25 Novembre – Giornata Internazionale per l’eliminazione della violenza contro le donne

November 25 marks the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, a moment for reflection and awareness on a phenomenon whose recurrence continues to grow dramatically. According to data from the national observatory, in 2025 there were 91 recorded cases including femicides, induced suicides, and gender-based violence, in addition to 67 attempted femicides. The victims ranged in age from 1 to 93 years old, and in at least 12 cases there had already been reports or complaints of violence or stalking. Fifteen women had a disability or serious illness, while 10 minors witnessed the femicide and 55 were left orphaned. Most of the perpetrators took their own lives, thus preventing justice from running its course.Among the 78 confirmed homicides, 26 were committed by stabbing, 14 with firearms, 17 by strangulation or suffocation; others by beatings or induced falls. These accounts reveal a reality that can no longer be considered episodic: these are not isolated assaults or sudden outbursts, but a systemic and deeply rooted phenomenon, displaying a troubling consistency that reflects historically entrenched gender inequalities and risks becoming part of our everyday life. Combating this violence is a collective duty, to be carried out through social and media dialogue that—too often—minimizes its severity, humanizes perpetrators, and obscures victims. What is needed is a persistent effort capable of profoundly reshaping our cultural fabric and its outdated narratives, which contribute to rendering women’s suffering invisible and normalizing its impact.

True progress requires concrete actions centered primarily on education about equality and the strengthening of protection pathways, so that prevention, safeguarding, and awareness become real, accessible, and lasting tools to confront gender-based violence. And such progress—grounded in action—is possible and desirable everywhere. This is demonstrated by the case of Franca Viola, whose name has become a symbol of emancipation and a break from a culture that long subordinated women to family honor and collective morality. Her story, which unfolded in Sicily in the 1960s, represents a turning point not only for the law, but for the civil consciousness of our country.

In 1965, Franca, then seventeen, was kidnapped and raped by Filippo Melodia, her former fiancé and member of a mafia-linked group. Their engagement had previously been broken off by Viola’s father, who refused to accept the boy’s ties to criminal circles; Melodia, a product of a complicit social system, rejected the breakup and retaliated by abducting the girl. He fully expected to “repair” the damage by marrying her. This was indeed the practice legitimized by the law at the time: the perpetrator of a sexual crime could have the offense extinguished by marrying the victim. It is crucial to recall that, in that context, sexual violence was not viewed as a crime against the person but as an offense against morality. Franca Viola’s refusal to enter that marriage was therefore a revolutionary act. In an era when women’s voices were still heavily suppressed by social judgment, her decision represented a public stance against a culture of machismo, shame, and silence. With her father’s support, Franca chose to defend her position, refusing to be reduced to a victim to be “redeemed” through a compensatory act.The trial that followed in 1966 had a strong national impact: for the first time, a woman refused to allow the violence she had suffered to be “remedied” through marriage. Since then, her case has become a reference point for the cultural shift that preceded, accompanied, and enabled subsequent legislative reforms. Today, remembering Franca Viola means recalling the origins of modern awareness of gender-based violence. Her story does not belong solely to the past: it still speaks to us of freedom, self-determination, and the courage needed to break unjust norms. In the context of November 25, her experience shows how every legal advance is born from a human act of courage—and how such courage is always necessary, never in vain.

It is therefore fair to say that her choice truly paved the way for a slow yet decisive revision of the law, forcing the Italian legal system to confront the reality of gender-based violence. Until the enactment of Law 442/1981, Italian legislation still provided for the so-called “honor mitigations.” In particular, Article 587 of the Penal Code, titled “Homicide and personal injury for reasons of honor,” stated: “Whoever causes the death of a spouse, daughter, or sister at the moment of discovering their illegitimate carnal relationship, acting in a state of rage provoked by the offense to his or the family’s honor, shall be punished with imprisonment from three to seven years.”Alongside this, the aforementioned Article 544 provided that “the marriage contracted by the offender with the victim extinguishes the crime.” These provisions clearly reflected the patriarchal and sexist mentality of the time, deriving from the original Rocco Code; as such, they soon clashed with constitutional principles, and the Constitutional Court was called upon to address their legitimacy. As early as ruling no. 126/1968, the Court declared Article 559 unconstitutional insofar as it punished only the wife’s adultery and not the husband’s, while ruling no. 147/1969 completely abolished the crime of adultery. It is evident, then, that the struggle concerned an entire conception of criminal law—one that, on the one hand, intruded excessively into private matters, and on the other, was irreconcilable with the constitutional principle of gender equality under Article 3, as well as with that of the “moral and legal equality” of spouses.Not by chance, the Minister of Justice Oronzo Reale already in 1968 proposed a bill to eliminate honor mitigations, but it would take the 1975 family law reform and ultimately Law 442/1981 to achieve this goal. The Italian case is not unique: “honor mitigations,” justified by a degree of social tolerance for actions committed in a state of rage, were already present in the Napoleonic Code and consequently spread widely among the legal systems derived from it; suffice it to note that Turkey abolished honor killings only in 2005.

Observing the historical and cultural process that led to these developments—at least in Italy—it becomes clear that this is one of the cases in which the law follows social change rather than creating it; whereas the developments after 1981 can partly be seen as steps taken at the forefront. The Court of Cassation has repeatedly affirmed that no outburst of jealousy or offended honor can constitute a mitigating circumstance. Ruling no. 9254/1996 explicitly states: “jealousy and revenge, dictated by a misguided sense of wounded pride, are reprehensible moral passions incapable of positive evaluation.” Numerous subsequent rulings, such as no. 9590/1997, emphasize how this orientation has consolidated to the point of transforming “honor mitigations” into something viewed, at best, as grounds for harsher punishment, not leniency. This evolution clearly influenced legislative proposals related to the introduction of the crime of femicide or of aggravating circumstances in cases involving family relationships.

Lastly, it is important to consider how the interpretation of the mitigating circumstance of provocation has evolved under Article 62(2) of the Penal Code. This provision allows for a reduced sentence if the defendant acted in a state of rage provoked by another’s unjust act. Historically, the textbook case was the discovery of adultery (cf. the American doctrine of “heat of passion”), whereas today the Court of Cassation has clearly stated that infidelity, in itself, cannot justify violent reactions (Cass. 2725/2020).Cases such as that of honor-based homicide fully underscore how deeply intertwined law and society are, and show how jurisprudential analysis can be useful even to historians seeking to understand the social transformations of a given era.

by A. Sussetto, R. Marincola, C. Baylon,  G. Buffa