Virginity testing

Where in the source: Introduction; IV, Abuse of Women in Custody (including the 1986 case at note 46); V, Abuse of Female Students; VII, The Role of Doctors; passages on judicial/prosecutorial authorization.

Documents state-ordered virginity examinations in the 1980s and early 1990s involving police, gendarmes, forensic doctors, schools, dormitories, hospitals and detainees. Sections on custody, students and doctors identify the different institutional roles, reported coercion and harms. Some police orders bypassed required authorization; the report is evidence of institutional conduct, not proof that all such orders were lawful.

Where in the source: Introduction; IV, Abuse of Women in Custody (including the 1986 case at note 46); V, Abuse of Female Students; VII, The Role of Doctors; passages on judicial/prosecutorial authorization.

The custody, school and medical sections describe institutions ordering or facilitating examinations and doctors producing findings for police or disciplinary purposes. The authorization discussion separates these practices from the legal conditions governing an examination.

Where in the source: Introduction; IV, Abuse of Women in Custody (including the 1986 case at note 46); V, Abuse of Female Students; VII, The Role of Doctors; passages on judicial/prosecutorial authorization.

The report describes coercive examinations, disciplinary and policing uses, punishment or surveillance of women and girls, and reported physical and psychological harm. These are documented cases and patterns in the investigation, not a national count of all affected people.

Where in the source: Section 5, Women: paragraph on the late-1998 regulation, the request exception, apparent reduction in testing and absence of sanctions.

The 1999 country report records a late-1998 government regulation prohibiting the traditional practice unless requested by the woman. It reports an apparent reduction in testing and enforcement limitations, including no sanctions against violators. This supports a restricted institutional response, with the request exception intact, rather than universal abolition.

Where in the source: Publication overview: paragraphs on hymenal appearance, the absence of a valid examination, and physical, psychological and social harm.

WHO explains the lack of scientific validity and the general physical, psychological and social risks of virginity testing. This restores the scientific context for the episode; it does not establish local adoption, prevalence, a specific case outcome or an institutional response.

Where in the source: The Use of the Finger Test in India; note 74 (2005/2007 textbooks); hospital forms around note 77; judicial-use discussion around notes 89–90.

Documents institutional use through forensic-medicine textbooks published in 2005 and 2007, public-hospital forms and examination practice, and courts’ reliance on supposed signs of sexual habituation. The report describes how findings could be used against survivors’ credibility or to imply consent, and records distress associated with examinations. Its examples and reviewed judgments do not establish identical conduct at every institution.

Where in the source: The Use of the Finger Test in India; note 74 (2005/2007 textbooks); hospital forms around note 77; judicial-use discussion around notes 89–90.

Textbook prescriptions, examination forms and the judicial-use discussion show how finger examinations and observations about hymenal condition or vaginal laxity were converted into medico-legal judgments about prior sexual activity.

Where in the source: The Use of the Finger Test in India; note 74 (2005/2007 textbooks); hospital forms around note 77; judicial-use discussion around notes 89–90.

The report connects invasive examinations and sexual-history statements in medical reports with attacks on survivors’ credibility, implications of consent and further distress. These documented uses support the listed consequences without implying that prior sexual experience establishes consent to a particular act.

Where in the source: Criminal Appeal 1226/2011: privacy, integrity and dignity passages numbered 12–13 in this reproduction; compare the quotation in paragraph 61 of the official 2022 judgment.

The reproduced Lillu judgment rejects the two-finger test’s intrusion on privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity. The official 2022 judgment independently quotes the relevant reasoning. This source supports the 2013 judicial response, not universal later compliance. The reproduction’s header and footer disagree on the April day; only the year is used here.

Where in the source: Part E, Parting remarks, paragraphs 60–68, printed pages 30–34: Lillu quotation, health guidelines, continued use and renewed directions.

The official judgment quotes the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare guidelines prohibiting the two-finger test and explaining that hymenal status cannot prove prior intercourse. It records continued use after earlier rejection and orders dissemination to government and private hospitals, training and curriculum review. Clinically indicated examinations remain distinct from testing supposed virginity.

Where in the source: Litigation chronology: 6 November and 11 December 2017; 11 March, 10 April and 12 April 2018; eight numbered final directions.

