It’s time for a law on digital violence against women in Paraguay

On October 18, Senator Zenaida Concepción Delgado Benítez presented the bill “To prevent, punish and eradicate universal cyberbullying in Paraguay”.

The purpose of the project, as detailed in the explanatory document, is to “effectively address cyberbullying universally in our country as a result of the current relevance of our society in its forms such as cyberbullying, Grooming, Sextortion, gender cyber violence, sexting, stalking, catfishing, flaming, doxing, revenge porn and others”.

Since 2016, TEDIC has been dedicated to studying and characterising digital gender violence and highlighting the need to develop public policies that comprehensively address this phenomenon. This is especially relevant given that the Internet not only constitutes a transformative space characterised by the circulation of discourses that challenge hegemonic narratives, facilitates access to information on taboo topics, promotes the plurality of voices in the face of restrictive frameworks for communication and organisation and recognises movements beyond a specific territory.

However, the Internet also acts as a medium that reproduces a continuum of situations of structural inequality related to the use of technology. This space is crossed by relations of power, subject to sociocultural beliefs and practices that affect people in different ways depending on a series of characteristics and realities. Likewise, there is currently a significant challenge and fictitious perception of people separating their online and offline experiences when, in fact, they are both equally real.

From TEDIC, the interest of legislators from the National Congress to think about solutions against digital violence is recognised. This opportunity opens up the possibility of having accurate statistics and strategies.

A tangible example of this concern is reflected in the research on gender violence on the Internet in Paraguay (Garcia, Sequera. 2021) and Digital gender violence against journalists in Paraguay (Acuña, Sequera, 2023), both carried out by TEDIC.

In such investigations, it is evident, among a series of findings, that the responsible institutions consider that there is a lack of a legal framework to address this type of violence, to record figures, to document cases and official data so that there is a better-coordinated response from the National Police, Public Defense, Ministry of Women, Prosecutor’s Office, Ministry of Health and others.

Regarding the recognition of this diagnosis, an analysis of the main conflicting points of the current bill is offered below.

Difficulties of legislating digital violence only with a punitive approach

The proposed bill has three articles. This generates a series of doubts and conflicts in its applicability, for the following reasons:

• Ambiguity and lack of legal accuracy: The legislative proposal lacks a clear definition of “digital violence” and does not detail the various types of violence that can occur through the use of technology. Although in the motivational document, the legislator lists several types of violence, the bill only addresses this issue in a generic way, which makes its application difficult. On the other hand, the ambiguity and lack of legal accuracy also enable contradictory and subjective interpretations of what constitutes violence, allowing discretionary in opening legal cases. The absence of clear definitions of violence and its different types adds an additional layer of uncertainty to the bill.

• It is also important to point out that, at a global level, there is no single definition of digital violence. In a literature review that TEDIC is carrying out within the framework of its membership in the Women Rights Online Coalition of the Web Foundation, approximately 15 types of definitions and terms that refer to the topic have been identified. Although they have a series of similarities, they vary in relation to the subjects of violence, as well as the type of aggressor of this violence.
• The bill suggests repealing all contrary laws. This can create uncertainty and possibly leave legal loopholes. Rather than repeal all laws, it would be more prudent to specifically identify and repeal provisions that conflict with the new proposal.
• The ambiguity conflicts the bill with freedom of expression. As the OAS rapporteur expresses, States, in good faith, often seek to provide hasty and reactive responses by imposing unjustified or disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression. These measures lead to prior censorship or unjustified censorship of this fundamental right. Any restriction on freedom of expression must meet a triple test under international human rights law: that it is provided for by law, that it serves to protect a legitimate interest recognised by international law and, that is necessary to protect that interest.

Challenges and recommendations to follow

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) have been essential for over a decade, especially today, marked by the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic. These tools are essential for the development of all activities of daily life, whether in the professional, academic, educational, sentimental, or informative fields and even in basic aspects such as obtaining food or access to health. The importance of ICTs in daily life, as well as their role in the exercise and expansion of rights is undeniable. However, the harmful potential of these technologies when they fall into the hands of attackers is also evident.

For this reason, the legal regulation of ICTs must live up to its impact, presenting an autonomous regulatory type that is distinguished from any other contemplated in current legislation.

The legislative proposal represents an opportunity to improve and modify Law 5777/16, which addresses all forms of violence against women in Paraguay, in order to include digital violence. Firstly, it is suggested to replace the expression “telematic violence” with “digital violence”, in accordance with the recommendations of international organisations such as the UN and the OAS, since the latter has a broader consensus on its definition, beyond the various types of definitions mentioned above.

Likewise, the proposal could be expanded with a breakdown of the different types of digital violence. It will be an opportunity to think about classifications based on the legal rights that each manifestation of violence violates, identifying the specific sphere of human life that is affected according to the recognised rights. On the other hand, to generate another classification that lists the various modalities in which each type of violence can manifest itself, either individually or in combination with others, describing the different forms or contexts in which they can be expressed and affect one or several of recognised legal assets.

It is essential to include a definition of digital gender violence that covers the exclusion of women in the access and use of Information and Communication Technologies (digital gender gap). This definition must consider the various forms of aggression experienced through technologies, such as harassment and the dissemination of intimate material, among others. Furthermore, addressing all situations that result in inequalities in development opportunities in the digital age is essential.

The bill’s explanatory document has already identified some of them. TEDIC and other organisations in the region have identified up to 21 forms of violence. Beyond the fact that some of these are already contemplated in the criminal code, such as threats, extortion, defamation and grooming, it will be necessary to add others in order to measure, systematise and fully understand how systemic violence operates and how it affects women and other collectives.

The bill should also include an intersectional approach that considers older women and women with disabilities, women of African descent, rural women, indigenous women and groups of sexual diversity with particular urgency, as these groups are particularly vulnerable and disproportionately affected by digital gender-based violence. The convergence of various discriminatory structures in the same person seriously affects the exercise of their human rights, and the law must include this perspective to mitigate and eradicate such discrimination in a comprehensive and efficient manner.

It is also pertinent to consider more comprehensive solutions instead of limiting ourselves to punitive responses of a restrictive nature. The idea is not simply to expand the criminal code, but to seek preventive and reparation measures that accompany victims more effectively.

It will be key to strengthen the Roundtable for the Prevention of Violence against Women (PREVIM), composed of several State institutions, in order to comprehensively address victim assistance and public policies to mitigate and eradicate violence in digital environments.