl in the process should not occur under the same
condition as an adult, the state must guarantee the participation of boys and girls
according to their abilities.
This in play creating appropriate condition to enable girls, boys or adolescent to take
part in the criminal process.
Effectively, all that stand up is the existence of institutional violence in the
investigation of the incident.
The court considered that the girl suffered a double violence on the one hand, sexual
violin by a non station by her father.
On the other hand, hand institutional violence during the judicial procedure, in
particular following the forensic medical examination and the reconstruction of
events, the state become the second aggressor, say the the code and all this act and
the Court understood, imply the existence of cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment.
Treatment against the guard for the application of the Article 5.1 of the American
Convention of Human Right, because, like, recognize that there are treatment a bit
received in the time of an investigation.
Can in itself constitute constitute institutional violence, and this point is very
important because, while in other cases the court had used the concept of military
institutional violence when the perpetrator were solid, here the concept is a concept
is extended to the abuse the girl suffered during the investigation.
However, the court does not give a definition of what institutional violence means.
What these concepts imply it is called a limit.
Other uh important standard the sistance of intersects honorability the court
determine that in this case exists a specific cause of discrimination because the victim
was a type of a woman.
The call rated that children are considered more vulnerable to human rights violation
and the same with the woman with women.
Sorry for that reason.
The course, I understand that the state obligation are stronger and the last, uh,
standard or important standard for me is the discrimination in access to substance.
The court understand the discrimination provokes impunity and facilitate a favorable
environment for a violent act against women.
In this way, the court makes clear the role that the ministration of justice play as a
key actor in the radication of violence against women.
For all of these standard, this guy is important because the code relate children and
women right in in context of sexual violence.
Uh, the second case is the case was Manuel Grasim versus Ecuador.
And that's case is important because it's the first case of sexual violence in an
educational institution that the Inter American Court resolved between her 14 and 16
years old.
Uh Paula was.
Marcin suffered act of sexual violence from the bisector of the cool of her school.
The school was a public institution only for girls.
Uh.
Device vector force Paula to have sexual relationship with him as a condition to park
her course for almost two years.
Today, after 2016 Paula commit suicide by taking pills that contain phosphorus.
After she spent several hours in the school, her mother took her to a clinic where she
finally died.
After Paula be the investigation and Switzer process suffered seriously and any
regularities we got into.
Uh, stereotype uh relate to to a stereotype regarding her action and her relationship
with the vice rector since she was considered to have seduce him.
That's a violent suffer by Paula.
Well known by the staff of Educational community, even by its rental.
Who did nothing to protect her even during the time of the investigation of the case.
A several Paola classmate stated that they had been intimidated by many of these
people in order to protect the vice director and and the same time, at the time of the
of of event, values report showing the high rate of violence and abuse toward boys
and girl, particularly in the educational environment in Ecuador.
The Interamerican core consider that in this case there was a violation of the girl.
Right here is the right to a life free of sexual violence in an educational environment.
It's a new right?
Apparently, and they called the the standard developed by the court.
First, the court recognized the obligation of the state of the state to prevent girls and
adolescent from suffered sexual violence in the school and to create educational
context.
As a consequence, state have the obligation of first establishing action to monitor
the problem of sexual, violent, medicational institution and developing policies for
each prevention, and secondly, creating an implement simply mechanism of so that
this acts can be reported, investigated and punished.
I returned to this point in a couple of of the call record.
Second, the second standard important standard, the recognize, recognize the
violation of USA guarantee and should sell protection, among other things, for the
use of gender stereotype.
The court held that the criminal process in Ecuador but was played by stereotype and
prejudices against Powell this edition that the this decision in the local level holds
that Paola again, he said, was a responsible for act of seduction that provoked the
vice rector, a moreover, Paula honesty was question because her behavior wasn't
what was expected to have of an honest woman about this topic about the the
stereotype.
The Inter American Court has developed in a lot of uh saris, problems valuable
standard on the role of stereotype plays in the administration of chats.
So in this sense, cause one evasion constitutes another step in the argumentative
path of Inter American court.
But we can do some criticisms to this sentence to to case to this case.
First, there is a step back in the consideration of what is understood to by
institutional violence.
Since the court didn't consider the events as a situation of institutional violence as it