The litigant’s detailed chronology records countrywide medico-legal use, the opinions of five forensic-department heads in November and December 2017, and the Health Ministry’s March 2018 defence of finger and hymen testing to determine whether intercourse occurred. It records the ministry’s April withdrawal and the High Court’s 12 April prohibition and directions. A named respondent’s procedural involvement alone is not evidence of adoption. The chronology is the litigant’s account of the proceedings rather than the full judgment.

Where in the source: Litigation chronology: 6 November and 11 December 2017; 11 March, 10 April and 12 April 2018; eight numbered final directions.

The dated departmental opinions and ministry affidavits explicitly describe use of finger examinations and hymenal findings to form medico-legal opinions about whether a sexual act had occurred. They document the contested professional practice more specifically than the fact that institutions were named in litigation.

Where in the source: Litigation chronology: 6 November and 11 December 2017; 11 March, 10 April and 12 April 2018; eight numbered final directions.

The case account describes invasive examinations and sexual-history findings capable of entering rape investigations and trials. Its final directions address degrading examinations, labels such as “habituated to intercourse,” privacy and examination safeguards. It does not quantify subsequent compliance or a national rate of harm.

Where in the source: 12 April 2018 report: the ruling, absence of legal/scientific basis and directions to use the Health Ministry protocol.

The contemporaneous report corroborates the High Court’s 12 April 2018 ruling that the tests lacked legal or scientific basis and its requirement to follow the Health Ministry’s health-care protocol. The first-party litigation chronology independently supplies the sequence and directions. Neither source proves universal later compliance.

Where in the source: Publication overview: paragraphs on hymenal appearance, the absence of a valid examination, and physical, psychological and social harm.

WHO explains the lack of scientific validity and the general physical, psychological and social risks of virginity testing. This restores the scientific context for the episode; it does not establish local adoption, prevalence, a specific case outcome or an institutional response.

Where in the source: Litigation chronology: 6 November and 11 December 2017; 11 March, 10 April and 12 April 2018; eight numbered final directions.

The first-party chronology records the Health Ministry’s supplementary protocol and withdrawal of its earlier defence on 10 April 2018, followed by the High Court’s eight directions on 12 April, including prohibition of the two-finger test and restrictions on sexual-history language. It documents a formal response within the stated examination context.

Where in the source: Paragraphs on Chief Police Regulation 5/2009, Article 36; interview accounts; Pusdokkes Polri and police hospitals; recruitment consequences.

The 2014 investigation identifies police recruitment, Chief Police Regulation 5/2009, Pusdokkes Polri personnel and police-operated hospitals. Article 36 requires an obstetrics/gynaecology examination; it does not explicitly prescribe a virginity test. Interviews document how the testing was nevertheless performed, the pain or humiliation reported, and the recruitment context. A failed examination did not necessarily mean automatic expulsion.

Where in the source: Paragraphs on Chief Police Regulation 5/2009, Article 36; interview accounts; Pusdokkes Polri and police hospitals; recruitment consequences.

Interviews describe the two-finger examination as part of medical selection of women applying to the police and identify the personnel and facilities performing it. The account of implementation, rather than the general gynaecology requirement alone, establishes the virginity-testing mechanism.

Where in the source: Paragraphs on Chief Police Regulation 5/2009, Article 36; interview accounts; Pusdokkes Polri and police hospitals; recruitment consequences.

Applicants’ accounts document invasive examinations and pain or humiliation within a sex-specific recruitment requirement. They support the discrimination and harm account but do not establish automatic rejection of every applicant deemed not to be a virgin.

Where in the source: Army instruction and recruitment-practice passages; subsequent paragraph stating that police had ceased testing.

Reports the Army chief’s 2021 instruction to remove medically irrelevant virginity testing from recruitment examinations and describes its earlier use in the security forces. The same article states that police had already ceased the practice. These are reports of institutional withdrawal; they are not an independent audit of every recruitment facility.

Where in the source: Opening April 2022 announcement covering the Army, Navy and Air Force; subsequent paragraph on earlier police and Home Affairs cessation.

Records the April 2022 armed-forces announcement that the Army, Navy and Air Force had effectively ended virginity testing for recruitment. It also reports prior cessation by the police and Home Affairs. The response is scoped to the reported recruitment practices, rather than every possible use of genital examination.

