Female Rape Survivor in the Trial and Epistemic Injustice. Part 1

Sexual violence from coerced-based to non-consent has already been transformed in many countries. The reason for the reform was the non-comprehensiveness of sexual violence, it did not cover all the significant actions affecting sexual autonomy. The international law gave the change of the national legislation impetus for protecting human rights. Nevertheless, the Georgian Criminal Code still recognizes the old paradigm of sexual violence. The reasons for delaying the reform are the patriarchal ideology that produces rape myths about the ‘liar’ and ‘revengeful’ woman. The article shows the problems of rape law in practice, both by observing the reality of Georgia and the experiences of other countries, how female victim-witness testimony that she was raped isconstantly suppressed with rape myths and gender prejudice. The article uses Miranda Fricker’s philosophical idea of epistemic injustice related to structural discrimination to name the problem. The article is an attempt to show the relevance of this idea in connection with the rape trial. This paper is not a detailed survey of evidentiary standards, including progressive approaches, its purpose is to show the essential influence of gender stereotypes and rape myths on criminal justice through the analysis of court decisions and generalizations, it also shows knowledge that counters prejudices, although their application is fragmental. The article discusses progressive approaches to proving sexual violence, what might be sufficient to establish the truth so that, on the one hand, to overcome the strict standard established in the practice of investigating sexual violence and, on the other hand, to do so without violating the accused’s right to a fair trial, which opponents of the reform point to as being at risk. The article sees a solution to the problem by changing from an ‘offender-friendly’ approach to a ‘victim-centered’ one.