Introduction

This case study empirically explores the laws and policies applicable to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in Argentina, from an intersectional perspective. As discussed in previous chapters, international human rights norms on Violence against Women (VAW) make reference to multiple categories and factors increasing the vulnerability of women to violence. Migrant status, rurality and indigenousness have been emphasised in the norms and case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). Argentina, which is party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Inter- American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Belem do Para Convention), offers the possibility to explore all these elements in combination. According to the most recent national census in Argentina, Jujuy is the province with the highest percentage of indigenous population in the country, and, given its geographical location at the national border with Bolivia, it is a place of transit and destination of migrants, particularly those from neighbouring countries. Finally, it possess extensive rural areas, making it an ideal place for conducting the study.

In this study, I used a qualitative approach, conducting face-to-face semi-structured interviews with victims of IPV, women from the community and members of the judiciary, the police and service providers from specialised centres on IPV and civil associations providing support in the communities. In addition, I conducted focus groups with women from the sampled communities.

General Social Context in Jujuy Three aspects which delineate Jujuy's social context are relevant for this study: indigenousness, migration and rurality. Villapando et al. explain that although Argentina shows great cultural diversity, including an important number of ethnic, national and cultural groups from different parts of the world, the national identity was based on the denial of the indigenous and Afro American heritage and the promotion of a Christian European identity. ‘Otherness’ included everyone who did not fit that description, and depending on whether they were considered to be assimilable to the national ideal or not, different strategies were adopted, ranging from annihilation to assimilation.