Where in the source: Publication overview: paragraphs on hymenal appearance, the absence of a valid examination, and physical, psychological and social harm.

WHO explains the lack of scientific validity and the general physical, psychological and social risks of virginity testing. This restores the scientific context for the episode; it does not establish local adoption, prevalence, a specific case outcome or an institutional response.

Where in the source: Army instruction and recruitment-practice passages; subsequent paragraph stating that police had ceased testing.

The 2021 article explicitly states that the police had ceased virginity testing; the 2022 article independently repeats that account. This supports a reported recruitment-policy withdrawal by the police, with no claim to have audited compliance at every site.

Where in the source: Opening April 2022 announcement covering the Army, Navy and Air Force; subsequent paragraph on earlier police and Home Affairs cessation.

The report names all three armed-forces services and describes their previous recruitment practice and the military-wide announcement. It supports the military carriers independently of the police-specific 2014 investigation.

Where in the source: Army instruction and recruitment-practice passages; subsequent paragraph stating that police had ceased testing.

The Army instruction is discussed in the context of earlier female-recruit examinations across the security forces. This supports the military recruitment mechanism and the scope of the intended change, rather than attributing military procedures to a police regulation.

Where in the source: Abstract, Modern forensic medicine and the medico-legal system in Iran, 9(1), 12–14 (2002), DOI 10.1054/jcfm.2002.0533.

The article’s abstract describes the Legal Medicine Organization as an official body of Iran’s judiciary whose medico-legal centres provide expert reports requested by courts, judges and administrative authorities. This establishes institutional background. The inspected abstract does not establish a 2002 adoption date for virginity testing; practice-specific evidence comes from the separate Tehran interview study.

Where in the source: Introduction; Methods 2.1, Tehran fieldwork in 2014; Results on legal necessity, diagnostic uncertainty and psychological/social consequences; Discussion limitations.

The primary study reports 2014 fieldwork in forensic medical centres and government gynaecology clinics in Tehran. Interviewees describe virginity examinations on civil and criminal court orders and uses involving marriage, divorce, welfare placement, alleged assault and certificates. They also describe diagnostic uncertainty, consent conflicts and possible psychological or social consequences. These qualitative accounts document practice and reported experiences; they neither validate the examination nor establish national prevalence.

Where in the source: Introduction; Methods 2.1, Tehran fieldwork in 2014; Results on legal necessity, diagnostic uncertainty and psychological/social consequences; Discussion limitations.

Results describe court-ordered examinations, certificates and legal applications, alongside practitioners’ accounts of psychological and social risks, including violence and self-harm. Those experiences and concerns should remain attributed to the interviews; the study does not estimate the incidence or causal effect of each harm nationally.

Where in the source: Assessment paragraph on possible testing of young women and section 9.3.4; distinguish the April 2026 assessment from the dates of the underlying reporting.

The April 2026 country assessment reports that authorities may attempt virginity testing of young women in some circumstances, while noting that available evidence does not establish prevalence. Its underlying observations have their own dates. It supplies qualified later context, not evidence of a corrective process or uninterrupted annual use since the fieldwork.

Where in the source: Publication overview: paragraphs on hymenal appearance, the absence of a valid examination, and physical, psychological and social harm.

WHO explains the lack of scientific validity and the general physical, psychological and social risks of virginity testing. This restores the scientific context for the episode; it does not establish local adoption, prevalence, a specific case outcome or an institutional response.

Where in the source: Introduction; Methods 2.1, Tehran fieldwork in 2014; Results on legal necessity, diagnostic uncertainty and psychological/social consequences; Discussion limitations.

The study’s methods locate the interviews in Tehran forensic centres and government clinics in 2014. Practitioners’ descriptions of court orders and certificates provide the practice-specific institutional evidence that the general LMO abstract does not supply.

Where in the source: Report on the January 2021 Lahore High Court judgment: 2015 medico-legal instructions, examination practices and invalidation of the relevant provisions.

The report describes the Lahore High Court’s findings on Punjab’s health and medico-legal instructions of 2015, insofar as they mandated finger or hymen testing to ascertain virginity. It corroborates the institutions’ operational roles and the judicial rejection. The separately registered judgment provides the precise primary passages; the correcting court is not treated as an adopting carrier merely because it decided the case.

