Yes, absolutely. I would say that the vast majority, if not all, of the girls who have been associated with armed groups are probably the victims of sexual violence or sexual slavery.
We've interviewed a great number of female former child soldiers who note that the best possible outcome they could hope for was to belong to a commander who would then protect them from other sexual predation.
One of the challenges for women and girls leaving armed groups is that they face much more stigma than men. They're often looked upon as being used goods. They don't even have the dubious honour of having tried to protect their country. They're not seen as real soldiers, but often as just sexual playthings who are now tainted by their time associated with armed groups, even though some of the women and girls actually self-identified as having tried to become soldiers for a greater good.
They don't really have any sense of belonging in a community. Many people think they should go back to armed groups, or they don't have a place. They're not eligible for marriage and they're not seen as fulfilling any kind of traditional female role.
One thing women face as well is that they often have children as a result of their time in armed groups and these children often face, as their mothers do, very intense stigma. There is this assumption that the children will grow up to be bad like their fathers, or are already soldiers in some way, shape, or form and cannot be trusted, should not be educated, and should not be allowed to stay in relatives' houses, etc.
So addressing the stigma against not only former female soldiers and survivors of sexual violence, but their children as well is extraordinarily important.
That gets us back to these generational impacts of violence. Right now we see a generation of children who have been affected by or directly borne from sexual violence. If we don't take this up as an issue that is worthy of examination and address it now, I think it will clearly come to the fore in another generation.