Difficulty of Analysis of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in the Context of Armed Conflict

Global Strategy Report, 23/2023

Para citar como referencia: Antúnez, Juan Carlos (2023), «Difficulty of Analysis of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in the Context of Armed Conflict», Global Strategy Report, 23/2023.

Gender influences armed conflicts and armed conflicts influence gender. Men and women experience and contribute to conflict in different ways (UK Stabilization Unit, 2017). For this reason, including a gender perspective in the analysis of a conflict or an area of operations helps to: better identify and understand the roots of instability through the analysis of the causes and multiplying factors of the conflict related to the dynamics of genre; choose the best way to respond to this situation through a deep knowledge of the needs, capacities and specific experiences of women, men, boys, girls and sexual or gender minorities; identify and mitigate the risks of some policies, programs and interventions that may exacerbate the gender dimensions of the conflict or harm its resolution; and ensure peace and gender equality in order to avoid rebuilding a society that perpetuates discrimination and the possibility of new conflicts (UK Stabilization Unit, 2017).

The integration of a gender perspective in the analysis of the conflict increases not only the possibility of resolving it, but also the effectiveness of the military operations themselves. Gender mainstreaming improves understanding of the underlying power relationships between genders and social groups and tells us how those relationships are influenced by conflict and helps us determine efforts and measures to resolve it. This perspective helps us to identify the factors that generate and perpetuate the conflict and the potential actors and opportunities for its resolution (Conciliation Resources, 2015).

By regularly updating the gender analysis[1] (including social, cultural, economic, health and political factors) we managed to introduce a gender perspective in the planning, execution and evaluation of military operations, greatly increasing the effectiveness and operational capacity (SHAPE, 2013).

The NATO Military Concept for the Protection of Civilians is a good example of this approach. According to this concept, the protection of civilians begins with the Understanding of the Human Environment, for which an analysis of the relevant actors in the conflict or crisis is carried out, which contains a broad demographic study, paying important attention, among others. , to gender dynamics and elements when establishing the segments most at risk of the population. This concept is also a frame of reference for NATO’s Cross-Cutting Topics (CCTs), which include, among other topics, Children and Armed Conflicts (CAAC), Conflict Related-Sexual and Gender Based Violence (CR-SGBV), and Women, Peace and Security (WPS) (ACO, 2020)[2] .

The devastating consequences of rape and other forms of conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence, including child sexual abuse, have been widely documented (Ekhator-Mobayode, 2020). Anyone can be a victim of this type of violence in an armed conflict, but women and girls are undoubtedly the most affected. NATO also recognizes the disproportionate impact of the conflict on women and girls[3]. Although women are less likely to die in armed conflict than men, they are more vulnerable in other ways. In addition to the difficulties they face in times of peace in many areas of the planet, during and after armed conflict they may experience a profound deterioration in their social, political and economic situation.

The current conflict in Ukraine is a good example of this reality. The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine has denounced rape and other acts of sexual violence committed in areas occupied by the Russian armed forces in the four occupied regions of Ukraine on which it focused. Although rape, castration and other acts of sexual violence against men have been proven, most of them have targeted women and girls (OHCHR, 2022). However, this is not the only way the conflict in Ukraine has affected women and girls. For example, violence has exacerbated the trafficking of women for the purpose of sexual exploitation, which is endemic in the area. It is possible to ensure that the conflict, from the beginning, has reinforced traditional gender roles in a part of the population, consolidating the patriarchal structure of society and increasing the inequality of women and girls (Lucas, Rohwerder and Tull, 2017).

We will now focus on intimate partner violence or Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), which is defined as abusive behavior by a person within an intimate relationship, including current or past marriages, and partnerships or domestic relationships. This type of violence causes disastrous and sometimes irreversible physical, sexual, financial, and/or psychological harm (Fitz-Gibbon, Walklate, McCulloch, and Maher, 2018).

