By Sopiko Shaburishvili
November 2025 • 7-Minute Read

---

The Convention Against Torture (CAT) represents a cornerstone of international human rights law, prohibiting torture in all forms. Yet, while its text is formally universal, its masculine linguistic framing and state-centered scope reveal a structural bias that has often obscured women’s experiences of violence. The absence of gender-inclusive language in the Convention mirrors a deeper challenge: acts of violence within the private sphere, predominantly affecting women, remain under-recognized as violations of international law.

Domestic violence, when viewed through the lens of CAT Article 1(1), reveals striking parallels with torture. Both involve the intentional infliction of severe physical and psychological suffering, often driven by motives of control, punishment, and discrimination. However, the legal recognition of domestic violence as torture remains contested, primarily due to the requirement of state involvement. This article argues that the state’s failure to prevent, investigate, or punish domestic violence constitutes acquiescence, thereby satisfying this criterion and situating domestic violence within the scope of the CAT.

The Definition of Torture under the CAT
Article 1(1) of the CAT defines torture as any act causing severe pain or suffering, intentionally inflicted for purposes such as punishment, intimidation, coercion, or discrimination, and carried out with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. This definition, while comprehensive, has historically centered on public, political, or custodial contexts — spheres traditionally occupied by men. As scholars such as Edwards (2006) and Copelon (2007) argue, this gendered interpretation has marginalized women’s experiences of private violence, despite their equal severity and systemic nature.

The exclusion of gender-specific harms from the legal definition of torture has produced a “public/private divide” in international law. Violence occurring within the home is often treated as a private matter, despite its capacity to inflict severe pain comparable to that inflicted in interrogation rooms. The Committee Against Torture, through General Comment No. 2, has clarified that gender-based violence can amount to torture when the state fails to exercise due diligence to prevent or respond to such acts.

Severe Pain or Suffering
The first element of torture — the infliction of severe physical or mental pain — is clearly present in most cases of domestic violence. Victims often endure chronic physical injuries, sexual abuse, and profound psychological trauma, including post-traumatic stress, depression, and anxiety (Edwards, 2006). Copelon (2007) describes domestic violence as a “mechanism of psychological and physical domination,” emphasizing its deliberate and sustained nature. Domestic violence is not a momentary act but a recurring cycle of coercion, control, and intimidation. The psychological suffering is often intensified by societal norms that compel women to remain silent or preserve “family honor,” perpetuating impunity and internalized blame. The severity of pain in such contexts meets the CAT threshold, especially when compounded by long-term social isolation and fear of reprisal.

Intent and Purpose
Torture under the CAT requires that the perpetrator act intentionally and for a specific purpose. Domestic violence typically fulfills both criteria. Abusers deliberately inflict harm to assert power, enforce obedience, or punish perceived disobedience — objectives that align with the CAT’s enumerated purposes of coercion, intimidation, and discrimination.

This gendered power dynamic underscores domestic violence as an instrument of social control rooted in patriarchal systems. As Marcus (2014) argues, it is not a spontaneous loss of temper but a deliberate practice sustained by social acceptance of male dominance. Therefore, the intent and purpose elements of torture are clearly satisfied in many domestic violence cases.

State Involvement and Acquiescence
The most challenging element in applying the CAT to domestic violence is the requirement of state involvement. Traditionally, torture has been defined as an act committed “by or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official.” Domestic violence, however, is typically perpetrated by private individuals. Yet, international jurisprudence increasingly recognizes that states can be held accountable when they fail to act with due diligence.

The European Court of Human Rights in Opuz v. Turkey (2009) held the state responsible for failing to protect a woman who had repeatedly reported abuse before her mother’s murder. Similarly, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Gonzalez et al. v. Mexico (Cotton Field) found that systemic inaction in cases of femicide amounted to state acquiescence. In both cases, state authorities were aware of ongoing violence yet failed to prevent foreseeable harm — a form of passive complicity that meets the CAT’s standard of consent or acquiescence (Bauer, 2021; McGregor, 2014).

Thus, when states tolerate or neglect patterns of domestic violence, they effectively legitimize a culture of impunity, satisfying the CAT’s state involvement requirement.

