An Alternative to the

Alternative
Alternative dispute resolution responses are found to
cause more harm than good to women experiencing
intimate partner violence.

Tina Musuya, Executive Director of CEDOVIP, and Stella Mukasa, Regional Director Africa
International Center for Research on Women, are pictured in Dar-el Salaam holding a hard copy
of their study.

CEDOVIP in partnership with the International Center for Research on women and Beyond
Borders have published a study that examines the justice and efficacy of alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) responses for women seeking justice after experiencing violence in intimate relationships.
The study Whose justice, Whose Alternatives; Locating Womens Voices and Agency in
Alternative Dispute Resolutions Responses to Intimate Partner Violence focuses mainly the most
common forms of ADR; mediation and arbitration. Mediation is a form of alternative dispute
resolution which is a method of resolving disputes that serves as an alternative to court proceedings.
ADR usually involves a group or an individual who facilitates a discussion between the parties
involved in the reported incident. The process ultimately leads to an agreement and concession,
determined by the parties themselves. ADR follows a step-by-step process that can typically be
summed up in four steps. The first step, initial report and information-gathering, consists of
someone bringing the incident to the facilitators attention. The summons and hearing occur after
the facilitator accepts the case and decides to pursue a resolution. At this point, the facilitator sets a
date for the hearing and summons those involved in the incident. The facilitators hear testimonies
at the hearings. The decision/punishment should conclude with an agreed-upon decision which may
involve a punishment or an order for reparations. Finally, enforcement may occur if the facilitator
and parties decide on a method to guarantee that the agreed upon terms are met. This would be
enforced by the ADR authority or the community.

The study especially considered womens voice and agency in ADR processes to determine if
these practices are helpful to the victims or biased towards their perpetrators. Through various
documents and interviews, the authors examined ADR responses to intimate partner violence in
the Global South, their prioritization of women survivors voices and agency, and examples of
ADR approaches that prioritize the voice and agency of women survivors of intimate partner
violence more successfully. The study ended with recommendations for stakeholders and
activists alike that could help them create more women-oriented ADR processes.
Most of the ADR practices examined in the study were the remnants of historical dispute
resolution mechanisms that addressed issues of all types, not specifically intimate partner
violence. The knowledge, biases, skills, etc. of the entity or authority that leads the process of
ADR varies greatly. Often, community members seek out local leaders to help resolve disputes,
and they are typically elder men of the communitys ethnic and/or socio-economic majority,
putting minority victims at a major disadvantage. These ADR facilitators are rarely adequately
trained or have the proper skill set to aid survivors. These leaders are also often inconsistent
with their resolutions based on their preferred scripture, religious law or customary law which
frequently prioritizes keeping the relationship together rather than the victims needs and
safety.
ADR processes do have some perceived advantages which are discussed and critiqued
throughout the study. One of the commonly perceived advantages of ADR processes is that
they increase the number of available options to survivors. However, this is not the case when
forms of ADR are directly linked to the formal justice system, as is the case in Uganda. The
requirement of taking cases to ADR before bringing them to the formal courts can be time
consuming, frustrating and dangerous to the victim. This requirement was a result of a backlog
of cases, but does not always aid the victims. Instead, it may further delay the victims from
bringing their cases to formal courts which can be dangerous. Still, many women prefer these
types of resolutions over the formal court system.
Often, formal justice system remedies to intimate partner violence may be less accessible,
more expensive, and long, endangering the survivor even more, so women tend to choose
pursuit of ADR methods. ADR methods are also viewed as less intimidating and more flexible
than formal court processes because some women seek solutions that will not result in the arrest
of their perpetrator. Unlike court processes, ADR processes typically garner more community
support because they often require it to function. Finally, women may prefer ADR methods
because formal, state-run mechanisms may not exist or may not be trustworthy.
Although ADR methods are often preferred by women, they rarely prioritize the womens
voice and agency. Thus, despite the womens likelihood to choose ADR methods, they often do
not provide solutions that are in the survivors best interest. One of the major issues with ADR
processes is that they do not consider power imbalance within the relationship when considering
the case. A violence prevention network coordinator from Uganda pointed out that the
ultimate goal in ADR is usually to keep the relationship together. Often, the facilitator
identified the challenge causing the violence as the womans fault. They attempt to listen to
both sides, but when specifically considering the source of the violence, the facilitator typically
considers what the women could have done to keep the violence from happening. In the study,
CEDOVIPs material points out that when mediation assumes that both partners have equal
power, it ignores the fact that the perpetrator may be continuing to control the victim during
the mediation. A fair agreement is nearly impossible to achieve because the perpetrator may
control their partner hidden signals or threats to prevent the victims honesty or expression of
needs.