IPV is the most common form of violence against women in both conflict and non-conflict situations and the most common form of intra-family violence. According to data from the World Health Organization (WHO), this type of violence affects almost a third of the world’s women[4]. However, it generally goes unreported and receives less attention, for example, than sexual violence perpetrated by the various armed factions in a conflict. IPV causes physical and emotional trauma that affects the physical and mental health of women throughout their lives. It is associated with loss of income and has a negative impact on child development. IPV also perpetuates generational violence, as witnessing or experiencing it as a child can increase the likelihood of becoming a perpetrator or victim as an adult. IPV is a barrier to increasing gender equality and lifting people out of poverty (Ekhator-Mobayode, 2020).

In the case of Ukraine, there is evidence that the conflict has also led to an increase in IPV and other types of domestic violence, although much of it probably remains hidden and reports and studies on this problem remain insufficient (Lucas, Rohwerder and Tull, 2017).

IPV is a violation of the human rights of women and girls, a manifestation of gender inequality, and limits and compromises human development. Therefore, IPV response and prevention are integral to the success of development and humanitarian policies and programs in conflict situations. The objective of this document is to present the different types of difficulties when carrying out an analysis of the impact of IPV in a context of armed conflict.

This document is mainly based on the study carried out by Ruiz-Pérez, Plazaola-Castaño and Vives-cases, focusing first on the problems of defining what is meant by IPV. Second, the article describes the difficulties in assessing the magnitude of the problem. It is especially important to highlight that obtaining reliable data on this type of violence is a complex task, due to methodological issues derived from the very nature of the phenomenon, which occurs mainly in the private and intimate context of the couple, difficult to observe directly. Third, the article examines the limitations and biases in research on violence, including the lack of consensus regarding the measurement of events that may or may not represent a risk factor for violence against women or the methodological problem related to the type of sampling used. Finally, based on the study by Serrano-Montilla, Lozano, Bender and Padilla, the article will focus on the study of the individual and social factors that contribute to perpetuating this type of violence against women.

Obstacles when analyzing intimate partner violence (IPV): methodological problems in the study of violence against women

IPV, whether physical, sexual, verbal or psychological, is the most widespread form of violence against women, which begins at a very early age and whose effects manifest themselves throughout the victim’s life, causing serious personal consequences, social and even political and economic[5].

The “Multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women” is the first of its kind carried out by the World Organization of Health, WHO (World Health Organization, WHO) and shows that the most common type of violence against women is that carried out by their partners, much more than violence or rape committed by other people, known or not.

However, various studies carried out in different parts of the world show different results about the magnitude of this problem. These differences may be the result of the different realities of each society, but they may also be motivated by methodological differences when investigating and analyzing this problem (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007). We will now proceed to delve a little deeper into these differences.

Differences when defining the problem

The first problem is the lack of consensus when it comes to defining what violence against women itself is (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007). The United Nations definition in the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women provides a conceptual framework, noting that “it is any act of violence, based on gender, that results, or is likely to result, in physical harm, sexual or psychological, or in the suffering of women, including the threat of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether they occur in public or in private life” (United Nations, 1993). However, although this definition is very broad and includes most types of violence against women, more specific definitions are needed when investigating this type of violence (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007).

Efforts have been made to resolve this problem by focusing studies on specific acts or behaviors and their influence on physical, sexual, and emotional well-being. However, it is very important to define what type of violence we are analyzing, in order to compare the results of various studies, which may be focused on the study of violence against women in its broadest concept, on violence against women in the family environment (including that committed by any member of said unit), or in violence committed by a partner (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007). Studies are further complicated by having to include both objective actions and subjective perceptions. In addition, they must also address issues such as the duration of the relationship, the duration of the violence, the frequency and type of said violence (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007).

Most studies focus on physical violence (Heise et al., 1999), which is the easiest violence to define and therefore measure and analyse. However, these studies and their results are clearly incomplete when analyzing the phenomenon as a whole. According to the WHO, “intimate partner violence includes any behavior in an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological or sexual harm to those involved in said relationship.” These behaviors include psychological violence (continuous intimidation, insults and humiliation), non-consensual sex and other forms of sexual coercion, as well as other forms of domineering behaviors (isolating women from family and friends, monitoring their movements and restricting their access to information or help) (Krug et al., 1999).