Case Example: State-Driven Gender-Based Violence and Domestic Violence in Georgia
The situation in Georgia exemplifies how state violence and patriarchal norms can reinforce domestic violence and elevate it to the level of torture under international law. According to Amnesty International (2025), Georgian authorities have increasingly weaponized gender-based violence as a form of political repression, targeting women protesters with unlawful strip searches, threats of sexual violence, and degrading treatment. These acts—systematically used to intimidate and silence dissent—reflect the state’s direct participation in gendered torture, violating both domestic and international legal standards. Simultaneously, data from UN Women (2025) reveal that entrenched gender stereotypes persist across Georgian society: while 91 percent of respondents reject domestic violence, a substantial share still regard it as a private matter, perpetuating tolerance of abuse within families. When state institutions normalize or deploy gendered violence as a political tool, they reinforce a culture of impunity that legitimizes domestic abuse and silences victims. This convergence of state-sponsored intimidation and societal acceptance of gender inequality demonstrates how domestic violence, both in private and public spheres, can operate as a form of torture sustained by systemic discrimination and state acquiescence.

The Gendered Nature of Torture
Gender is a critical dimension in understanding how torture manifests in private settings. Rejali (2007) notes that historically, societies have developed methods of inflicting pain on women that leave minimal physical evidence — an “invisible torture” that mirrors the secrecy of domestic abuse. Women and gender minorities face structural barriers to reporting violence, from cultural stigma to inadequate legal protection.

The gendered nature of torture therefore requires a reinterpretation of the CAT through a feminist lens, recognizing that the boundary between public and private violence is artificial. As Copelon (2007) emphasized, “the home is the most dangerous place for many women,” and state tolerance of such violence constitutes a form of institutionalized cruelty.

Conclusion
Domestic violence, when analyzed through the definitional elements of the Convention Against Torture, satisfies the criteria of severity, intent, purpose, and, through state inaction, acquiescence. It inflicts profound physical and psychological suffering, serves coercive and discriminatory purposes, and persists under conditions of structural impunity. The recent developments in Georgia illustrate how state institutions can not only fail to prevent domestic violence but also weaponize gender-based abuse as a means of political control, blurring the boundaries between private and state-sponsored violence.

Recognizing such acts as torture reframes domestic and gender-based violence as grave violations of international law. It compels states to adopt a gender-sensitive interpretation of the CAT, ensuring accountability for both private perpetrators and public officials who engage in or tolerate abuse. Ultimately, acknowledging domestic and politically motivated violence against women as torture strengthens the universality of human rights by dismantling the artificial divide between public and private harm, and by affirming that the home, like the streets and detention centers, must be protected spaces of dignity and freedom from torture.

---

Bibliography
Akgul, F. (2017). Patriarchal Theory Reconsidered: Torture and Gender-Based Violence in Turkey. Springer.
Amnesty International. (2025). Georgia: Women protesters are targeted with escalating violence and gender-based reprisals. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/05/georgia-women-protesters-are-targeted-with-escalating-violence-and-gender-based-reprisals/
Bauer, J. (2021). Obscured by “Willful Blindness”: States’ Preventive Obligations and the Meaning of Acquiescence under the CAT. Columbia Human Rights Law Review.
Copelon, R. (2007). “Gender Violence as Torture.” New York City Law Review, 11(2), 229–264.
Edwards, A. (2006). “The Feminizing of Torture under International Human Rights Law.” Leiden Journal of International Law, 19(2), 349–391.
Marcus, I. (2014). “Reframing Domestic Violence as Torture or Terrorism.” Buffalo Law Review, 67.
McGregor, L. (2014). “Applying the Definition of Torture to Acts of Non-State Actors.” Human Rights Quarterly.
Rejali, D. (2007). Torture and Democracy. Princeton University Press.
UN Women. (2025). Public perceptions about gender equality in Georgia: New study presented by UN Women. Retrieved from https://georgia.unwomen.org/en/stories/news/2025/04/public-perceptions-about-gender-equality-in-georgia-new-study-presented-by-un-women