the assumption that perpetrators would not be punished. In most national gender laws, VAW was closely tied to morality and limited to sexual offences against women, thereby failing to recognise the continuum of violence that women experience. An important factor in women’s access to justice, therefore, was the presence of social support from families, friends, counsellors and women’s organisations. In cases of domestic violence, the availability of a shelter where survivors could stay free from danger was crucial to women being able to access justice. A gender-sensitive or feminist lawyer was also found to be a clear advantage. The presence of such support systems overall strengthened a survivor’s resolve: first, in deciding to file the case, and second, in pursuing the case until the end. Insofar as legal protection against ICT-mediated violence was concerned, only two countries – Kenya and the Philippines – recognised ICT offences in their laws. However, these are cyber crime laws with very limited recognition and understanding of VAW within them. A third form of legal remedy – civil laws – was rendered largely inaccessible due to the payment of filing fees. Despite the existence of laws in all seven countries that can be used in cases of technology-related VAW, the incompetence of duty bearers presented a significant barrier to women’s access to justice. Law enforcement typically trivialised technology-related VAW and victim blaming was common among police personnel across countries. This attitude resulted in a culture of silence, where survivors were inhibited from speaking out for fear of being blamed for the violence they had experienced. Moreover, authorities failed to make use of available laws, either due to indifference or a lack of awareness around the existence of relevant legislation. In particular, cyber crime units dealt only with technical or commercially motivated crimes, and did not specialise in technology-related VAW. Overall, a lack of capacity on the part of state agencies responsible for handling technology-related VAW meant that the women interviewed were resourceful in seeking other avenues to access justice. Agency, participation and women’s power The case studies highlight stories of women exercising and accessing agency, first and foremost by taking control of the situation. Being able to meet with counsellors and developing a support system allowed survivors to regain their sense of trust and work on their self-confidence. Law enforcement officers often discriminated against poor and marginalised women, and were less likely to record their cases without support from influential community members. Moreover, in the case of poorer women, the costs of litigation and the distance of available legal services prevented survivors from pursuing cases. Notably, even though the women interviewed came from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds and diverse geographical locations, they were all aware that a crime had been committed against them and that they were entitled to some form of redress. By reporting the violence to the government agencies nearest to them – and later to others whom they believed might be more responsive – women attempted to make the legal system work despite its weaknesses. In some cases, women sought to better understand the law and their rights, which enabled them to advocate for their cases better. If or when the legal system failed, survivors took matters into their own hands, either by approaching the media or publicly protesting and making the violence visible. Overall, women’s access to justice was therefore negated by: • The complexities in the law itself. • The structural or systemic failure of the law to address technology-related VAW and to respond to women seeking access to remedies in cases of violence. An important means for women to exercise empowerment was the use of ICTs – and in particular the internet – which enabled survivors to claim, construct and express themselves, as well as advocate for their rights, without relying on the state. Women also benefited from collective empowerment and joint actions • The prevailing attitudes in society and of the duty bearers characterised by gender bias and discrimination. • A culture of impunity whereby the legal system was perceived as unable to address VAW, and 3