Intersectional Discrimination and Institutional Violence in Cases of Sexual Violence Against Indigenous Women: A Comparative Human Rights Analysis of IACHR Case 11.565 and Camila v. Peru (CRC)

This article examines how sexual violence against Indigenous women and girls is compounded by intersectional discrimination and secondary victimisation within state institutions. It conducts a structured, focused cross-regime comparative jurisprudential analysis of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Case 11.565 (González Pérez et al. v. Mexico) and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) Views in Camila v. Peru. The cases are purposively paired because they share a common legal phenomenon—sexual violence against Indigenous survivors followed by rights-relevant institutional responses—while differing in age, immediate perpetrator, institutional pathway and international regime. The study combines doctrinal analysis with a normatively traceable benchmark framework derived from the American Convention on Human Rights, the Convention of Belém do Pará, CEDAW, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ILO Convention No. 169, UNDRIP and international investigation standards. Six domains are assessed categorically: language and cultural accessibility; secondary victimisation and survivor-centred treatment; investigation and evidentiary practice; health and informed consent; protection from reprisals and displacement-related harms; and reparations and guarantees of non-repetition. The comparison identifies recurring failures in linguistic access, institutional treatment, protection and implementation of structural remedies. It argues that intersectionality is constitutive of the legal harm, not merely contextual, and that it modifies the content of due diligence by requiring enhanced, intercultural and child-sensitive institutional safeguards. The framework does not quantify harm or rank violations; it makes the legal and institutional basis of the comparison transparent and offers actionable benchmarks for institutional design, litigation and monitoring.