However, sexual violence has been the subject of far fewer studies than physical violence, and psychological violence even less, due to the greater difficulties in observing and analyzing the phenomenon. Humiliation and isolation, for example, may not be identified by the victim herself as violence, with effects on her health and well-being, seriously complicating the study (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007).

Another aspect to take into account, especially when carrying out studies of an international nature, are the cultural differences when defining violence against women and violence within the couple. The “Multinational Study of Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women” of the WHO, mentioned above, tries to shed some light on this problem, offering us some methodologies when measuring and analyzing violence against women. women in different cultural settings (WHO, 2005). The notion of what is acceptable or unacceptable in terms of behavior or what constitutes harm is influenced by the culture of a society, constantly evolving along with social norms and values (Krug et al., 2002). The wide diversity of moral codes throughout the world makes the issue of violence one of the most difficult and politically sensitive to face (Fraga, 2016). This topic will be developed in greater depth in another section of this document.

Difficulties in assessing the magnitude of the problem

The first step in learning more about violence against women is to assess the magnitude of the problem. However, obtaining data on this type of violence is a highly complicated task, not only because of the difficulty of defining it, as previously indicated, but also due to methodological difficulties derived from the very nature of the phenomenon, such as the concept of intimate and private where this type of violence occurs. This prevents, in the vast majority of cases, the direct observation of the behaviors and acts considered as violence (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007). In addition to this, taboos, fear, and feelings of guilt and shame contribute to hiding the reality of this violence, making it even more difficult to establish the magnitude of the phenomenon (Gelles, 1990).

Most of the data available to researchers comes from secondary sources, such as police records of complaints and investigations of violence and homicides, or judicial and clinical files (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007).

Although these data are undoubtedly important, they only reflect the cases that have been reported or those with the most tangible and tragic consequences. It is, therefore, essential to carry out direct studies, both in the group as a whole and in specific sectors of the population, which allow us to establish with greater precision the magnitude and scope of the problem. These direct studies should be carried out by directly asking women about the violence suffered, either through direct interviews or questionnaires. Because many of them may consider some acts of violence or abuse as “normal”, the questions should refer to specific behaviors, leaving no room for the interpretation of the potential victim (Krug at al., 2002).

One must be especially careful when comparing data from different studies, as they may be based on different theoretical and methodological frameworks, and on different definitions of violence (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007). Attention must also be paid to the sectors of women among whom the study has been carried out. If they have focused on specific segments of an economic, social or cultural nature, or only in specific environments and situations (such as shelters for battered women), their results cannot be directly extrapolated to the whole population, since they would alter the analysis of the magnitude of the problem (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007).

Interview questions and questionnaires should refer to all forms of violence. In this way, it is avoided that the attention of the study is focused on nothing more than the most severe types and that the potential victim does not ignore types of non-physical abuse that also affect their well-being and that they may come to consider as “normal” (Ruiz -Perez et al., 2004).

Limitations, stereotypes and prejudices in the study of violence

In addition to all of the above, the complexity of the study of violence requires the use of research techniques whose results may be affected by limitations, stereotypes, and prejudices (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007).

The health environment is considered one of the best contexts to study and detect violence against women by their partners. For this reason, simple methods have been developed that can be used by all health personnel, who are recommended (especially those involved in primary care, emergencies, gynecology, and mental health) to look for symptoms of abuse and violence, and that they include in their questionnaires, to establish the patient’s history, questions about this problem. However, this study can produce harmful side effects such as (if it is not carried out with the rigor, sensitivity, professionalism and knowledge, and the necessary confidentiality) that the potential victim stops visiting medical centers, that their psychological stress or that, even and under certain circumstances, may increase the abuse they suffer (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007).

In addition to these potential risks, other obstacles and limitations must be taken into account in the study of violence against women in the healthcare setting. It has been shown that women who suffer this type of violence make greater use of the health system than the rest of the female population (Ramsay et al., 2002). This reality could cause studies carried out in the health field to present an overestimation of the prevalence of this type of violence, if the data are directly extrapolated to the general population as a whole (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007).