did in PLP case, it is clear that public school, like a another state institution, can
generate institutional violence.
For for that I tear conceptualization by the court of what is mean by institutional
violence in case of act of physical violence against girls or boys is a key to develop
this standard in the region.
On the other hand, the call didn't recognize the existence of turtle or cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment against power.
In the case of BRP, ever since Nicaragua, they call determined that the the violation
of the personality integrity, specifically the existence of cruel human and degraded
threat treatment.
However, in Paula case it was expressing request that the stay be be condemned by
turtle.
The core state that evidence wasn't enough to satisfy all the requirement to
recognize this violation, despite the serious need of the act of violence against Paula,
which were reflected in her suicide because we didn't analyze the element of turtle as
it had configured in its president.
That is the intentionality, the severity of the suffering and the purpose.
The Court, a itself previously held up in order to analyze the severity of the suffering.
It should have taken into account the specific circumstances of each case to leave the
characteristic of the treatment must be considered, such as the duration, the method
used, or the weighting which is suffering were inflect the physical and mental effect
that they can Causeway, as well as the condition of the personnel who suffer tight
suffering, included age, sex and health status, among other personal condition.
All in all, this case represents some advances.
For example, in the consideration of stereotype or definition of the stereotype and
some step back, it linked with conceptualization of violence, institutional violence,
and conceptualization of turtle or cruel, inhuman, and agreement.
And I think I did that the last case, sorry.
Here the last case is a case Aguilar versus Bolivia in in this.
In this case, it's important because in the Inter American Court develop consent
standard at the central axis of the crime of sexual violence.
Please angular side was a 16 year old girl when she suffered act of sexual violence
including sexual abuse and rape by a cousin that when 10 years older than.
As a result of this event, she got depressed and she spent her studies.
This is father denounced her cousin and several location.
And this led to various gynecological examination with revictimization her the
criminal proceedings could not continue because they accuse left left the country.
In this case, the goal, the goal we works, the obligation of few deletion and access to
justice from the perspective of childhood and gender as it had developed in BLPS.
However, in this case, the court highlighted that the the that since the criminal
process involved again who was victim of sexual violence, they should sell guarantee
of reasonable time should have been applied, acting with all delayed.
It is a low indicated that in this case there was only one victim on one identified
perpetrator.
They argument of complexity in the process should be discarded.
Moreover, unlike, I like the various cases the core mentioned, specifically the scope
of a state of negation regarding consent from an intersectional perspective involving
gender and childhood.
In this case, in this case it's consent cannot be, cannot be inferred, especially when
the when there are inequalities in which the perpetrator is provided with power by
institutional work or school environment, or by the possibility of depriving the victim
economically, for example.
Thus, in case of sexual violence, it's not appropriate to demonstrate resistance to
physical aggression.
Is there a freely expressed concerns he required in order to make the person will
clear this also represent progress over BRP and Guzman albarracin cases in the first
one the consent was not discussed because the victim was an 8 years old girl in
Guzman erasing case, he said.
The court didn't refer to consent.
Working on the stereotype that appeared when chatting, device, rental contract and
conclusion, Angular sarcastic represented a great advance in term of violence.
Against there and adolescent as it made it clear that consent should should not be
presumed, but rather clearly demonstrate this is in line with the progress that has
been made at the regional level, for example, in the general recommendation #3 of
the mistakes.
Besides following the line of Beer P, the court recognized the existence of
institutional violence due to the revictimization acts carried out by the state authority
throughout the investigation.
Again, in this case it's not.
It doesn't provide further details about its scope in the sense the debates are open.
We we can do some some we can make some question for example which act are
institutional violence, how it is distinguished for other type of legal qualification who
can be active subset of institutional violence.
It is only for uh only about action action or also in cases of of formation why they are
suffer by Paola uh were not considered out of institutional violence but they act.
But but the ACT suffer by BLP and Angular Sala were I understand that this question,
perhaps others are important when we we need to define some, some act or certain
acts specifically into taking into account the standard that the Inter American Court
or the role that the Inter American Court have in our finally following the line of beer
P here the umm, umm, umm and the court recognized the violation of personal
integrity.
Specifically, it held that the existence of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
So that that's it.
The standard level by the Inter American Court.
But although the core develop this relevant standard regarding the scope of the
