The conviction on indictment of Sandra O’Reilly’s rapists, after first being hailed as a “victory”, seems to have raised more questions than it has solved. The issue of the trial has left a very bitter taste in the minds of those who thought it had been a breakthrough. The victim herself has expressed her frustration. Besides, an eminent jurist and three women’s organisations have vented their negative feelings. In that context, we shall analyse what happens in the same circumstances in countries that have legal frameworks akin to ours.

Sandra O’Reilly’s case has made history. In July 2002, she was gang raped twice the same night – once by two burglars, who abducted her and left her on a deserted road. There, she was offered a lift and, instead of going to a police station, she was taken to a sugarcane field and raped again by two men. Her determination to face her offenders was encouraged by the support of her relatives and the public, the fact that she had the financial means to be defended by a lawyer of her choice and the intensive media coverage her case received.

Nevertheless, it now appears that justice has not been meted out as it could have been. A “sympathetic” open letter from former Director of public prosecutions and Supreme court judge Robert Ahnee a few days after has sown the seeds of doubt and revolt in the minds of those who believe in justice and in the respect of the individual. He says that her rights have been deliberately thwarted as her case should have been referred to the Criminal Court where her sexual offenders could have been sentenced to up to 30 years of penal servitude instead of the eight years - which will be even less considering the possible sentence reductions.

Three women’s organisations – Soroptimists International, Media Watch Organisation and the Association of Women Enterprise Managers have also issued a joint communiqué “For a maximum sentence of 15 years and up to 30 years for rape crimes”. They are calling for a national debate and actions in the light of the increasing numbers of sexual offences and the fact that no one is safe from them: it can happen to “our kids, our parents, our spouse…”

They consider that the amendments to the Sexual Offences (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act have not gone far enough to protect society and specially women from sexual abuse. They are thus asking that the law be amended to allow the minimum penalty in the Intermediate Court to be raised to 15 years and up to 30 years in cases of rape. They also propose that all alleged rape cases be tried in the Supreme Court (Assises) with the same penalties.

The other issues raised are just as relevant to the debate: How are alleged rape victims treated when they report their cases at a police station especially if they are not accompanied by a lawyer? How far are victims aware or informed that they can testify in Court through live video or television link systems? What measures exist for the counselling and rehabilitation of sexual offenders once in prison? What can be done to change the well-established mentality that the rape victim “asked for it” or “deserved it”?

The three organisations have pledged to contact authorities and institutions concerned, Members of Parliament, all women politicians, the media and society at large. What they plan to do is indeed praiseworthy and they deserve the necessary support.

However, in many countries, changing the law has not necessarily brought major changes in its day-to-day application. The British Sexual Offences Act 2003 describes rape as follows: “A person (X) commits an offence if- (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (Y) with his penis, (b) Y does not consent to the penetration, and (c) X does not reasonably believe that Y consents. A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.”

However, less than two months ago, in Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland welcomed the announcement of a review of Scotland’s rape and sexual offence laws in the wake of concern about the impact of a recent appeal judgment, which acquitted convicted rapist John McKearney. Social worker Sandy Brindley reacted: “We are delighted at the announcement (…) Less than 6% of rapes recorded by the police lead to a conviction. Women whose cases reach court - many don’t even get this far - describe the experience as being similar to being raped again. We need to see significant changes if women are to trust our justice system.” This shows how, in a country concerned about human rights, justice still has its weaknesses.

In Australia, women’s groups have campaigned a lot to reform rape laws. Two major problems face women - the issue of consent and the hostile and humiliating treatment women get in court. Though the new legislation defines rape as sexual penetration without the victim’s consent.and the trial is in a criminal court with a jury, the judiciary applications vary from State to State.

But, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 17,850 sexual assaults were reported in Australia during 2002. The Centre against Sexual Assault, a national organisation supporting victims through the legal system, suggests that victims often do not report to the police due to the uneven playing field of the legal system. A severe set-back was the recent gang-rape case in April against six rugby league players dropped at the request of the New South Wales director of public prosecutions due to “insufficient evidence”.

In French legislation, rape is defined in Section 222-23 of the Penal Code as “any act of sexual penetration of whatever nature, committed on another person, by violence, constraint, threat or surprise.” Rape is a crime and, as such, is tried in the Criminal Court. Rape is liable to 15 years of penal servitude. A rapist or accomplice (gang rape) is liable to 20 years. Rape leading to the victim’s death is liable to 30 years. These last two are considered as rape with aggravating circumstances.

What is interesting to note is that these three countries have revamped their sexual offences legislation over the past 10 years. Existing laws dated from a century ago and were not in line with social changes. Feminist groups have had to relentlessly campaign to see victims’ rights respected. But there is still a long way to go before those changes are faithfully applied in the court rooms.

Reports say that one in 10 women is raped in her lifetime and experiences, as a result, lack of motivation, depression, anxiety, fear, loss of confidence and trust, and hopelessness. The extent of sexual assault and its consequences deny women the right to be self-determining, sexually autonomous and equal members of society. Besides, it is universally recognised that crimes against women are by far the most under-reported of all crimes. US and UK studies suggest that 90% go unreported.

What has been said above does not pretend to give a whole picture of the situation but it just indicates the challenge facing our society. The case of Sandra O’Reilly is only the tip of the iceberg. Rape cases reported, in Mauritius, have increased from 124 in 2000 to 135 in 2002 and 150 in 2003. Asking for amendments to the law is important but it will have to be accompanied by education of society as a whole. Without massive campaigns to confront sexism and without a struggle for true equality and real justice, sexual discrimination against women will go on.