A/HRC/20/16 row, always in fear of execution‖.1 This results in the inability to live, and is a major part of the death process when the lethal act finally occurs. 2 Rather than serving isolated or individual purposes, such violence follows institutional logic ―to delineate and sustain hierarchical social relations of race, gender, sexuality and class and, thereby, to perpetuate the inequality of marginalized communities‖.3 16. The killings can be active or direct, with defined perpetrators, but they can also be passive or indirect. The direct category includes: killings as a result of intimate-partner violence; sorcery/witchcraft-related killings; honour-related killings; armed conflict-related killings; dowry-related killings; gender identity- and sexual orientation-related killings; and ethnic- and indigenous identity-related killings. The indirect category includes: deaths due to poorly conducted or clandestine abortions; maternal mortality; deaths from harmful practices; deaths linked to human trafficking, drug dealing, organized crime and gangrelated activities; the death of girls or women from simple neglect, through starvation or illtreatment; and deliberate acts or omissions by the State. 17. The discrimination and violence that is reflected in gender-related killings of women can be understood as multiple concentric circles, each intersecting with the other. These circles include structural, institutional, interpersonal and individual factors. The structural factors include macrolevel social, economic and political systems; institutional factors include formal and informal social networks and institutions; interpersonal factors include personal relationships between partners, among family members and within the community; and individual factors include personality and individual capacities to respond to violence. 4 18. Thus an understanding of gender-related killings requires taking into account the political, social and economic contexts within which it takes place, including the responses of men to women‘s empowerment; the political, legal and societal reaction to such killings; the principle of the continuum of violence; and patterns of structural discrimination and inequality that continue to form part of the reality of women‘s lives. It is also important to disaggregate data by factors such as race, ethnicity, education, sexual orientation and economic status, among others, to establish systemic patterns that exacerbate existing vulnerabilities.5 19. Impunity for the killings of women has become a global concern. As noted by the Secretary General: ―Impunity for violence against women compounds the effects of such violence as a mechanism of control. When the State fails to hold the perpetrators accountable, impunity not only intensifies the subordination and powerlessness of the targets of violence, but also sends a message to society that male violence against women is both acceptable and inevitable. As a result, patterns of violent behaviour are normalized‖. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, Reexamining Feminicide: Breaking the Silence and Crossing ―Scientific Borders‖, Signs, The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 28, No. 2 (2002) at 581. Ibid. Darren Lenard Hutchinson, ―Ignoring the Sexualization of Race Heteronormativy, Critical Race and Anti-Racist Politics‖, 47 Buffalo Law Review (1999) at 20. See Shae Garwood explaining Moser‘s framework for causal levels of gender violence, ―Working to Death: Gender, Labour, and Violence in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico‖ pp. 4-5, citing Caroline Moser, ‗The Gendered Continuum of Violence and Conflict‘ in C. Moser and F. Clark (eds) Victims, Perpetrators, or Actors? Gender, Armed Conflict and Political Violence (London: Zed Books, (2001). Gauthier, D. and W. Bankston, (2004) ―Who kills whom revisited: A sociological study of variation in the sex ratio of spouse killings‖. Homicide Studies, 8(2), 96-122. See, United Nations, In-depth study on all forms of violence against women: Report of the SecretaryGeneral, A/61/122/Add.1 (2006) at 76. 5