obligation of the state in case of sexual violence, I would like to highlight the
importance of the remedy that the Court order in this case the analysis remedies can
show how the course view these cases as the core view as isolated cases or, in the
contrary, as a structural problem in the region.
I will focus in in two measure that are relevant that for me are relevant first protocols.
They I will concentrate on the allegation of the two sanction protocols and secondly,
I will analyze the obligation to provide training and courses, but I gotta be in
protocols in Bilp case, the Court established that the state had to adopt, implement
and supervise 3 protocols that must be meet in for case of voice and adolescent that
are victim of sexual violence.
First investigation and action protocols during the criminal process.
2nd Protocol and on a comprehensive approach and medical legal assessment and
3A Comprehensive Care protocol.
So sequently in Guzman erasing case, the court established the obligation of the
state to create protocols for situation of violence in educational context.
In Angular it was again emphasized to need to create protocol similar to those
establish MVRP.
In this way, the protocols became a tool that the court used a lot in case of sexual
violence.
However, it is important to keep in mind that the protocols provide guideline on how
to react in a specific case, but they don't modify the structural problem of violence.
Specifically, when the when it has been normalized that it is a tool that doesn't have
a transformative spirit.
Since the protocols don't prevent situation of violence, but rather indicate how to
respond to them.
However, it is important to notice that in the angular Sala case, the case went a step
forward.
Since the court stablished that after ordering ordering the creation of protocols, the
state has to create a system of indicator that allow measuring the effectiveness of the
protocols.
This information is relevant because it's not enough to sanction protocol alone.
The state must also demonstrate the effective implementation and impact.
Ohh, regarding training, in the case be RP, the court stably was established at the
station.
Adopt and implement permanent training and courses for a public official of for, for
public official who have the first contact with children of sexual violence, including
those who work in the Justice administration as well as medical, professional and
forest.
So that they so that they can receive training and the appropriate treatment of this
victim during the medical examination, this training courses should be also be
extended to extend it to personal belonging to the public health system.
Who in a second step are involved in the attention, the diagnosis and treatment of
children analysen of sexual life?
Now as why with the adoption of protocols, they the the the training or courses
don't bring the transformative impact if the state only focus on the tension of
protocols or training to regarding the reported action, there is no place for there is
no place for prevention.
In fact, in many cases, children and adolescent are not even informed or instructed in
instructed to identify that that they are experiencing a situation of violence that can
be reported.
In this sense, I highlight the progress that was Bárbara seen and angular Sala case
represent seen in both the focus on studies, the obligation of the state to guarantee
comprehensive sexual education to together with protocols and training in Guzman.
Specifically, the Interamerican core emphasized the importance of the educational of
the comprehensive sexual education.
Since Paola didn't have tool that would allow her to understand the sexual violence
involved in act, she suffered.
Consequently, the course understood the sexual education is suitable tool to label
there's some boy to have an adequate adequate understanding of the implication of
sexual animation and relationship, particularly in relation to consent and the exercise
of freedom regarding the sexual and reproductive and and in the case, angular Sala.
The course went in the same direction, so can can I do?
Can I make some conclusion?
I have shown the standard that the Inter American Court had developed regarding
sexual violence committed against girls.
I mark the relevance of the ruling in the VRP case, which was emblematic and
transcendent tile because it was a fart following by Guzman, Albarracin and Angular
Rosa.
They could continue to emphasize the access to shasti and the obligation to warranty
and Shasta due diligence ensuring their process, but now focus is focusing on girls
for the first time.
However, it is also possible to identify some inconsistencies that result in lack of clear
guidelines for the state in the region, for there are still conceptualization challenges
concerning was constitute constitute in the institutional violence and 2nd which adds
imply turtle or cruel, inhuman and degrading entry.
Besides, although the court has mentioned the Importances of prevention, it has not
gone further in setting clear standard as regard preventing act of violence against
girls and boys.
Thus, just Justice appear when the damage has already been caused, and it can only
establish separation for them.
However, the advance that occur in Jose Manuel Varas in case regarding
comprehensive sexual education and in angular, Losada, regarding the importance of
measuring the impact of the protocol, so a search of transform of transform a search
to transform public policy about sexual violence in the so that is the the situation
regarding the right of time regarding the right of girls to live a life free of violence in
the region.
I understood that the that is the central to continue develop sexual education
standards and the Court should reinforce this tool.
Uh, so that is all.
Thank you.
And now we have some time for the debate.