Another issue is that these community-based solutions tend to reinforce or favor existing
power imbalances and inequalities instead of prioritizing womens safety. The World Bank
addressed this issue as far back as 2005, and pointed out that in some ADR practices, it is even
inconceivable that the outcome would be unbiased. In some places, the outcome is expected to
be based on kinship or family backgrounds instead of legal principles.
The study also found that ADR authorities often attempt to minimize community
inconvenience by keeping the family together, regardless of what the survivor prefers.
Although this is sometimes what the survivor prefers, the assumption that this is their
preference or the insistence of keeping the family together at all costs can silence the womens
voices and agency. In Uganda specifically, it was pointed out that people do not want to be
responsible for breaking up a relationship or a family which leads to reconciliation at all costs.
In these situations, women are typically blamed for the challenges that lead to violence. In
fact, the community watches which are often believed to hold perpetrators accountable, may
hinder the survivor if the community typically blames victims for intimate partner violence.
They may see the survivors as trying to break up their own family.
These processes also typically silence and disempower the women seeking their services. In
the information-gathering stages, many ADR processes focus on gathering physical evidence or
witnesses which are difficult to come by in situations that occurred in their private residence.
Often, this can result in the interrogation of the survivor instead of allowing her to tell her
story and be believed. A violence prevention network coordinator in Uganda pointed out that
the woman is lucky if her partner is quiet throughout her speech. Normally, the partner
interrupts or dismisses her for being emotional which he uses against her. Some informants for
the study perceived women as considering the public ADR session as punishment enough
because it drew attention to the situation and shamed her partner. Others also fail to recognize
the risk of retaliatory violence after the shaming session. CEDOVIP points out that what a
victim says in mediation may put the victim, the children or the family in danger after the
session because the survivor brought private matters to the public. A lawyer in Uganda
explains that in their perspective, women have no say in the punishment, demonstrating that
ADR processes typically do not give survivors more options than formal court proceedings
may. The enforcement step is also typically ignored when the hearing itself if the outcome
the woman hopes to achieve which increases the danger of retaliatory violence. In Uganda,
one victim/survivor of intimate partner violence confirms this suspicion by saying that there is
no enforcement; there is simply the assumption that the man will respect an MOU.
Another danger of ADR responses is that when they focus on incidents and keeping the
family together, they reinforce the intimate partner violence cycle. In other words, instead of
considering the cycle that encourages violence, ADR processes only work on resolving the
particular incident that was reported. The violence cycle involves tension building, a violent
outbreak and a honeymoon phase. The honeymoon phase takes place after a violent outbreak
and includes the perpetrator issuing apologies, expressing regret, etc. while the power and
control patterns continue. It is very likely that ADR processes become a component of the
honeymoon phase. The perpetrator may issue an apology publicly, the community believes
him, and he continues to harm his partner. This cycle becomes more problematic because
mediation often assumes that both partners are seeking a violence-free relationship. In reality,
as CEDOVIP points out, the perpetrator often believes violence is necessary and acceptable,
which is not likely to be changed solely through mediation.
The question of whether ADR processes or formal court processes are more accommodating
to womens voice and agency is a complicated one, and cannot be simply answered. In ADR
processes women at least allow the victim to speak and be heard, but the victim rarely has
agency. Thus, a more appropriate solution may be to alter the ADR processes and practices
that are in place to ones that are more conscious of womens voice and agency. One of the
benefits of the study is that it points to several examples of ADR processes that prioritized
womens voice and agency. An important outcome of this study is the examination of
alternatives to mediation and ADR practices. These success stories can provide insights so that
ADR processes can be improved on a larger scale.