Where in the source: Report on the January 2021 Lahore High Court judgment: 2015 medico-legal instructions, examination practices and invalidation of the relevant provisions.

Corroborates the judgment’s account of official instructions converting examination findings into opinions about supposed virginity in sexual-violence cases. The primary judgment, rather than this news report alone, establishes the wording and scope of the directions challenged.

Where in the source: Report on the January 2021 Lahore High Court judgment: 2015 medico-legal instructions, examination practices and invalidation of the relevant provisions.

Corroborates the invasive examinations, sexual-history opinions and violations of dignity discussed in the judgment. The record supports the potential evidentiary role of those opinions; it does not identify a number of convictions or other outcomes caused by them.

Where in the source: Press release No. 78, 9 October 2020, six numbered points on diagnostic uncertainty, dignity and medico-legal reporting.

The official release of 9 October 2020 states that the test is inconclusive, violates dignity and should not form part of medico-legal reports in rape or sexual-assault cases. This documents the government’s expressed position and reporting instruction, without demonstrating compliance by every examiner.

Where in the source: Ministry overview paragraph listing the ban on the two-finger test; exact statutory provision is section 13(1) of the separately registered Act.

The official ministry overview confirms that the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021 prohibits the two-finger test previously used to assess victims. The separately registered Act supplies section 13(1), its scheduled-offence scope and the exclusion of probative value. The overview is not used to establish a commencement date.

Where in the source: Publication overview: paragraphs on hymenal appearance, the absence of a valid examination, and physical, psychological and social harm.

WHO explains the lack of scientific validity and the general physical, psychological and social risks of virginity testing. This restores the scientific context for the episode; it does not establish local adoption, prevalence, a specific case outcome or an institutional response.

Where in the source: Sadaf Aziz and connected petition, WP 13537/2020 and WP 27421/2020: paragraphs 6–7 on the 2015 instructions; paragraphs 27–33 on validity, rights and relief, particularly 32–33.

The primary judgment identifies Punjab health and medico-legal instructions, including the Surgeon Medico Legal’s 2015 directions, as the operational basis for testing supposed virginity. It distinguishes the Punjab Forensic Science Agency’s non-use and the court’s corrective role. Its concluding paragraphs invalidate the relevant instructions and distinguish necessary medical assessment from the discredited inference.

Where in the source: Sadaf Aziz and connected petition, WP 13537/2020 and WP 27421/2020: paragraphs 6–7 on the 2015 instructions; paragraphs 27–33 on validity, rights and relief, particularly 32–33.

Paragraphs 6–7 describe the medico-legal instructions and forms governing examinations; the later analysis explains their use to assess purported virginity. The relevant administrative mechanism is the instruction and its evidentiary inference, not every clinically necessary examination of a survivor.

Where in the source: Sadaf Aziz and connected petition, WP 13537/2020 and WP 27421/2020: paragraphs 6–7 on the 2015 instructions; paragraphs 27–33 on validity, rights and relief, particularly 32–33.

The judgment discusses the invasive tests, sexual-history opinions and their incompatibility with dignity, privacy and bodily integrity. It supports the documented procedure and evidentiary risk; it does not provide a measured count of verdicts or other legal outcomes caused by those tests.

Where in the source: Sadaf Aziz and connected petition, WP 13537/2020 and WP 27421/2020: paragraphs 6–7 on the 2015 instructions; paragraphs 27–33 on validity, rights and relief, particularly 32–33.

The concluding paragraphs, particularly 32–33, declare virginity testing by two-finger or hymenal examination unlawful and unconstitutional and invalidate the relevant portions of the medico-legal instructions and guidelines. The relief concerns testing supposed virginity; the judgment does not prohibit medically necessary assessment.

Where in the source: Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021: sections 1(2)–(3) (territorial extent and commencement) and 13(1), printed page 8, on testing and probative value.

Section 13(1) prohibits two-finger virginity testing in medico-legal examinations of victims of scheduled offences and denies it probative value. Section 1 provides nationwide territorial extent and a separate commencement mechanism. The Act supplies the exact statutory rule; no unverified commencement date or blanket claim of subsequent compliance is inferred.

