The workshop objectives were twofold: 1) to sensitize and train the judges on sexual violence from a gender perspective; and 2) to analyse the judges' personal perceptions of the problem. Three main themes were chosen:

• scope and limitations of current norms
• validation of evidence
• influence of ideological factors on the actions of justice department staff.

To prepare for the workshop, DEMUS asked the participants to complete an anonymous questionnaire on their ideas and attitudes. They also asked them to submit two court decisions they had recently made in cases of sexual abuse. To assess whether their underlying rationale for judgements had changed after the workshop, DEMUS compared case decisions made after the workshop with the previous cases; unfortunately, only six judges presented these.

Analysis of the workshop proceedings showed two trends in thinking among the participants. Some judges tended towards a "formalistic" viewpoint. For example: in Peru, sexual abuse is said to be "aggravated" if weapons were used and more than one perpetrator was involved. Though many judges felt that these criteria were too restrictive, most said they could not re-interpret the law by applying only one. In an actual case in which a young girl was raped but suffered no wounds, leading to a judgement of seduction rather than rape, these judges reaffirmed that the law requires evidence of bodily harm to pass a judgement of rape.

Judges who tend to interpret the "spirit" (rather than the letter) of the law reflected the second "alternative" viewpoint. These magistrates stated that sexual abuse not only deprives victims of their liberty, it also harms their physical and psychological integrity and their future sexual lives. In contrast to the more "formalistic" judges, they were willing to accept only one of the criteria for "aggravated assault". In addition, they did not require evidence of visible signs of aggression because, in their opinion, demanding evidence of maximum resistance from the victim is not acceptable.

The majority of the judges reflected aspects of both viewpoints, depending on the particular issue being discussed. Ultimately, 57% of the judges said that the laws should be changed regarding such issues as punishing and preventing sexual offences, making marital rape a crime, reassessing criteria needed to establish aggravated assault, etc. Only then, in their view, can they begin making judgements in another way; if the laws are not changed, they would expect sentences based on "innovative interpretations of the law" to be overturned by higher courts. A consensus nevertheless emerged among the workshop participants that sexual abuse is not only a sexual offence but a violent offence.

Mery Vargas Cuno, DEMUS (Estudio para la Defensa de Los Derechos de la Mujer), Caracas 2624, Jesús María, Lima 11, Peru; Tel/Fax: 51-1-463-8515/460-0879/463-1236; e-mail: demus@amauta.rcp.net.pe