regarded as deeply offensive, although such expression may be restricted in accordance with the provisions of article 19, paragraph 3 and article 20. 12. Paragraph 2 protects all forms of expression and the means of their dissemination. Such forms includes spoken, written and sign language and such non-verbal expression as images and objects of art. Means of expression include books, newspapers, pamphlets, posters, banners, dress and legal submissions. They include all forms of audio-visual as well as electronic and internet-based modes of expression (bold added). 16. The problem of coercion, either by the use of violence such as, for example, in Uganda where women were attacked merely because they used short skirts, 1 or more subtly, by the certainty that their safety will not be guaranteed by the State, has the effect of real prior censorship, felt even before a women chooses or buys the clothes she will use revealing how she presents herself physically to the world. 17. Just as an illustration – since no record of a specific study on Guatemala could be found – this perception that women who express some degree of autonomy or sexual freedom through their clothing may be subject to violence is reflected, for example, in a 2014 study conducted in Brazil by the Instituted for Applied Economic Research (IPEA), 2 which noted that 26% of those interviewed agreed, partially, with the statement that “women who use clothes that show off their body deserve to be attacked.” Similarly, research conducted by the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) indicated that 95% of women in Delhi do not feel safe in public spaces, while 75% of the men interviewed agreed with the statement that “women provoke men by the way they dress.”3 18. With particular relevance for the case examined, it should be underscored that this scenario of insecurity is equally serious in Guatemala. The report “Guatemala: Memoria del Silencio” of the Commission for Historical Clarification (CEH) indicated that, during the armed conflict, women were victims of all forms of human rights violations, including specific genderbased violence. The CEH concluded that the debasement of women was absolute, and this allowed members of the Army to perpetrate this violence with total impunity, a process that did not stop with the end of the conflict;4 a situation already verified by the Court in the context of the case of Veliz Franco et al. 19. It is important to clarify that this opinion does not affirm or argue that gender-based violence has an umbilical link to clothing. There is an abundance of data that reveal that women are routinely victims of violence and assault regardless of the modesty of their clothes. United Nations data indicate that one in three women have experienced physical or sexual violence, 5 which the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) referred to as a global pandemic; although it did not propose – in this or any other global forums – that a change in clothing could have any impact on this number. The alarming data gathered by the UN underscores that 2.6 billion women live in countries where rape committed by their husband is not criminalized, so that not even institutions traditionally linked to decorum – such as marriage – offer effective protection against violence. According to European Union data, between 45% and 55% of women suffer sexual harassment starting when they are 15 years of age. http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/fashion-blog/2014/feb/28/uganda-miniskirt-ban-attacks-women http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/SIPS/140327_sips_violencia_mulheres_novo.pdf 3 http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/2/un-women-supported-survey-in-delhi 4 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, para. 68. Citing the Commission for Historical Clarification, “Guatemala: Memoria del Silencio”, volume III, June 1999, pp. 13 and 27. Available at: http://www.iom.int/seguridadfronteriza/lit/land/cap2_2.pdf 5 http://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/multimedia/2015/11/infographic-violence-against-women 1 2 4