By: Amelia Tennant

Published: October 30, 2025

In the 21^st century, the roles of women globally in positions of political and legal power have increased dramatically, with one study showing the percentage of women in national parliamentary positions growing from 11% to 26% from 1995 to 2022.[1] This increase has been even more dramatic in areas of Latin America, with Mexico seeing a 35% increase in female federal representatives from 1995 to 2018.[2] However, this increase in representation also comes with an increase in gender-based political violence: acts or threats of psychological, sexual, or physical violence aiming to prevent women from fully exercising their political and human rights. Political violence does not only take the form of attempted assassinations or government coups, but can also take the form of professional isolation, removing women from public spaces, or threats to their liberty or career.[4]

Ana Matilde Gómez: A Current Example of Gender Based Political Violence

A prime example is the case of Ana Matilde Gómez, a Panamanian attorney, politician, and the first woman to head the Panamanian Attorney General’s Office, beginning in 2005.[5] In 2010, Ms. Gómez was accused of abusing her authority after ordering a phone tap against another government official who had been accused of corruption.[6] The Panamanian Supreme Court ordered Ms. Gómez to be dismissed form her office and she was disqualified from holding public office for four years. In addition to official sanction, Ms. Gómez has suffered extensive reputational damage, making her unable to return to her career in the public sector. Because Ms. Gómez  was convicted by the Supreme Court, she had no right to appeal under Panamanian law, denying her due process. [7] Ms. Gómez applied for relief from the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) in 2011, arguing that by wrongfully removing her from her position, Panama violated several rights under the American Convention on Human Rights. These violations necessarily involved Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), Article 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws), Article 23 (Political Rights), and Article 24 (Right to Equal Protection).[8] The petition was declared admissible by the IACHR in 2018 and has since been awaiting a ruling on the merits. 

The removal of Ana Matilde Gómez is one of many examples of state acts of gender-based political violence. However, the actions of Panama threaten not only Ms. Gómez’s individual political and human rights, but also threaten judicial and prosecutorial independence in Panama and the Inter-American system. Panama’s legal structure that enabled Ms. Gómez’s removal and barred any appeals of the ruling remains intact and serves as an example of an ongoing trend in the Inter-American system that risks the careers of prosecutors and judges when they attempt to address corruption.[9] In a 2024 press release, the IACHR emphasized the need to protect the judiciary in the face of a trend in which proposed reforms could enable arbitrary removal of prosecutorial and judicial actors such as Ms. Gómez.[10] These reforms not only violate the rights of such judicial officials, but also create an environment of political and judicial instability. In Ms. Gómez’s case, after being removed from office, no Attorney General has held this title for the entire statutory ten-year term.[11]

Furthermore, the mere presence of gender-based political violence erodes the independence of the judiciary and threatens the rule of law. The same chilling effect created by arbitrary removals from public office disproportionately impacts women, resulting in a fundamentally unequal judiciary.[12]

A Brief Primer on the Inter-American System

The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights was established in 1959 under the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) and is the entry point for cases to enter the Inter-American Human Rights System.[13] The IACHR has thirty-five member states and is headquartered in Washington, D.C.[14] The Commission hears cases against member states alleged to have violated an individual’s rights or a class of people’s rights as ratified in Inter-American Human Rights treaties.[15] Petitions are examined in the chronological order in which they are presented, with an exception for extenuating circumstances that require emergent, time-sensitive review. Before a case is examined on the merits, both the State and submit an admissibility report. To be found admissible, a petitioner must show that they have previously exhausted all domestic judicial remedies no more than six months before filing with the Commission (with some exceptions), and the alleged violations are contained in a human rights treaty to which the State is a party.[16]

Before a decision on the merits is issued, the State and Petitioner can choose to enter into a settlement, in which the State can enter an agreement with Petitioners to provide reparations.[17] If a settlement is not reached, the Commission may find that the State has violated the Petitioner’s human rights and will issue a report with recommendations to the State that may include investigating and punishing those responsible for the violation, suspending the state action that caused the violation, or requiring the state to adopt additional safe guards to prevent reoccurrence.[18] The Commission can also chose to refer the case to the Inter-American Human Rights Court.

One of the biggest downfalls of the IACHR petition system is the lengthy process by which a petition may receive a ruling on the merits. A study conducted in 2011 found that the average case in front of the Commission took over six years to receive a merits report, with some cases pending for decades.[19] This problem is worsening, with the amount of petitions received by IACHR increasing by 10% annually, but not the amount of decisions.[20] By example, Ms. Gómez’s petition has been pending for over 14 years. This administrative backlog poses a serious threat to both victims of human rights abuses and the efficacy of the Commission’s work.

Prioritization

In 2023, in response to this backlog, the IACHR announced a new procedure in which petitioners could apply for prioritization to receive an expedited ruling on the merits.[21] Under Resolution 4/23, the IACHR specifically asked for cases presenting an opportunity to build Inter-American jurisprudence on several key issues: (i) urgent matters in which a serious violation of rights has occurred and there is imminent danger that the passage of time could cause more harm; (ii) matters that concern conjunctural or structural problems in the State of concern; (iii) matters that would develop Inter-American standards and jurisprudence; and (iv) matters involving serious human rights violations, including forced disappearances and torture.[22] In a press release for the 2025 prioritization period, the IACHR specifically requested cases that would develop Inter-American standards. The desired standards emphasize cases that relate to issues of due process and judicial protection, strengthen protections against workplace sexual harassment and violence, and involve pressing regional issues that threaten judicial independence.[23]

How does the case of Ana Matilde Gómez Apply?

