Directive (EU) 2024/1385 and the Victim-centred and Intersectional Standard of Proof: from N.Ö v. Turkey case to the Alves case
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24197/ree.86.2025.159-185Keywords:
Directive (EU) 2024/1385, violence against women, evidential reasoning, bias, victim-centredAbstract
Directive (EU) 2024/1385 has been a milestone in the European Union as it is the first regulatory text in which some manifestations of violence against women are constituted as “Eurocrime” and minimum standards are established for the comprehensive care and protection of victims of violence against women. In this paper we conclude that there is no Directive, Law or Standard that overturns a prejudice, a bias or a generalization. To reach this conclusion we set out the main arguments of the ECtHR in the case N.Ö v. Turkey on what is meant by “effective” investigation and analyze the two judgments in the Dani Alves case. Neither of these two judgments mention either the Istanbul Convention or Directive 2024/1385. We analyzed whether these normative texts would have contributed something in this case. We conclude that, despite the fact that Spain is a pioneer in legislation against violence against women and the progress made at European level in this area, neither of the two judgments in the Alves case is based on a victim-centred standard of proof (evidence as a victim's right) or intersectional (taking into account the special features of sexual crimes).
Downloads
References
Arangüena Fanego, Coral (2025), “Últimos pasos en la Unión Europea para la protección de los derechos de las víctimas: la Directiva (UE) del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo sobre la lucha contra la violencia sobre las mujeres y la violencia doméstica”, Revista de Estudios Europeos, n.85, pp.1-44.
Burt, Martha R. (1980), Cultural myths and supports for rape, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, n.38, 217-230
Castillo Bernal, Pilar y Rodríguez Muñoz, María Luisa (2022). “The Translation of sexual offences in the EU: a comparison of Court Rulings in Spain, Germany and Ireland”, Asparkía. Investigación Feminista, n.41, pp. 87-113.
Estrict, Susan (1986), Rape, The Yale Law Journal, vol. 95, n. 6, pp. 1087-1184.
Ferrer Beltrán, Jordi (2007), “Los estándares de prueba en el proceso penal español”, Cuadernos electrónicos de filosofía del derecho, n. 15.
Gascón Abellán, Marina (2005), “Sobre la posibilidad de formular estándares de prueba objetivos”, Doxa: Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, n. 28, pp. 127-139.
Gimeno, Beatriz (2022), Misoginia Judicial: la guerra jurídica contra el feminismo, Catarata.
Páez, Andrés (2021), “Los sesgos cognitivos y la legitimidad racional de las decisiones judiciales”, en Federico Arena, Paul Luque y Diego José Moreno Cruz (eds.), Razonamiento jurídico y ciencias cognitivas, Universidad Externado de Colombia, pp.189-221.
Ruiz López, Cristina (2024), “Una Directiva tardía y necesaria: la Directiva (UE) 2024/1385 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 14 de mayo de 2024, sobre la lucha contra la violencia contra las mujeres y la violencia doméstica”, La Ley Unión Europea, n. 126.
Sancho Gargallo, Ignacio (2023), La incidencia de los sesgos cognitivo en el enjuiciamiento, Tirant lo Blanch.
Valdecantos, Diana (2025), “Las imágenes, el ADN, las huellas… ¿Por qué sí encaja la versión de la víctima de Alves?”, Periódico digital Artículo 14, 4-4-25.
Walklate, Sandra (1995), Gender and Crime: an introduction, Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Cristina Ruiz López
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The articles published at Revista de Estudios Europeos will have a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
The journal allows the authors to retain publishing rights. Authors may reprint their articles in other media without having to request authorization, provided they indicate that the article was originally published in Revista de Estudios Europeos.
The published contents do not represent the thinking of the journal's editors, but that of its authors.