Legítima defensa y violencia intrafamiliar sistemática en Ecuador: análisis comparado (Sección Abierta)
This study examines self-defense in cases of chronic domestic violence in Ecuador, focusing on the legal challenges surrounding its application as a form of resistance in non-confrontational contexts, and its comparative treatment in Argentina and Chile. Although Ecuador has ratified international t...
Spremljeno u:
| Glavni autor: | |
|---|---|
| Daljnji autori: | , |
| Format: | article |
| Jezik: | spa |
| Izdano: |
2026
|
| Teme: | |
| Online pristup: | http://hdl.handle.net/10644/10888 |
| Oznake: |
Dodaj oznaku
Bez oznaka, Budi prvi tko označuje ovaj zapis!
|
Dodaj oznaku | Sažetak: | This study examines self-defense in cases of chronic domestic violence in Ecuador, focusing on the legal challenges surrounding its application as a form of resistance in non-confrontational contexts, and its comparative treatment in Argentina and Chile. Although Ecuador has ratified international treaties such as the Convention of Belém do Pará and CEDAW, the Organic Law to Prevent and Eradicate Violence against Women and the Organic Comprehensive Criminal Code lack provisions that offer a proper evidentiary framework to recognize self-defense in repeated violence scenarios. While there are institutional guides and manuals, these lack binding legal authority to override organic laws, leaving women exposed to structural violence and the ineffectiveness of conventional protection measures. In contrast, Argentina and Chile represent jurisprudential progress by incorporating the “battered woman syndrome” into their legal systems and reinterpreting the classical elements of self-defense from a gender perspective. The study concludes that the restrictive application of self-defense in Ecuador re-victimizes women and underscores the need for legal reform that acknowledges their ongoing state of danger and the legitimacy of a single defensive opportunity. The research was conducted using a qualitative methodology based on documentary analysis, semi-structured interviews, and comparative legal review. |
|---|