The case of Ana Matilde Gómez meets multiple criteria of Resolution 4/23. Her case satisfies the prerequisites that the passage of time poses danger of imminent harm to both Ms. Gómez and her case, that it addresses issues of regional importance regarding due process rights, and both structural and conjunctural problems in Panama.[24] Ms. Gómez’s case also satisfies the IACHR’s current interest in workplace violence and harassment against women, and the protection of prosecutorial and judicial independence. [25] The same practices that enabled the removal of Ms. Gómez have also been the subject of proposed judicial reform throughout Latin America, including Mexico and Colombia.[26] A prioritized ruling on the merits would guide member states on protecting judicial actors from wrongful removal.

Panama’s lack of judicial appeals and legislative framework constitute structural practices in Panamanian law that enable abuse against vulnerable groups, including women, and have no functional safeguards. These same practices create an even broader impact that weakens the rule of law and trust in the legal system. If a State is empowered to target and wrongfully remove individuals who seek to eliminate corruption, it creates a chilling effect on future public servants that enables corruption to continue with impunity.

The case of the wrongful prosecution of Ana Matilde Gómez by Panama is a prime example of gender-based political violence. Not only does Ms. Gómez’s case qualify for relief and guidance from the IACHR, but it should also be prioritized under Resolution 4/23. Although the Inter-American system provides real guidance to promote human rights throughout the region, the time delay in hearing cases threatens its effectiveness—especially in cases of political violence. By prioritizing Ms. Gómez’s case, the Commission would send a clear message that states throughout the region must protect women in positions of power, as well as the institutions they serve.

 

 

[1] Serena Erendina Serrano Oswald, Gender Based Political Violence Against Women in Mexico from a Regional Perspective, 7 Asia-Pac. J. Reg. Sci. 135, 136 (2023).

[2] See id. at 137 (stating that female representation in federal office went from 14% in 1995 to 49% in 2018).

[3] U.N. Women, Guidance Note: Preventing Violence Against Women in Politics 4, (July 2021).

[4] Id.

[5] See Ana Matilde Gómez v. Panama, Case 13.678, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Petition (2011) (opening Ms. Gómez’s case with the IACHR, providing a summary of the case, human rights violated, and legal argument).

[6] Id. at 2.

[7] See id. at 3 (explaining that due to the Panamanian Constitution, Ms. Gómez has no right of appeal a Supreme Court ruling. Similarly to American system, an appellant cannot appeal a Supreme Court ruling, despite the Panamanian Supreme Court being the only Court to issue any decision in Ms. Gómez’s case).

[8] See American Convention on Human Rights arts. 8-23, Nov. 22, 1969, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123.

[9] Press Release, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., IACHR Expresses Concerns over Judiciary Reform in Mexico and Warns of Threats to Judicial Independence, Access to Justice, and Rule of Law (Sept. 12, 2024), https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/jsForm/?File=/en/iachr/media_center/preleases/2024/213.asp.

[10] Id.

[11] See New Attorney General Faces Ticking Clock, Newsroom Panama (Mar. 6, 2021) (noting that only one Panamanian Attorney General in the past twenty-six years has served the full ten-year term), https://newsroompanama.com/2021/03/06/new-attorney-general-faces-ticking-clock/.

[12] See Gianmarco Daniele et al., Violence Against Women in Politics, SSRN 3-4 (Apr. 7, 2025) (applying a study on Italian politicians that found that women were more than three times likely to face violence in office and attempts at removal than their male counterparts).

[13] Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Petition and Case System 5, https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/docs/Booklet/folleto_peticiones_EN.pdf.

[14] Id.

[15] See id. at 6-7. (including the American Convention on Human Rights as the principal Document, as well as specialized thematic treaties, such as the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women).

[16] Id.

[17] Impact of the Friendly Settlement Procedure, 2 Ed., Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R. 1-3 (Mar. 1, 2018).

[18] See id. at 8 (adding that while the Commission can provide recommendations and monitor the situation for additional intervention, they are unable to provide direct aid nor intervene in judicial proceedings or asylum requests).

[19] Maximizing Justice, Minimizing Delay: Streamlining procedures of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, U. Tex. Hum. Rts. Clinic, 4 (Dec. 2011),https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2015/04/2012-HRC-IACHR-Maximizing-Justice-Report.pdf.

[20] Id.

[21] Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R. Res. 4/23 (Dec. 20, 2023).

[22] Id.

[23] Press Release, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., IACHR Calls for Participation in Identifying Cases to Develop the Inter-American Human Rights Framework (June 4, 2025), https://www.oas.org/en/IACHR/jsForm/?File=/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2025/112.asp.

[24] See Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R. Res. 4/23, 2(a)-(b) (2024) (describing two grounds for prioritization under the Resolution; risk of permanent or imminent harm, and issues of importance that could improve due process in the Inter-American system).

[25] Id.

[26] Press Release, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., IACHR Expresses Concerns over Judiciary Reform in Mexico and Warns of Threats to Judicial Independence, Access to Justice, and Rule of Law (Sept. 12, 2024), https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/jsForm/?File=/en/iachr/media_center/preleases/2024/213.asp.