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 1:02:31

Thank you so much, Liliana, for this analysis of this relevant cases that show also the
intersection of violence against women and also children's rights and interesting.
And as you say now we will address the questions and that you could you maybe
have for the speakers and if you want, you can formulate the questions in Spanish or
in English and I will say this in Spanish as well.
And our does he get an asset?
Would not La Bueno separate?
I had chat or well, until a mano E microphone.
OK.
Well, that being plantar and Espanol, Ingles Como preference unnecessarily a portal,
see.
Is there is not any questions.
I have a lot of and and maybe as well if you want.
Also, I cannot open space if you have questions for each other and the speakers
Liliana Sandage and I don't know.
So yeah, I think people are, they don't feel confident plastic questions in English, but
in any case, I don't know if you I have some questions, but I don't know if Sandesh,
Liliana, do you want to like address, ask some questions to each other.
I want to open the space as well.

Sandesh Sivakumaran 1:04:08

I mean, Daniela, why?

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 1:04:08

And this.

Sandesh Sivakumaran 1:04:09

Why don't you go ahead and start?

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 1:04:10

Ah, OK. Perfect.
Yeah, I will.
I will ask Sambia have a 3 questions and I will ask to ask your opinion about do you
think we actually need after all this analysis, we need an international treaty that
deals directly with violence against women.
You you talk about the conversations about having the optional protocol or no, or
maybe there is another way to do it.
I would like to know your opinion.
The other question that I have for you as well as whether your opinion about the role
that Softflow has played here, I know there are a lot of international law scholars who
are very pro soft low and others that they they don't like.
This source of law, so much so I would like to know your opinion about the role that
he has played and if finally taking advantage as well of your knowledge in
humanitarian law.
And I would like to ask you if you could do a parallel of.
Is it?
Is it possible to do a parallel of the development of the recognition of violence
against women in human rights law and in humanitarian law, so those are and my
questions.
Thank you.

Sandesh Sivakumaran 1:05:37

Thanks very much for those questions, Daniel. UM.
Turn something off with the first one, because I think the first one is actually linked to
the second one.
So the first question is whether we need a global treaty on the elimination of
violence against women.

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 1:05:54

Umm.

Sandesh Sivakumaran 1:05:54

So there is currently a debate as to the need for a global treaty.
So in around 2014, so over the last 10 years, there has been some suggestions that
we do need a global treaty and those suggestions have come both from
spectrometers on violence against women.
So UN special rapporteurs and violence against women, but also civil society.
And the argument of those who are in favour of a global treaty is very similar to the
arguments that were put forward originally by Canada 30 years ago, which is the idea
that there is still a gap in the law, that there is still a normative gap.
And so we do now have three regional instruments.
So the Convention of I'll have to Parra, the Maputo Protocol in Africa and the
Istanbul Convention in Europe, but that means there are still areas of the world for
which do not benefit from a Treaty.
So, you know, much of Asia, for example.
And so.
For the proponents of a treaty, there is still that normative gap.
There is, of course, soft Lawrence, so this is linked to your second question
specifically that the seed or general committees general recommendation my team,
that's really an important.
And instrument because what?
That instrument does is it says that violence against women is discrimination, so it
actually brings gender based violence into the seydor itself through its article one
and through its definition of violent schedule.
So the counter argument would be that actually now seydor does Papa gender based
violence against women by virtue of seed or the the general Recommendation 19 of
the CEDAR Committee.
Now the counter argument to that is precisely the one about software which says
that it's simply soft law.
States cannot be held liable if they violate that general recommendation, and I think
that's where the debate really lies.
I would suggest though, that there's one further dimension that we need to consider,
which is that although the general Recommendation, 19 is softball, absolutely.
States have acquiesced to that general recommendation, so states have accepted
through their reports to the committee that gender based violence against women
does now fall within the Convention.
And so we could say that although General Recommendation 19 is soft law states
acquiescence to general recommendation line team is through treaty interpretation
through referring to subsequent practice as a matter of treaty interpretation is
actually now hard.
So that's a slightly said, a different argument, which isn't made very often, but which
could suggest that actually there is now a hard law obligation in the committee.
Now, that's not to say that therefore we don't need a treaty.
There may be still good reasons to have a global treaty, for example clarifying
precisely what states obligations are, because states obligations have moved on in
the 30 years since these instruments were drafted, right?
What we understand states have have obligations to do or not to 30 years ago may
very well look different today.
So there may be actually good reason to have a treaty, but then that gives us, you
know, that raises the whole issue about our states likely to ratify a treaty.
Are only those states who are already bound by a regional treaty likely to ratify uh.
The global treaty.
Is there a danger that in this moment in time, when there are, you know, differences
among states, is there a danger that if we engage in a Treaty drafting exercise that
we end up watering down states obligations, so there are a whole host of reasons
which actually make this a very complicated question?
I'm in terms of your third question and that goes to the parallel.
Or can one do apparelled parallel development in international humanitarian or the
law of armed conflict?
So I think there are two aspects to that.
So yes, one could do that parallel exercise, but I would say that parallel exercise
would be in fact easier to do because we do find, uh, a progression in the treaties
themselves.
So in that sense, it's easier to do because that's much more doctrinal question about
treaty interpretation, about looking at the drafting history and so on.
But I think related to your question is that slightly broader question about the norms
or the rules that apply in armed conflict.
I Ochoa obsoletely but also International Criminal law.
And so there there's an interesting exercise to be done in relation to, for example,
the drafting of the Rome Statute and the Rome Statute prohibitions on sexual
violence in terms of some of the case law, some of the pivotal case law, for example,
of the ICT Y, the Yugoslav War crimes, tribune of the VICTOR, the internal
contribution for Rwanda and also, uh, moving outside of International Criminal law,
even the women in peace and security agenda of the UN Security Council.
The Security Council resolution 1325.
So I think yes, there is a that there is the possibility of doing that that parallel to
development in terms of the law that applies to I'm conflict using slightly different
instruments and perhaps slightly different lenses.

