10 cases involve domestic violence, sexual abuse of minors, rural women's land rights and interests, marriage and family relations, labor protection of female employees and other issues of concern to the masses, which has important demonstration and guiding significance for solving similar cases and difficult issues of safeguarding rights.
From June 5438+ 10 this year, the All-China Women's Federation and four group members, including the Women Workers' Committee of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, the China Women Judges Association, the China Women Prosecutors Association and the all china lawyers association Women Lawyers Association, jointly launched a collection, and selected 49 outstanding cases from a large number of cases handled in the past two years, which were reviewed by experts and scholars from the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, well-known universities, research institutions and law firms. The representative "Top Ten Cases" were selected: 1, the case of compensation for deduction of maternity allowance during maternity leave, the case of labor law supervision of trade unions to safeguard the special rights and interests of retired female employees, the case of giving full play to the role of social workers to solve disputes over visiting rights, the case of judicial detention for violating personal safety protection orders, the case of online defamation of women from private prosecution to public prosecution, the case of "one-stop" evidence collection to severely punish sexual abuse of children, the case of domestic violence prosecution and the case of default judgment of divorce court, and the case of rape and serious injury of a young girl. Divorce, hiding children, criminal detention 10. Support "married women" to get the same treatment as villagers. Cases in which online libel seriously harms private prosecution can be converted into public prosecution. In 2020, a case in which a woman sent a courier and was derailed caused a heated discussion on the Internet.
In the end, this online slander changed from private prosecution to public prosecution, and those who violated others' reputation rights finally tasted the consequences.
This case was selected as one of the top ten cases to protect the rights and interests of women and children according to law.
Experts said that this case is a case in which the judiciary investigated and dealt with the insults and slanders of ordinary people on the Internet by means of public prosecution.
The significance of this case is as follows: firstly, it shows the clear attitude and firm stance of the judicial organs to severely crack down on violations of women's rights and interests in any field, and embodies the requirements of the judicial organs to strengthen the criminal law protection of women's personality rights, maintain the order of the network society, create a clear network environment, and fully practice the rule of law.
The second is to provide a case reference for clarifying the public prosecution situation of "seriously endangering social order and national interests".
In this case, the defendant maliciously fabricated indecent content insulting women and slandered others through the Internet, which not only seriously damaged women's reputation and personal dignity, but also greatly affected the victim's work, life and physical health. Moreover, the rapid spread through the network has caused insecurity to the general public, seriously disrupted the public order in the network society, and affected the confidence of "onlookers" in the rule of law, personal safety and social governance.
The case was changed from private prosecution to public prosecution, which is an innovative application of the provisions of Article 246 of the Criminal Law.
Third, it helps to encourage women not to be silent lambs in the face of defamation and other illegal acts, but to take up legal weapons to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests; At the same time, guide the general public to establish the correct concept of "the Internet is not a place of extra-legality", consciously regulate online behavior, and * * * maintain network order.
Refusing to appear in court for divorce can also be judged by default. A case of domestic violence suing the divorce court for default judgment broke the deadlock that one party could not judge divorce under normal circumstances.
After the flash marriage between Li and Hu Moumou, they often beat Hu Moumou after drinking. Every time, they obtained Hu Moumou's understanding through threats and apologies, but the snoring behavior escalated and even derailed other members of the opposite sex.
With the support of his family, Hu Moumou filed a lawsuit in the people's court, applied for a personal safety protection order and demanded a divorce.
After learning about it, Li sent nearly 100 threats to Hu Moumou, and Hu Moumou had no choice but to ask the Women's Federation for help.
The hotline lawyer appointed by the Women's Federation found that Hu was in a state of extreme fear because of Li's trailing. The lawyer immediately assisted Hu Moumou to submit an application for a personal safety protection order to the court, as well as evidence such as threatening SMS, WeChat and trailing photos.
After examination, the court issued a writ of habeas corpus, and the lawyer actively applied to the judge's joint police station to serve the writ of habeas corpus on Li in person. The judge clearly informed him of the consequences of violating the personal safety protection order, so that Li completely stopped harassing behavior and Hu was protected and psychologically comforted.
In the subsequent divorce proceedings, Li refused to appear in court to participate in the trial, and the case was deadlocked. Hu's appeal is very likely to be rejected.