Another limitation in the study derives from the fact that, in many cases, the results of the interviews and questionnaires are excluded from those women accompanied by their partner, so that these data will be left out of the study. Bearing in mind that one of the forms of control that the aggressors exercise over their victims is social isolation (especially including the health services and facilities where their acts can be detected), the cases of women who are victims of this isolation will also remain outside of those studies (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007).

In any case, even being aware of the possible limitations, the different methods to investigate this problem should put the safety of women before everything else, as stated in various ethical and safety recommendations for the study of domestic violence (WHO , 1999).

Another problem when it comes to studying and taking measures to prevent this type of violence is the lack of studies that prove the reasons for the violent behavior of men towards their partners. Most of these studies from the 1970s and 1980s focused only on generational learning. In other words, these parents “learned” to use violence against their partners in their own home, using the behavior of their parents as a model (Hotaling and Sugarman, 1986). This type of study presented different difficulties and errors caused by biases in the perpetrator’s memory (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007).

Another problem with many scientific studies on violence against women by their partners is that they focus on the causality of the problem centered on the victims and not so much on the perpetrators of the same (Browne, 1993).

There is also great criticism of studies that only reflect on a certain aspect of a problem that is truly multidimensional (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007). Heise proposes a multidimensional framework for this type of study that is based on the analysis of the complex individual, relational, socioeconomic and political determinants of the phenomenon (Heise, 1998).

At present, the studies that describe the phenomenon of violence against women by their partners are increasing, and even identifying indicators that predict such violence. However, these studies are not yet sufficient to study the phenomenon in its entirety and, above all, to prevent and avoid cases that end in murder (Hilton and Harris, 2005).

As previously noted, studies based on interviews and questionnaires have provided a more accurate view of the problem (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2005). Despite this, the studies are still hampered by the refusal of a part of the women to participate in interviews (Waltermaurer, Ortega and McNutt, 2003). On the other hand, there are also studies that show that this reluctance decreases when the questions are asked in environments where women feel comfortable, understood and understood, such as in the healthcare environment (despite the difficulties mentioned above) (Ruiz- Perez et al., 2007).

In addition, problems have been detected when analyzing the phenomenon itself, but rather in the study of risk factors, such as the use of alcohol or other substances that may cause or increase the possibility of partner violence. , preventing meta-analysis (Gil-González et al., 2006).

Finally, another methodological problem that should be mentioned is related to the type of sampling used both in the etiological and prevalence studies of the phenomenon (Ruiz-Pérez et al., 2007). An example of this difficulty is the study of the characteristics and circumstances of the aggressor through the statements of the victim of violence, which gives rise to certain biases that may affect the final result of the study (Lindquist et al., 2004).

Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women in situations of armed conflict

During the last two years, studies have been developed that demonstrate synergies between the fields of public health and human rights (Gruskin, 2003). One area in which more progress has been made is in the way of documenting, preventing and dealing with violence, especially during and after armed conflicts (Kelly, 2021). Studies based on broad sectors of the population and increasingly sophisticated statistical techniques have allowed us to understand the risk factors and the impact of violence and to develop policies and deploy resources with the ultimate goal of eradicating this problem (Thoms and Ron, 2007). .

Various analyzes indicate that there is a direct relationship between two of the most ubiquitous types of violence: political violence and gender violence. These studies suggest that women residing in areas highly affected by conflict are at greater risk of intimate partner violence, even years after a cessation of hostilities has been achieved (Kelly, 2022). Girls exposed to a conflict situation are more likely to experience violence during adulthood. In the same way that men who are immersed in the violence of war in their adolescence may be more likely to use violence against their partners (Torrisi, 2022). These results highlight the need to develop programs that address this type of violence against women during the process of resolving the armed conflict. For this, it is necessary to delve into studies about the long-term impact of war, with the aim of achieving an effective and sustainable peace (Kelly, 2022).

Armed conflict and domestic violence are among the most severe and widespread forms of violence, and women and children are especially vulnerable to them. Not only are these types of violence responsible for a significant part of global morbidity and mortality, but their adverse consequences are often perpetuated, extending beyond the health and well-being of the victims to societies and future generations. (Torrisi, 2022).