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 1:12:16

Perfect.
Thank you so much, Sandy and I would like to ask Liliana as well.
And I I mean, thank you for sharing this interesting cases.
The one in 2018 and we are PVC, others in Nicaragua.
I I would like to know more because actually I I don't know a lot about this case
actually.
OK, and embarrassingly enough, and why the father was declared innocent?
What was the reasoning behind?
There was actually, like the other cases, I don't know some kind of victim blaming or
something like that.
And the other question that I have is, I know I mean the judgments are kind of
recent, but I don't know if you have followed the monitoring compliance with the
judgment because we know that in general states in Interamerican system, they don't
comply a lot with the all the measures that have to do with guarantees of non
repetition.
And of course, if you think about training and you think about changing some public
policies and everything, it has to do with this kind of reparation measures.
So yeah, those are my questions basically.

LILIANA MABEL RONCONI 1:13:37

Thank you Daniela for for your question.
First, perhaps I I respond a little the the first question for the Professor family and
about if we need a protocol or any if we need a treaty about violence against
women.
And I am saying I don't know.
But and my my answer was a, we have a lot of no norms, a lot of standard in human
rights.
I.
Perhaps we not do the state, not don't need another instrument.
With this conceptualization, perhaps we need to do something in our state for for to
prevent the violence against women, but I think perhaps it's not important that
definition and the conceptualization, because we have this, he said told I, for
example, my question is, what are the state doing about that?
Who?
What we know about that and and another question that for me is is really, really
important is what are for example, what are we doing in a School of Law about that?
For example, in a lot of school of of law the the student don't have don't receive
information or don't receive a yeah, information about this topic.
So if we if we want to prevent the violence against women, to apply the standard in
human human rights standard, we need to to to, to learn about that.
And if the School of Law don't have this information, perhaps we have the problem,
perhaps is a in the state.
I'm not in the international level.
Hey we we need to tool that to press button to to top.
Welcome all.
They have a whole, you know, perhaps we need to to press with this topic about the
the situation in BFP case.
I really I don't remember what it was.
So so well.
But the the problem with with the father of PRP was the stereotype in the justice no,
the stereotype the the justice.
The stereotype applies stereotype or, for example, perhaps I really don't remember.
They have some problems with the proof in the with the yeah, with the
argumentation.
Really, I don't know.
But but it's not an isolated case.
It's all.
Yeah, in the three cases, the the situation was similar the in the local Justice, the, the.
Perpetrator was considered in a sense, in the first in the first time or so the the
problem is not clean.
In one case the problem is in central the situation of the the role of the stereotype in
the in the and about the second question.
Uh, really?
No, in all these cases I I continue format is very important.
The case Jose panel vaccine because I am sure that we change our situation, our
linked with women, situation of violence against women, we we with the
comprehensive sexual education.
For me, that is the tool that the state have to change the situation of women.
Umm.
And then there are an and and a couple of people working about that.
And the state resist a lot.
The implementation of sexual education and the same happened here in tiles as we
have the three week hey so but but for me this is the the real tool that the state had
to prevent violence against women, violence against women, violence against girls,
violence against trans people or LGBT people.
But we don't develop a lot this this tool and perhaps another.
Another thing is that we need, perhaps institutionalized this type of measure
because, for example, in Argentina we have a very good program about
comprehensive sexual education.
Uh, and now we have a new government and the new new government don't agree
with that.
And then you government say bye to the, to the, to the program and the and the
children have a without a sexual education in the school.
And I I think that's is important.
I I think we need to think that some tool in the international human that I write that
this is not possible, that this happened for for me.
Sorry, this is my assault.