One successful example of ADR that prioritizes womens voice and agency are Responsibility
Meetings by Ugandas own Raising Voices and Center for Domestic Violence Prevention
(CEDOVIP). Responsibility Meetings are held with the purpose of shifting community norms and
attitudes related to violence against women. After the mobilization initiative reaches a certain
point, then organizers introduce a revision of traditional ADR practices to uphold the new
community norms rejecting violence. The SASA! Initiative, created by Raising Voices and
implemented by CEDOVIP, is a community mobilization initiative proven to shift community
attitudes, norms, and behaviors related to domestic violence and HIV.
SASA! encourages communities to analyze, discuss, and change power inequalities both within
society and in relationships. SASA! is comprised of four phases. The Start phase involves training
activists and establishing local connections in order to support the following phases. The
Awareness phase includes activities that encourage critical thinking and dialogue about negative and
imbalanced power relationships. The Support phase encourages the community to collaborate to
advance positive change related to domestic violence and HIV. Behavioral change is supported in
the final phase, Action. SASA! Is a long term commitment that can take more than 3-5 years, but
the results are long lasting as well.
When implementing SASA! phases, CEDOVIP staff noticed that ADR processes still did not
support womens voice or agency. They began to reframe these approaches in line with the
progress in SASA! which resulted in Responsibility Meetings Philosophy and Training Manual.
These meetings point out that mediation is inadequate to end violence, especially when facilitators
are not trained to address violence against women. These meetings serve as an alternative to
traditional methods of mediation for domestic violence cases which prioritize the safety of the
survivor, facilitator and support while closely monitoring the follow up. The first step of the
Responsibility Meeting process includes training the facilitator. The facilitator should come from
a place that has achieved significant SASA! progress, and would work through training that covered
the fundamentals of domestic violence, active listening skills, risk assessment, determination of
the dominant power possessor, presenting the survivor with options, and monitoring the process
and results of the meetings. This method has not been widely tested or implemented, but it
represents a unique attempt to make ADR processes safe and empowering for survivors in places
where community norms have begun to support womens rights.
More successful ADR methods are the Committees Against Violence Against Women
(CAVAWs), which work similarly to other ADR processes with a chief-led court that resolves
disputes. In cases related to womens rights or intimate partner violence, a committee of womens
advocates join the court and carry an influential role in developing solutions. Instead of replacing
ADR processes which would take massive amounts of time and resources, the CAVAW initiative
aimed to improve and influence the existing processes. The members of CAVAW are trained in
legal literacy and counseling which qualifies them to aid survivors. Instead of having open hearings
where the perpetrator is present, CAVAWs tend to have private meetings to discuss the situation
and keep the victims confidentiality. The members of CAVAW also refer survivors to health or
support services, help survivors make formal charges at a police station or assist survivors in
seeking ADR in her village. CAVAWs are also typically the first or highest form of leadership that
a woman can attain in these communities. The influence and respect of these committees helps
influence gender power structures in the communities where they exist.
Another positive example of an ADR process that prioritizes womens voice and agency are
the Womens Courts in Gujarat, India. These organizations are actually ADR processes led by
highly trained women that offer arbitration for cases of violence. Before presiding over dispute
resolution hearings, these large groups of women receive training which is guided by a feminist
critique of the legal system. The womens courts follow the same steps as ADR processes, but
they prioritize womens rights and follow feminist principles. In cases of intimate partner
violence, these womens courts follow six mandatory aspects of ADR processes:

The womans desires are prioritized: even if her desire changes throughout the process,
she receives what she wants at judgement.
If the woman disagrees with the courts, she still receives what she wants
The Courts respect the womans dignity and she is not blamed for the incidents
The Courts create a safe space for the woman to speak without fear
The environment also allows the man to feel that he can present his point of view
The Courts will protest injustice of any kind and will change community thinking on
this.
Womens Courts in India proved to be so successful that the majority of women who
brought cases before them reported decreased violence at home, increased confidence,
improved understanding of violence and improved household relations overall. Although
these courts were not initially welcomed in their patriarchal society, their persistence
demanded respect and a shift of community norms.
The study concludes with a set of recommendations for those seeking to raise womens
voice and agency in ADR processes without replacing or abolishing them.
Recommendations for donors, legislators and government ministries begin with establishing
strong laws criminalizing all forms of violence against women, and dedicate adequate
funding, human resources and training to ensure high quality implementation. Several
activist organizations have worked together to see the passing of the Domestic Violence
Law in Uganda. This law protects every man, woman, child and domestic worker in a home
from all forms and acts of domestic violence. It encourages victims, witnesses, or concerned
people to report incidents of violence. Cases of domestic violence must now be handled
with urgency and confidentiality. This law also assigns the government primary
responsibility to protect survivors. Now, it is the responsibility of activists, legislators,
donors and government ministries to ensure that this law is being adequately enforced and
that victims are being adequately helped through the processes that they choose to follow.
These influential groups are also recommended to increase funding to grassroots feminist
organizations who attempt to address intimate partner violence, especially those that focus
on rights-based ADR processes. It is also necessary to invest in research and evaluations of
ADR responses to intimate partner violence in order to understand the nature scope, ethics
and effectiveness of these processes.