Where in the source: Method passport, item 5 (PDF page 3): Scientific Council of the Centre for Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice, protocol 2 of 05.12.2016; expert tasks and examination procedure, printed pages 7–9.

The readable method passport identifies approval by the Scientific Council of the Centre for Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice, protocol 2 of 5 December 2016. The method lists prior intercourse among expert tasks, prescribes genital and hymenal examination and acknowledges intercourse without hymenal rupture. The current Forensic Examinations website hosts the document; hosting alone does not prove continuous implementation or case outcomes.

Where in the source: Method task list; printed pages 7–9, especially Установление признаков нарушения половой неприкосновенности and its parenthetical девственности; paragraph on intercourse without rupture.

The task list and procedure explicitly connect examination of the hymen to determining signs of loss of sexual inviolability, with “virginity” given parenthetically. The qualification about intercourse without rupture is retained. Evidence of this prescribed inference should be separated from the document’s other tasks concerning injuries or biological traces.

Where in the source: Method passport, item 5 (PDF page 3): Scientific Council of the Centre for Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice, protocol 2 of 05.12.2016; expert tasks and examination procedure, printed pages 7–9.

Establishes what the methodology directs examiners to assess and the potential evidentiary use of those conclusions. This supports consequences stated as prescribed procedures and risks. The document supplies no examination counts, documented verdicts, measured harms or proof of continuous use through 2026.

Where in the source: Method passport, item 5 (PDF page 3): Scientific Council of the Centre for Forensic Medicine, Ministry of Justice, protocol 2 of 05.12.2016; expert tasks and examination procedure, printed pages 7–9.

The official host makes the approved methodology available. Its continued availability supplies documentary context, not evidence of a correction underway or proof that the procedure was applied without interruption. The approval is dated by the readable method passport rather than by the website upload path.

Where in the source: Publication overview: paragraphs on hymenal appearance, the absence of a valid examination, and physical, psychological and social harm.

WHO explains the lack of scientific validity and the general physical, psychological and social risks of virginity testing. This restores the scientific context for the episode; it does not establish local adoption, prevalence, a specific case outcome or an institutional response.

Where in the source: Annual Update 2024, printed page 48 (PDF page 57), paragraph on premarital examinations and virginity testing, with notes 292–294.

The UN country analysis describes mandatory premarital medical examinations introduced through 2016 Family Code amendments and reports that some were used for virginity testing. It repeats older reporting of about 600 annual examinations at the National Centre of forensic examination, with the underlying references in notes 292–294. This is an attributed historical figure, not a newly measured 2024 or 2026 total. The medical-examination mandate does not itself establish a statutory virginity-test requirement.

Where in the source: Annual Update 2024, printed page 48 (PDF page 57), paragraph on premarital examinations and virginity testing, with notes 292–294.

Describes reported use of premarital examinations for virginity testing and examination activity at the state forensic centre. It distinguishes the medical-examination mandate from reported testing. The separate CEDAW record supplies the explicit 2024 statement about retained authority in criminal investigations.

Where in the source: Annual Update 2024, printed page 48 (PDF page 57), paragraph on premarital examinations and virginity testing, with notes 292–294.

The analysis supports reported examinations and the socially consequential setting of premarital testing, while attributing its annual figure to older reporting. It does not provide case-by-case legal outcomes or measure each psychological or family harm. General harm risks are separately explained by WHO and are stated as potential consequences here.

Where in the source: CEDAW/C/SR.2034, meeting of 31 January 2024, Articles 15 and 16: delegation response immediately following the paragraph on compulsory HIV screening; record issued 14 February 2024.

In the official summary record of the meeting on 31 January 2024, Tajikistan’s delegation states that virginity tests were prohibited in medical facilities but that authorities such as the National Centre of Forensic Medicine were authorized to carry out checks in criminal investigations. The statement supports a reported restriction with a retained forensic exception. It does not identify the original enactment date of the ban or establish nationwide enforcement.

Where in the source: Publication overview: paragraphs on hymenal appearance, the absence of a valid examination, and physical, psychological and social harm.

WHO explains the lack of scientific validity and the general physical, psychological and social risks of virginity testing. This restores the scientific context for the episode; it does not establish local adoption, prevalence, a specific case outcome or an institutional response.