Analyzing how violence can persist and mutate is critical, since that violence can impact the ability of a country or society to achieve stability and security (Kelly, 2021). In addition to the tangible effects of destruction, armed conflicts generate violence of all kinds. Violence in the family can be the result of the difficult social relations generated by the conflict and needs to be considered as one of its possible consequences if we want to achieve a full understanding of the effects of war and design multidimensional strategies to achieve reconciliation and resolution. of the conflict (Torrisi, 2022).

According to the 2020 Global Peace Index, the world is emerging from the conflicts that characterized the past decade, but is heading towards a state in which instability and uncertainty continue. Current conflicts are characterized by the same factors that cause violence against women, not only during the period of hostilities, but also after the cessation of hostilities: chronic poverty, lack of authority and trust in the state and in institutions civilians, restricted access to healthcare and education, and the risk of continued instability. Without a deeper understanding of how these two threats to human rights, war and violence against women, are interrelated, we will be less prepared to deal with current global instability (Kelly, 2021).

Conclusions

The scientific study of violence against women is a key component in developing any program designed to end this problem. Given the very nature of this phenomenon, the standardization of the concepts related to it is of vital importance, not only to define the behaviors and actions that can be considered as expressions of this type of violence, but also to reduce the heterogeneity of the methods to measure the importance of the phenomenon and associated factors. Despite the advances experienced in this type of studies in recent decades, important biases continue to be detected in them that affect our knowledge about the problem and, therefore, limit the development of efficient measures and plans for its eradication (Ruiz- Perez et al., 2007).

When it comes to mitigating the effects of violence against women in situations of armed conflict, the development of scientific studies on this problem is essential to develop programs that confront and change the way we deal with harmful behaviors and gender norms, both at the individual and social level (Ekhator-Mobayode, 2020). The fight against violence against women by their partners and gender inequality helps countries continue on their path towards sustainable economic development and a stable and secure society.

To achieve this end, despite the infinity and variety of moral codes, it is necessary to make an effort to reach a consensus and establish universal standards of behavior, based on human rights, to protect life and human dignity (Fraga, 2016).

Bibliography

Allied Command for Operations, ACO. Protection of Civilians Handbook. May 2020.

Browne A. Violence against women by male partners. Prevalence, outcomes, and policy implications. Am Psycho. 1993 Oct;48(10):1077-87.

Conciliation Resources, Gender and Conflict Analysis Toolkit for Peacebuilders, December 2015.

Ekhator-Mobayode, U. Does armed conflict increase a woman’s risk of suffering intimate partner violence? World Bank Blogs. May 19, 2020.

Fitz-Gibbon, K. Walklate, S. McCulloch, J. and Maher, JM (2018). Intimate Partner Violence Risk and Security. Securing Women’s Lives in a Global World. Routledge.

Fraga, S. Methodological and ethical challenges in violence research. Porto Biomedical Journal, Volume 1, Issue 2, 2016.

Gelles R J. Methodological issues in the study of the family violence. In: Strauss MA, Gelles RJ, eds. Physical violence in American families: risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8145 families. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1990.

Gil-González D, Vives-Cases C, Alvarez-Dardet C, Latour-Pérez J. Alcohol and intimate partner violence: do we have enough information to act? Eur J Public Health. 2006 Jun;16(3):279-85.

Gruskin, yes. (2003) Violence or Health? American Journal of Public Health 93/7.

Heise, L.L. (1998). Violence Against Women: An Integrated, Ecological Framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262–290.

Heise L. L., Ellsberg M, Gottemoeller M. Ending violence against women. Population Reports (Series L no 11). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Population Information Programme, 1999.

Hilton NZ, Harris GT. Predicting wife assault: a critical review and implications for policy and practice. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2005 Jan;6(1):3-23.

Hotaling GT, Sugarman DB. An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: the current state of knowledge. Violence Vict. 1986 Summer;1(2):101-24.

