By Bérangère Taxil, professor of public law at the University of Angers, Scientific Manager of the ANR VSEG project
What are the evolutions in the repression of sexual and sexist crimes?
From the standpoint of international criminal justice, undeniable progress has been made. Twenty years after the landmark 1998 conviction of rape as a crime of genocide by the ICTR, the prosecution of sexual violence as such (and not as “other inhumane acts”) under the war crime and crime against humanity categories by the International Criminal Court has increased since 2019, with varying degrees of success. Bosco Ntaganda was convicted of rape and sexual enslavement in 2019; the Dominic Ongwen case in 2021 added forced marriages to the charges, and, in an unprecedented manner, forced pregnancies. The ICC Prosecutor’s Office has produced remarkable educational work through its various “general policy documents” on sexual and sexist crimes (2014), crimes affecting children (2016, revised in 2023). They have been deeply revised, placing greater emphasis on gender-based persecution (2022) as outlined in Article 7 § 1h of the ICC Statute (with the term “sexiste” in the French version, while the English version uses “gender”), and on reproductive violence and other gender-based violence (2023). The most recent documents affirm a “survivor-centered approach,” an “intersectional perspective,” and “working towards combating stereotypes.” This shows an increasing influence of international human rights law (and to a greater extent, women’s and children’s rights) and gender studies on criminal law. Although the increased communication from the Prosecutor’s Office contrasts with the scarcity of convictions, judges eventually accepted the gender-based persecution charge in the Ali Kushayb case, convicting crimes committed more than 20 years ago in Darfur by the Janjawid militias. The issue remains unresolved, as arrest warrants were issued for Taliban leaders in July 2025 on these grounds.
At the state level, evolution is also visible, albeit imperfect (slow progress, cost, selectivity, politicization, are not unique to the ICC). Several countries where such crimes have been perpetrated have initiated proceedings based on the charges of war crimes or crimes against humanity: this is the case in the CAR (the so-called “Paoua case” settled by the special criminal court in 2023), as well as in certain cases in Gambia, Guatemala, Guinea, Iraq, Uganda, and Ukraine. There have been numerous military jurisdiction hearings in eastern DRC, particularly since the case of rapes of young girls resolved in Kavumu in 2017-18. These proceedings, along with those based on universal jurisdiction (like the Al Khatib case in Germany or prosecutions in Argentina against Myanmar officials), sometimes opt to charge sexual violence as terrorism, albeit at the risk of reinforcing exceptional laws less sensitive to the principle of legality.
These jurisprudential advances are particularly due to the significant increase in the number of female judges, according to the UN Secretary-General’s 2025 report on “women, peace, and security” (p. 66). This strengthening of national capacities is accompanied by the UN Team of experts, which also proposes models of legislation. However, this system is as fragile as it is insufficient in delivering justice to all victims.
Does the repression of crimes suffice to deliver justice? What challenges need to be overcome?
Many challenges and obstacles need to be overcome, including three key ones. Firstly, gender-specific violence against women and girls continues to rise with conflict, according to increasingly alarming UN reports. This now includes digital violence, such as cyberbullying of female activists and journalists. Crimes are specifically committed against women and children in Haiti, Sudan, Ethiopia, and the eastern DRC due to the resumption of armed conflict with the M23 in January 2025. This alone shows that judicial and criminal justice cannot adequately respond to systemic or “mass” crimes, and structural injustices that also engage states’ international responsibility due to their due diligence obligations.
Moreover, the constant undermining of sexual and reproductive health concept by the U.S. executive branch, along with hostility towards gender and DEI (diversity, equality, inclusion) terms and UN bodies working on the subject, has affected progress. Several presidential decrees were adopted in 2025 and 2026, leading to a crackdown in the federal administration and the discontinuation of participation in UN bodies deemed contrary to U.S. interests, including the three offices of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representatives on sexual violence in armed conflicts, children in armed conflicts, and violence against children.
Lastly, despite the efforts of the Registry and the Victims Fund, criminal justice alone cannot meet the various needs of survivors. Although international institutions, including criminal ones, have adopted “victims-centered” approaches, actual reparations often remain performative due to insufficient material and financial resources.
Towards transformative justice for women as well?
The growing demands of victims are now for justice that is not only retributive but also reparative, even transformative, with the concept of “transformative reparations” gaining traction. This aims to change the future by breaking the intergenerational cycle of violence, rather than just compensating for the past. In terms of international responsibility, the emphasis is on guarantees of non-repetition, reforming military and police forces’ institutions, providing access to individual and collective reparations, and actualizing women’s participation rights, rather than seeking full restitution.
The post-conflict demand for social justice is more political than legal or judicial. Some initiatives to improve women’s access to justice include transitional justice efforts, notably in Colombia, where the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2022 dedicated a whole chapter to gender-based violence. The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Denis Mukwege and Nadia Murad in 2018 had a significant impact on civil society, with the creation of the Global Survivors Fund aimed at providing interim reparations and assisting states in establishing reparative programs. They also led to the adoption of the “Murad Code” on documenting violations and reinforced the network of female survivors like Sema, highlighting the insufficient participation of women in peace and justice negotiations post-conflict. Women’s network initiatives have led to the creation of “citizen tribunals” such as the International Tribunal of Women on war crimes and sexual enslavement by the Japanese army in 2000, inspired by the mostly male Russell-Sartre Tribunal.
Granting refugee status can also be a form of transformative reparations for victims of gender-based persecution. Nadia Murad advocated for this at the Oslo ceremony, and asylum rights were mentioned in Security Council Resolution 2467 adopted in the presence of the two co-laureates. Progress has been made in Europe to recognize women as victims of persecution simply because they are women, as evidenced by the CJEU’s recognition of Afghan women as a social group in January 2024. However, these efforts have not been consistent in all regions.
Every October since Resolution 1325 in 2000, the Security Council convenes for an annual meeting focusing on “women, peace, and security” issues. There is a subtle conflict between states prioritizing women’s maternity rights in diplomatic language and those aiming to enhance women’s access to all forms of justice. During the October 2025 session, Antonio Guterres highlighted the challenges: “Too often, we gather in rooms like this one, full of conviction and determination, without actually managing to truly change the lives of women.
