Recent judicial reasoning suggesting that the absence of visible physical injuries weakens a finding of rape has raised serious concerns among human rights advocates, legal experts, and institutions working to protect survivors of sexual violence. While courts independently assess evidence, the frameworks they rely on have profound consequences for those seeking justice-particularly young people, who are often the most vulnerable to coercion and the least likely to display traditional signs of physical resistance. Sexual violence is fundamentally about consent and dignity, not merely the presence of physical marks. It can involve psychological coercion, intimidation, or intoxication, none of which necessarily leave visible injuries. Trauma itself may immobilize survivors, making resistance impossible. When crime scenes are women’s bodies and harm is not always visible, justice must be capable of looking beyond bruises.
From the perspective of the United Nations, the international consensus is unequivocal: rape is defined by the absence of freely given, informed consent-not by the presence of wounds or visible signs of struggle. For adolescents, consent is an especially complex issue. Due to their developmental stage, young people are uniquely susceptible to authority-based coercion. When a perpetrator is older or occupies a position of trust, an adolescent may not resist physically, not because they consent, but because they are overwhelmed or afraid.
This understanding reflects the lived realities of survivors and the true nature of sexual violence. Sexual violence is not only, or even primarily, a physical crime; it is a violation of autonomy, dignity, and personal security, with long-lasting psychological consequences. Survivors often carry an internal burden for years-fear, shame, anxiety, depression, loss of trust, sleep disturbances, and trauma that cannot be photographed or seen on the skin. For many, the mental, emotional, and social consequences far outlast any physical pain and affect all aspects of life. For adolescents, these unseen scars can alter the trajectory of adulthood.
International law recognizes this reality. United Nations human rights bodies, international criminal tribunals, and regional courts consistently affirm that many survivors do not resist physically during an assault. Some experience a “freeze” response, a well-documented and natural trauma reaction. Others comply out of fear of escalation, retaliation, or social consequences. In such circumstances, the absence of physical injury does not indicate consent; it reflects survival.
Justice cannot be tethered to bruises erased by time.
When courts implicitly equate rape with visible violence, they risk erasing survivors’ lived experiences and disregarding scientific research on trauma. Such reasoning reinforces harmful myths-that a “real” victim must fight back, scream, or bear visible scars. These stereotypes do not advance justice; they distort it, undermine trust in legal systems, and shift scrutiny away from the actions of perpetrators while placing unrealistic and dangerous expectations on survivors.
The consequences are grave. Survivors already face immense barriers to reporting sexual violence, including fear of stigma, disbelief, retaliation, and blame, as well as risks such as unwanted pregnancy or infection. When legal outcomes hinge on visible injury or immediate reporting, survivors may reasonably conclude that the justice system will neither recognize their suffering nor protect their dignity. This discourages reporting, deepens silence, and allows violence to continue unchecked. For those who do report, the process is often lengthy and retraumatizing, requiring them to relive their ordeal repeatedly. Notably, United Nations definitions do not require evidence of physical injury, underscoring that consent-not visible harm-is the defining factor. Pakistan’s Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 reflects this shift by emphasizing survivor-centered, evidence-based, and trauma-informed procedures, including the prohibition of intrusive examinations.
There is also a broader societal risk. If legal reasoning suggests that sexual violence without visible injury is less serious or less credible, it may inadvertently embolden perpetrators. It sends a dangerous message that coercion, manipulation, or exploitation carried out without leaving marks may fall into a legal grey zone. No justice system should create incentives for violence to become more calculated and less visible.
All constitutions, including that of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, guarantee dignity, equality, and security of the person. These principles impose responsibilities on institutions, including the judiciary. Courts are not only arbiters of law; they are guardians of constitutional values. A justice system committed to accountability must ensure that its interpretations do not retraumatize victims or render their suffering invisible.
The victim-centered approach emerged globally in response to the recognition that traditional criminal justice systems have often marginalized or blamed survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. Grounded in scientific research, this approach prioritizes safety, dignity, and well-being at every stage of the justice process. It counters victim-blaming, encourages reporting, improves access to justice, and aligns with international standards. Importantly, it does not abandon due process or lower evidentiary thresholds. Rather, it recognizes the full spectrum of harm caused by sexual violence and assesses cases holistically, considering consent, context, power dynamics, credibility, medical evidence, and psychological impact.
As the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency, UNFPA supports systems that prevent sexual violence, promote accountability, and place human dignity at the center of justice. Global experience shows that when survivors feel heard, believed, and protected, both justice outcomes and public trust in institutions are strengthened.
In Pakistan’s patriarchal context, where masculinity has often been linked to authority and control over women’s bodies, an overreliance on visible physical injury risks reinforcing structural injustice. Many rape cases reach courts months or years after the crime, delayed by fear, stigma, or prolonged legal processes. By then, physical signs may have faded, but the harm remains profound. Treating the absence of bodily marks as evidentiary weakness rewards coercion designed to leave no trace and privileges a narrow understanding of violence over survivors’ lived realities. Justice cannot be tethered to bruises erased by time. It must rest on consent, context, and power, affirming that the passage of time does not diminish the gravity of sexual violence or a survivor’s right to justice.
The writer is UNFPA Representative