Kelly JTD, Colantuoni E, Robinson C, Decker MR. Quantifying the Ripple Effects of Civil War: How Armed Conflict Is Associated with More Severe Violence in the Home. Health Hum Rights. 2021 Jun; 23(1):75-89.

Krug E, Dahlberg L, Mercy J. et al. World report on violence and health. Geneva: WHO, 2002.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling J. Top 10 greatest “hits”: important findings and future directions for intimate partner violence research. J Interpers Violence. 2005 Jan;20(1):108-18.

Lindquist, C.U., Sass, L.E., Bottomley, D., Katin, S.M., Maddox, J.D., Ordóñez, R.A., & Teofilo, C.N. (2004). Should Abused Women’s Reports of Partner Substance Abuse Be Accepted as Valid? Journal of Family Violence, 12, 75-83.

Lucas, B., Rohwerder, B., Tull, K. (2017). Gender and conflict in Ukraine. Knowledge, evidence and learning for development (K4D).

Ramsay J, Richardson J, Carter YH, Davidson LL, Feder G. Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review. BMJ. 2002 Aug 10;325(7359):314.

Ruiz-Pérez I, Blanco-Prieto P, Vives-Cases C. Violence against women in the couple: determinants and socio-sanitary responses. Gac Sanit. 2004;18 Suppl 2:4-12.

Ruiz-Pérez, I., Plazaola-Castaño, J., and Vives-Cases, C. (2007) Methodological issues in the study of violence against women. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007 Dec; 61(Suppl 2): ii26–ii31.

Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), Allied Command Operations Comprehensive Operations Planning directive COPD Interim V2.0, 04 October 2013.

Thoms, O.N.T. and Ron, J. (2007) Public health, conflict and human rights: Toward a collaborative research agenda. Conflict and Health 1/1.

Torrisi, O. (2022) Young-age exposure to armed conflict and women’s experiences of intimate partner violence. Journal of Marriage and Family.

UK Stabilization Unit. Joint Analysis of Conflict and Stability. Guide Note. June 2017.

United Nations (1993). Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women. Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR). 20 December 1993. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women | OHCHR

United Nations Organization. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). 18 October 2022. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/A-77-533-AUV-EN.pdf

World Health Organization Putting women’s safety first; Ethical and safety recommendations for research on domestic violence against women. Geneva: WHO, 1999. Putting women first: Ethical and safety recommendations for research on domestic violence against women (who.int)

World Health Organization. (‎2005)‎. WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses / authors: Claudia Garcia-Moreno … [‎et al.]‎. WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: summary report

---

[1] For more information about the concept of gender in NATO, see Bi-Strategic Command Directive 040-001 “Integrating UNSCR 1325 and Gender Perspective into the NATO Command Structure, dated May 16, 2017.

[2] For more information on NATO “cross-cutting issues,” see AJP-319, Allied Joint Doctrine for Civil-Military Cooperation, and ACO Annex A, Protection of Civilians Handbook. May 2020.

[3] NATO recognizes the disproportionate impact of conflict on women and girls, the vital role women play in peace and security, and the importance of incorporating gender perspectives into all Alliance activities. The Women, Peace and Security agenda was launched on October 31, 2000 with the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 and now includes nine additional Resolutions (1820, 1888, 1889, 1960, 2106, 2122, 2422, 2467 and 2493). NATO’s approach to the Women, Peace and Security agenda is framed around the principles of integration, inclusion and integrity. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_91091.htm

[4] Estimates published by the WHO indicate that, globally, around one in three (30%) of women worldwide have been subjected to physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner or sexual violence by third parties in their life. Most of this violence is intimate partner violence. Globally, almost a third (27%) of women ages 15-49 who have been in a relationship report that they have been subjected to some form of physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner. WHO. Violence against Women. Key facts. March 9, 2021. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women

[5] Of particular interest is the information provided in the United States by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the impact of IPV. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/fastfact.html#:~:text=IPV%20is%20common.&text=Data%20from%20CDC%27s%20National%20Intimate,related%20impact%20during%20their%20lifetime.

---

Editado por: Global Strategy. Lugar de edición: Granada (España). ISSN 2695-8937