Digital justice and access to justice
The rapid digitalisation of public services has significantly changed the way people interact with justice systems. In cases of violence against women and domestic violence, tools such as online police reporting, electronic applications for protection orders, virtual hearings, and digital communication with courts are increasingly being offered as ways to enhance efficiency, accessibility, and victim protection.
Access to justice is both a fundamental human right and a key means of realizing other rights. It is recognised in numerous international human rights instruments, including Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (right to an effective remedy), Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial). It is generally understood as the ability of people to seek and obtain remedy through formal or informal institutions in line with human rights standards. The OECD, for instance, describes it as the ability of people, businesses, and communities to prevent conflicts and obtain fair, effective, and timely resolution of their legal needs. Broader definitions also include access to legal information, advice, representation, and education, enabling individuals to understand and assert their rights effectively.
Digital technologies increasingly influence how this access is provided. This process accelerated significantly during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, as courts and legal institutions increasingly relied on remote tools to ensure continuity of services. In this context, digitalisation of justice offers important opportunities. Online legal information, electronic filing systems, videoconferencing, and other digital tools can make justice systems more accessible, efficient, and transparent. They may reduce geographical barriers, lower costs, improve access for people in remote areas, and facilitate communication among justice professionals.
A number of national examples illustrate these benefits. In Latvia, the TIS system improves access to case law and procedural materials, while in Italy, electronic filing systems in family courts have simplified access to documentation. In France, systems such as Cassiopée, along with victim support mechanisms, have improved the availability of information for parties involved in proceedings. Virtual hearings may further reduce costs associated with travel, accommodation, and physical infrastructure. International organisations, including UN bodies, have noted that online hearings can enhance procedural flexibility and expand access to justice. Evidence further suggests that videoconferencing may be particularly useful for vulnerable applicants, including survivors of gender-based violence. The UN Human Rights Committee has also recommended its use where necessary to protect the rights of victims and witnesses, especially in cases where in-person participation could create risks to their safety.
Digital barriers for survivors of domestic violence
Nevertheless, digital justice is not inclusive by default. While technology can reduce procedural barriers and provide faster access to protection for some victims, it may also create new obstacles for others. Women experiencing domestic violence may lack safe or private access to digital devices due to coercive control or face digital literacy gaps, economic dependence, limited connectivity, and the risk of surveillance or retaliation. Thus, structural inequalities and gender stereotypes are not eliminated in the digital environment; they may be reproduced through it.
Digital technologies are not neutral tools; they reflect and often reinforce existing societal biases and structural inequalities. For example, digital justice platforms designed without regard for the specific circumstances of domestic violence victims may fail to address risks such as coercive control, lack of personal access to devices, or the need for confidential communication. Similarly, requirements such as a high level of digital literacy, reliable internet access, or access to appropriate devices may appear neutral but may disproportionately affect women facing economic dependence, rural isolation, or other forms of vulnerability. Thus, digital exclusion is not only a technical issue but also a problem rooted in broader patterns of gender inequality. When digital procedures become the primary route to justice, these barriers may disproportionately affect already vulnerable individuals and undermine equal access to remedies. Such exclusion may constitute indirect gender-based discrimination. These issues are particularly relevant in cases of domestic violence, where survivors may already face significant barriers in seeking protection and legal remedies.
Despite significant improvements in legal protection, many survivors continue to encounter barriers within justice systems, including limited access to legal aid, complex procedures, delays, high costs, and gender-insensitive responses. Even before the pandemic, violence against women was a global crisis: approximately one in three women had experienced intimate partner violence. Lockdowns and movement restrictions exacerbated domestic violence while limiting access to in-person support services. In this context, digital tools such as online reporting systems, electronic protection order applications, and virtual hearings became increasingly important as potential pathways to protection and justice.
The right to access to justice is multifaceted and encompasses availability, accessibility, quality, and effectiveness of legal remedies, and the accountability of justice systems. It requires that justice mechanisms be physically, economically, socially, and culturally accessible to all women. However, existing barriers – such as high costs, delays, complex procedures, limited legal aid, and gender-insensitive practices – are often exacerbated rather than eliminated in the digital environment.
One of the main challenges is that digital justice systems may inadvertently exclude those who need protection most. Access to technology remains uneven, and many victims lack secure devices or personal digital spaces. In some cases, even basic requirements such as digital signatures create additional obstacles. Infrastructure gaps, particularly in rural and remote areas, further deepen these inequalities.
Digital bias is another key issue. It arises when technologies reproduce or amplify existing discrimination through data, algorithms that process that data, or system design. In justice systems, this may occur where digital tools fail to reflect the real lives of domestic violence survivors or ignore the gendered nature of harm. Rapid technological development often outpaces regulatory frameworks and institutional practices, while human rights considerations are insufficiently integrated into the design and management of digital justice tools.
Closely related is the issue of digital literacy. As OECD and UNDP research highlights, unequal digital skills significantly impact individuals’ ability to use online justice mechanisms, thereby undermining the principle of equal access to justice.
Safeguarding human rights in digital justice
Cybersecurity and data protection risks also raise serious human rights concerns. Justice systems handle highly sensitive information, and digitalisation increases the risk of data breaches, surveillance, or misuse of personal information. Without robust safeguards, trust in digital justice mechanisms may be undermined.
These challenges are not only technical but structural, demonstrating that digitalisation is not neutral. While it may reduce certain procedural barriers, it can also create new forms of exclusion, particularly for domestic violence victims. Such exclusion may amount to indirect discrimination in access to justice under international human rights law, including states’ due diligence obligations to prevent and respond to gender-based violence.
Digital justice systems must therefore reflect states’ obligations to ensure equality, non-discrimination, and effective remedies. This requires victim-centred, trauma-informed design, user engagement, and ongoing human rights impact assessments. Strengthening digital justice also depends on collaboration between public institutions and private technology companies, as technology providers play a key role in ensuring accessibility, privacy, equality, and safety.
Towards inclusive digital justice
Digital justice should complement, not replace, traditional pathways. A model based solely on digital technologies risks excluding individuals who cannot safely or effectively interact with online systems. Accordingly, fundamental rights impact assessments, stakeholder consultations, and ongoing monitoring are essential safeguards.
Support mechanisms such as digital help desks, helplines, guided navigation tools, and alternative in-person options are also crucial to bridging the gap between formal access and real usability. Equally important is accessible, multilingual, and user-friendly information that enables meaningful interaction with justice systems.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of digital justice depends not only on technological innovations, but on whether they strengthen or weaken equal access to justice in practice.
Bio
Dr. Gulnaz Alasgarova is a legal professional and human rights specialist with experience in academic research, teaching, and project work. She is a specialist at the Department of Legal Studies at the Institute of Law and Human Rights, where she focuses on research and policy-oriented work in areas including human rights, gender equality, and legal reform. She has lectured on Gender Equality and Human Rights. She holds a Ph.D. in Law and an LL.M. in International Human Rights Law from Baku State University. Her research and publications cover topics such as domestic violence, climate change, and gender equality. She has also worked as a national consultant on Council of Europe and UNDP-related projects.