Where in the source: CEDAW/C/SR.2034, meeting of 31 January 2024, Articles 15 and 16: delegation response immediately following the paragraph on compulsory HIV screening; record issued 14 February 2024.

The delegation explicitly names the National Centre of Forensic Medicine among the authorities authorized to conduct the checks in criminal investigations. This is direct evidence for the named forensic carrier, not an inference that every health authority adopted the practice.

Where in the source: CEDAW/C/SR.2034, meeting of 31 January 2024, Articles 15 and 16: delegation response immediately following the paragraph on compulsory HIV screening; record issued 14 February 2024.

The statement identifies criminal-investigation authorization as the retained official route for checks despite the prohibition in medical facilities. It establishes the stated authorization, not the frequency of its use or the scientific validity of the resulting inference.

Where in the source: CEDAW/C/SR.2034, meeting of 31 January 2024, Articles 15 and 16: delegation response immediately following the paragraph on compulsory HIV screening; record issued 14 February 2024.

Supports the narrowly stated consequence that a forensic route remained authorized according to the delegation in January 2024. The record does not describe individual convictions, certificates or quantified harm resulting from that exception.

Where in the source: Methods, printed pages 5–7; sections 3.5–3.6, printed pages 46–49, including the Bureau correspondence and case-file references. Main cohort: 2018–2019; some cited files: 2020.

The UNICEF-hosted Public Defender report documents investigators’ and prosecutors’ requests for state forensic examinations focused on hymenal integrity, including cases without alleged penetration, and their use in evaluating sexual-violence allegations. It identifies the National Forensics Bureau through correspondence and cases and explains the invalidity of using such findings to establish sexual history. The main cohort covers 2018–2019, with some 2020 file references; the later government procedure is separate evidence.

Where in the source: Question 30, printed pages 92–93: Resolution 14 of 16 January 2023, listed forensic services, questions within expertise, consent and victim safeguards.

Georgia’s 2025 state report describes the service framework under Resolution 14 of 16 January 2023, including hymenal integrity, the age of injuries and questions within the expert’s competence. It also describes consent and victim safeguards. This is later procedural context; the listed examination of injuries does not itself establish a method of proving prior intercourse or continued virginity testing.

Where in the source: Methods, printed pages 5–7; sections 3.5–3.6, printed pages 46–49, including the Bureau correspondence and case-file references. Main cohort: 2018–2019; some cited files: 2020.

Sections 3.5–3.6 describe intrusive or repeated examinations, questions limited to hymenal condition, reliance on supposed signs of penetration and the risk of secondary victimization or distorted case assessment. These findings concern the reviewed cases; they should not be generalized to every forensic injury examination.

Where in the source: Notice dated 26 October 2021, Medical Experts Participate in Training: training held 21–26 October with the Public Defender and Council of Europe.

The Bureau’s notice of 26 October 2021 describes training held on 21–26 October with the Public Defender and Council of Europe on forensic examination of sexual-violence victims, rights, psychological needs and prevention of secondary victimization. It establishes institutional participation in training. It does not announce a ban on virginity testing or an explicit abandonment of the sexual-history inference.

Where in the source: Question 30, printed pages 92–93: Resolution 14 of 16 January 2023, listed forensic services, questions within expertise, consent and victim safeguards.

The 2025 procedural description is not evidence that correction was underway. Its inclusion of hymenal or injury assessment also does not by itself demonstrate continued use of the invalid inference. It is retained as later context alongside the earlier case-level evidence and the Bureau’s training notice.

Where in the source: Publication overview: paragraphs on hymenal appearance, the absence of a valid examination, and physical, psychological and social harm.

WHO explains the lack of scientific validity and the general physical, psychological and social risks of virginity testing. This restores the scientific context for the episode; it does not establish local adoption, prevalence, a specific case outcome or an institutional response.

Where in the source: Methods, printed pages 5–7; sections 3.5–3.6, printed pages 46–49, including the Bureau correspondence and case-file references. Main cohort: 2018–2019; some cited files: 2020.

Sections 3.5–3.6 document examination orders and attempts by investigators or prosecutors to infer penetration from hymenal findings, including orders without an allegation of penetration. They establish the invalid evidentiary inference separately from a later service description of injury examinations.