South Africa's governmental and parastatal institutions have a long history of authoritarian, rigid and hierarchical functioning, now in upheaval as the transformation to more equitable, consultative and humane procedures take place. Immigration officials in their role as "gatekeepers" have in particular been groomed to perceive their task as that of "weeding out" undesirable or vulnerable non-citizens. While the need to provide training with regard to gender and cultural sensitivity is by no means restricted to immigration officials and related personnel, it is important to establish that this should not be a separate or "add-on" procedure. Instead, it should be part of a broader movement to transform and enlighten the present immigration system and those who staff it. Gender training guidelines should be placed within a broader framework that acknowledges the discrepancy between the duties of immigration officials in the past and their new constitutional obligations towards legitimate asylum-seekers, and the confusion that has been the inevitable result. The conflict between past and present policies of exclusion and the humanitarian principles enshrined in the Geneva and OAU Conventions and to a large extent echoed in Refugees Act of 1998 (yet to be implemented) needs to be acknowledged and addressed.

The second broad perceptual issue that needs to be recognised is that officials, satellite staff and even trainers are products of, and immersed in a profoundly patriarchal society. South Africa is a melting pot of cultures, but almost all of these have strong patriarchal underpinnings in common. Training in gender awareness thus needs to encompass more than specific guidelines or instructions. It is vital that the structures of patriarchy and the resulting social, political and economic inequality of women be acknowledged as a context for gender sensitivity training.

In dealing with female asylum-seekers, there is an urgent need for female officials, translators and support staff. Ideally, only female officials and interpreters should interview women. (Nahla Valji - pp. 18-20 in this issue - points out that a fear of male authority may prevent refugee women from disclosing their stories during the interview process.) If this is difficult to arrange at first, active recruitment and promotion of female officials must be encouraged, and appropriate appointments made. It is vital that female staff be used if sexual violence is suspected or involved. However, one should not assume that women are automatically sensitized to gender issues; female interviewers and interpreters require and should receive the same training in gender awareness as male officials.

The following areas need to be specifically targeted in any training process:

• Need for information and education
• Gender and cultural sensitivity
• Issues concerning sexual violence
• Emotional needs (those of both asylum-seekers and officials)
• The interview procedure

Need for information and education

It is vital to understand that women may be persecuted as women, or because they are women. In the first category, they may be at risk for "conventional" reasons (because of their political activities or religion, for example), but be vulnerable to specific kinds of harm, such as rape or sexual torture. Rape in particular is on the rise as a tactic of warfare (this has been seen in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, in Rwanda, and in the former Yugoslavia). Rape during times of war or civil unrest can no longer be assumed to be the random acts of individuals.

In the second category, women can be persecuted solely because of their gender. Various cultural practices that affect women take place in societies in which women are considered inferior to men. In many of these societies, women have no right to education, careers, and are legally and economically disempowered. This can lead to conditions that are dangerous to women specifically because they are women. Cultural practices that place women in danger include female genital mutilation, widow-burning (the practice of sati), dowry murders, forced marriages (particularly those involving very young girls), honour killings (the execution of women believed to have "shamed" their families), the killing of female infants, and so on. Social, legal and economic discrimination against women can place them at risk if the punishments for breaking these rules are severe or excessive; for example, beating a woman because she does not heed a dress code, or stoning her for working among men.

It is important to bear in mind therefore that women seeking asylum will not always fall into the traditional categories of political asylum-seekers. The following must therefore be considered when dealing with women asylum-seekers.

• It should not be assumed that women are seeking asylum simply because their spouse or another male family member is doing so; they might need asylum in their own right, and for very different reasons.
• However, women may be persecuted because of their association (through family or marriage) with men who are under threat; for example, they may be at risk of harm simply because they are the wife or daughter of a political activist.
• It should not be assumed that because a woman cannot answer questions about her husband or male relative's political activities, that his claim is invalid. Women, especially those from societies in which they are seen as inferior to men, are often ignorant of details of their partner's political involvement, and should not be automatically expected to corroborate these details.
• Women may well be deeply politically involved, but may not describe themselves this way because their duties differ from those of male activists. For example, women often carry messages or provide food, shelter and medical care to men involved in more conventional political activities. Even if these women do not describe themselves as politically involved, the question is whether their actions place them at risk.
• Women who seek asylum (especially those from societies in which women have low social standing) may not understand their rights as potential refugees, and might put forward weak claims for refugee status while failing to reveal information that strengthens their case. The interviewing official must explain their standing and the grounds on which they can seek asylum. Women should be encouraged to seek legal advice before proceeding with a claim.

