## Facts

- A.T., a Hungarian woman, suffered severe, long-term domestic violence by her former partner, the father of her two children, including physical assaults, threats, and psychological abuse.
- The abuser continued to live in the family apartment after separation, maintaining control and intimidation; violence and threats persisted, sometimes in the children’s presence.
- A.T. experienced serious health consequences and disability, and had limited economic and housing alternatives, increasing her vulnerability and dependence.
- A.T. repeatedly sought protection through police, prosecutors, and courts, and attempted civil measures related to housing, eviction/exclusion of the abuser, custody, and property.
- Available domestic proceedings were slow and fragmented; criminal processes did not yield timely protective measures, and civil proceedings did not address immediate safety.
- At the time, Hungary lacked specific, effective mechanisms for rapid protection in domestic violence cases, including protection/restraining orders and procedures for temporary removal of the perpetrator from the home.
- A.T. filed an individual communication under the Optional Protocol to CEDAW, alleging Hungary failed to protect her and her children and failed to provide effective legal remedies.

## Issues

1. Whether domestic violence by a private individual, combined with inadequate State protection, can constitute discrimination against women under CEDAW.
2. Whether Hungary failed to meet CEDAW “due diligence” obligations to prevent, investigate, punish, and provide redress for domestic violence.
3. Whether the lack of effective and timely protective remedies (including protection orders and removal from the home) violated CEDAW obligations, including as applied to family relations and stereotyping.
4. Whether the communication was admissible, including in light of exhaustion of domestic remedies.

## Decision

- The CEDAW Committee found the communication admissible.
- The Committee concluded Hungary violated CEDAW by failing to act with due diligence to protect A.T. and her children from ongoing domestic violence.
- The Committee found violations of CEDAW arts. 2, 5(a), and 16, read in light of General Recommendation No. 19 on violence against women.
- The Committee recommended individual measures to secure A.T.’s and her children’s immediate and continued safety, provide support services (including safe housing), and ensure compensation or other redress.
- The Committee recommended general measures, including comprehensive domestic violence legislation, effective protection orders and emergency exclusion of perpetrators, training for officials, provision of shelters and services, and monitoring/data collection.

## Legal Principles

- Gender-based violence against women may constitute discrimination under CEDAW when State authorities fail to provide effective protection.
- A State may be responsible for private acts of violence when it fails to act with due diligence to prevent, investigate, punish, and provide compensation or other redress.
- Formal availability of general criminal or civil processes is insufficient if victims cannot obtain prompt, effective, practical protection from ongoing harm.
- CEDAW requires legal frameworks and procedures that enable timely protective measures, including restraining/protection orders and removal of perpetrators from shared homes when needed for safety.
- Inadequate State response to domestic violence can reflect and reinforce stereotypes contrary to art. 5(a) and can impair equality in family relations protected by art. 16.

## Conclusion

The CEDAW Committee held Hungary internationally responsible for failing to provide effective, timely protection and remedies for severe domestic violence, treating the State’s inaction and legal gaps as discriminatory under CEDAW and requiring both victim-specific protection and systemic legal reform.


A.T. v. Hung., Comm. No. 2/2003, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/32/D/2/2003 (CEDAW Comm. 2005)