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 1:18:19

Thank you so much.
And that's very interesting as well because as you, I think both safe and we see in the
presentation of somebody as well when he was talking about like how Canas well
have has contributed to the development of these recognition of violence against
women like it's not only necessary to have like good norms and international level,
but also of course the state.
Hey, you know the national level, they have to take measures and public policies that
they are important and of course the training of lawyers like, I mean sometimes I I
agree that it's some people who work, for example in the U dictionary, sometimes
they don't have the training and necessarily training and they actually don't know
how to apply these norms in these kind of situations and cases.
So yeah, thank you so much.
Well, I don't know if you have any questions or comments.
I will give us well, the word to the speakers.
I don't know if you want to ask each other a question or or we can wrap up here.

Sandesh Sivakumaran 1:19:24

I just have one question really and I I wondered whether you see sort of progress in
the jurisprudence.
Do you see?
Sort of.
Things changing.
Sort of trends or is it sort of more or less?
Stagnant.
So I I don't know how, so I don't know when those judgments were delivered, for
example, how far apart they were.
But I I just wanted what sort of you see as the direction of of travel?

LILIANA MABEL RONCONI 1:19:53

Uh, really?
I don't know, but I don't know because these are the only three cases in in in the
Inter American Court, perhaps in the in the case the cotton field versus Mexico, that
is a very important case in the violence against women and the and the victim in this
case.
In that case, where two were younger and they Court don't identify their in their
argumentation, the situation of the car, I don't know really.
And where we now we have a new Inter American Court members.
I don't know what this member bought in the in the next tourist progress and the
next sentence so, but have we have more progress, but perhaps we have a step back
about this topic?
I really I don't.
That's that's my my.
Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 1:20:52
Yeah.
Well, so if there is no other question, well, I would like to thank you again.
And Sundays, Liliana.
For your time you're interesting presentations.
This is a very important topic as well, and not only of course an international national
level, also in the Faculty of Law, we are talking a lot about these issues, gender issues
we are trying to like failing and implement more actively and the discussion of these
kind of topics with our students and and having so for us this is a very important
activity and we conclude the seminar.
We thank again and the audience as well for your pressions your participation.
I know this is the first time we organize an activity in English, so thank you so much
for for your participation.
I hope this event has been beneficial for all of you and we hope to welcome you to a
future event.
We will have at least if four more seminars during the year in different topics in
public law.
So thank you so much.
And have a good day.

Sandesh Sivakumaran 1:22:02

Thanks Danielle.

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 1:22:04

Thank you, Sandy.

LILIANA MABEL RONCONI 1:22:04

Thank you, Daniela.

Sandesh Sivakumaran 1:22:04

Thanks Lilian.

LILIANA MABEL RONCONI 1:22:05

Thank you Professor Sandies.

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 1:22:05

Thank you so much.

Sandesh Sivakumaran 1:22:06

Thank you.

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 1:22:06

Thank you, leanna.
LILIANA MABEL RONCONI 1:22:09
Bye bye.

Daniela Paulina Méndez Royo 1:22:10

Bye.

Miguel Angel Oyarce Moraga stopped transcription