Gender and cultural sensitivity

• Officials should not only be educated about the status of and risks to women in the states or regions from which the asylum-seekers come; they should also be trained in cultural sensitivity. An official should be trained never to assume that Western standards apply to all cases; applying African standards may also be inappropriate in some cases.
• Officials should not assume that because the country of origin has laws against the kinds of harm a woman fears that she is not at risk. In the Sudan, for example, female genital mutilation has been made illegal, but its rates of FGM remain the highest in the world, and the new law has had little or no effect on the practice. States may put laws in place (often for purposes of window-dressing) that they have neither the will nor the power to enforce. Murder is a crime in countries in which honour killings and widow or dowry burnings are common; yet such cases are rarely prosecuted.
• Officials should also not assume that interpreters are open to women's experiences. Even if they speak the same language, they may come from a group that is hostile to or disapproving of women. Some may be shocked if women try to speak of sexual violence or matters such as female genital mutilation, and might be reluctant to repeat details to the interviewer.
• Officials need to be made aware that women may be at risk from members of their own families. This is particularly true of FGM, widow and dowry burning, honour killings, and forced marriages, almost all of which are carried out within the family or close community. Refugee women, especially those with low standing in their own cultures, are also at heightened risk of spousal abuse, battering and rape.

Issues concerning sexual violence

• It is vital that officials be trained to handle survivors of sexual violence with tact and sensitivity. Most women who have been raped or sexually traumatized find it extremely difficult to speak about their experience. Talking to a stranger is even worse, and a male stranger worst of all. Moreover, many women who have been brutalized by authority figures or state forces (such as the police or army) might as a result be terrified of officials or men in uniform or carrying arms. A woman who seems reluctant to speak or shows signs of shame should not be pressured. Instead, try to establish what would make her more comfortable: a female interviewer and/or interpreter, the presence of another female family member or asylum-seeker, a more private interviewing space. The input of rape crisis counsellors might be extremely helpful in these cases.
• Officials should never ask prurient questions or pry for intimate or sexually explicit details. Their role is to assess the degree of risk to the asylum-seeker, not to gather all the gory details. Emotional needs (those of both asylum-seekers and officials)
• Women who have experienced violence may have post-traumatic stress syndrome. Officials should be able to recognize the signs of this condition, which include numbness and detachment. A woman who describes traumatic events without apparent emotion is not necessarily fabricating, dishonest or unmoved by her experiences.
• Officials should also be sufficiently aware of the mental health risks to asylum-seekers to recognise when medical advice needs to be sought. This is indicated in cases of high risk of suicide, hysteria, anxiety attacks (which often outwardly resemble cardiac or asthma attacks) and so on.
• Officials who repeatedly hear accounts of violence or persecution may experience emotional distress leading to burnout and depression. Another undesirable side-effect is that officials may become "blunted" or hardened. Formal support structures, including debriefing sessions, should be put in place for interviewers. Officials should be encouraged to discuss their feelings rather than adopting a "macho" mask that hides their emotions.

The interview procedure

• Allow enough time for women to tell their stories at leisure and hopefully build some rapport with the interviewing official. Women who are rushed will find talking about painful topics even harder.
• Adopt non-threatening interview techniques. Do not bark out questions or use intimidating body language (standing over women who are sitting down, for example).
• Avoid judging by your own cultural standards. It is easy to misread body language, particularly that of women from repressive societies. Tense or recoiling posture and refusal to make eye contact might indicate modesty, submissiveness or fear of authority; do not assume that they mean dishonesty or evasiveness.
• Allow women privacy during the interviews. These should not take place in public areas, with others coming and going. Do not permit interruptions by fellow staff, phone calls, and so on. Also allow women the opportunity to speak alone; many women may be too ashamed to discuss delicate issues (such as sexual violation or FGM) in front of male relatives or partners.
• Ask open-ended questions. Begin by seeking innocuous information ("Where are you from?") and move gradually to more charged questions ("What was it like there?" "What was it like for you?" "Did you feel safe?" "What kinds of things were happening that made you want to leave?" Try to structure the interview so that the woman volunteers information, and don't ask specific questions (such as "have you been raped?") unless trust has been established.