In order to let the judge have a more comprehensive understanding of the case, the lawyer instructed Hu to write a 3000-word statement of his experience and submit it to the court. At the same time, he collected a number of cases in Beijing, Shanghai and other places in which defendants acquiesced in divorce and submitted them to the court, and issued detailed agency opinions.
In the end, the court held that Hu Moumou and Li lacked understanding before marriage, rushed to get married, and did not establish marital feelings after marriage. The two sides are incompatible with each other and it is difficult to live together.
In this case, the defendant Li was legally summoned and failed to appear in court to respond, make statements, give evidence and cross-examine, which was a waiver of litigation rights.
Finally, according to the relevant laws and regulations, the plaintiff Hu Moumou and Li were granted a divorce.
Experts said that this case is the first time that a husband and wife sued for divorce, and the court granted a divorce in the absence of the defendant.
In judicial practice, it is generally impossible for one party to judge a divorce in absentia.
The attorney in this case made full use of the limited evidence, promoted the "judgment by default" through the results of case retrieval, and led Hu to submit a detailed statement of emotional experience, which effectively explained the fact that the relationship between husband and wife had been completely broken by incomprehension before marriage and frequent domestic violence after marriage, and won the support of the court.
The court insists on taking the facts as the basis and the law as the criterion, and decides the divorce of both parties, so that the judicial trial will not be dominated by those who don't obey the rules, and Li Yin will bear the adverse consequences for refusing to appear in court maliciously, which not only safeguards the fairness and justice of the law, but also highlights the temperature of justice for the people.
For the party Hu Moumou, this is also the end of the nightmare of life and the beginning of a new life.
During divorce, it often happens that one party takes the child as a threat and grabs or hides the child from the other party.
A criminal detention case of divorced Tibetan children, which was selected into the top ten cases, sounded the alarm for people.
I have a bad relationship with Wang after marriage and often quarrel.
As a result, on the third day after the child was born, Wang took the child away and there was no news.
Later, the woman went to the Women's Federation in Chuzhou City, Anhui Province to petition for help in finding the children.
The Women's Federation organized mediation between the two sides for many times. Because Wang repeatedly failed to repent, he guided the two sides to solve the problem through litigation and applied for legal aid.
In the process of searching for his youngest son and settling disputes through consultation, Chen Mou, who has never seen a child, has great mood swings and lost his stable job. The Women's Federation has conducted psychological counseling many times and provided difficult relief.
In March, 2020, the court ruled that the child should be raised by, and Wang should pay the monthly maintenance fee 1.200 yuan. However, Wang refused to carry out the effective judgment, still hid the child in other places and refused to meet him.
The court referred the case to the Public Security Bureau for investigation on the suspicion of "refusing to execute the judgment or ruling of the court". After the public security bureau examined and filed the case, it took criminal detention compulsory measures against Wang according to law.
At this time, Wang and his family took the initiative to contact the court and expressed their willingness to cooperate with the execution of the case.
202 1 1 witnessed by the municipal women's Federation, Wang entrusted his sister to hand over the child. The two sides reached an understanding and agreed to determine the rights and obligations of raising and visiting children, and the case was successfully closed.
Experts said that in recent years, due to divorce, the problem of one party robbing and hiding underage children has occurred frequently. Some parties ignored the court's decision and robbed children from kindergartens, schools and even courts in broad daylight. Some robbed the children and hid them, but they didn't want to take care of them, so they simply became left-behind children. Some have instilled hatred for each other.
This kind of behavior not only infringes on the other party's right of custody, custody and visiting according to law, but also harms the physical and mental health of minors. Some contradictions and disputes have intensified, resulting in vicious cases of personal injury and death, and the impact is extremely bad.
In judicial practice, there is a lack of legal norms to punish this kind of behavior, and the minors' bodies cannot be enforced, which makes the perpetrators who rob and hide underage children have nothing to fear and become a difficult problem in safeguarding rights.
In this case, the judicial organs cooperated with each other and achieved results.
The accurate application of the people's court as the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. After the transfer, the public security organs took criminal detention on the parties after examining and filing the case, which reflected the dignity of the law and fairness and justice.
Finally, under the shock of the law, the parties were forced to return to rationality, put aside their grievances, and the judgment was successfully executed, which solved the worries of women and promoted social harmony and stability.
This case provides a reference for solving the problem of robbing and hiding underage children.