It was the case that shocked the nation and laid bare a fatal flaw in our criminal justice system: the discovery of seven-year- old Mamokgethi Malebana's body in a shallow grave in Katlehong, on the East Rand. The alarming train of events that preceded the girl's death continues to haunt us . The man who was later sentenced to life imprisonment for Mamokgethi's rape and murder had been out on R2000 bail facing several rape charges involving Mamokgethi and two other girls.At the time, Mamokgethi's grieving mother said: "I blame the people who granted him bail .I want something to be done about them so that it can stop others from making the same mistake."Dan Mabote was granted bail because the docket was missing, and the prosecutors did not contact the investigating officer. If they had, he would have told them about the threats of retaliation Mabote made against the child and her mother for reporting him.The case was held up as an example of what many in society fear most: that an offender wrongly released on bail or released prematurely back into the community will commit crimes again.In cases of gender-based violence this often has particular resonance, with the fear of reprisal and retribution a prime reason women choose not to lay charges.This is especially so when the offender is not a stranger, but someone close to them: a father, a spouse, a male relative or a neighbour, like Mabote."Intimate femicide" is rife in South Africa. Courts should reflect this reality in determining whether an offender qualifies for parole or early release.Women should not live in fear that the person they laid a charge against will come back and "get them".The right to apply for bail is enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Any arrested, detained or accused person is entitled to be released on bail at any stage prior to their conviction "if the interests of justice permit, subject to reasonable conditions". It may be that, in some instances where bail or early release is granted, court officials are applying too wide an interpretation of the principle of it being "in the interests of justice".Courts and parole boards should send a message that crimes of gender-based violence are taken seriously.The decision by the Department of Correctional Services to parole Paralympian Oscar Pistorius less than a year into his five-year sentence for culpable homicide was made in terms of the government's policy on early release, introduced primarily to reduce prison overcrowding.At the time, the then minister of correctional services, Ngconde Balfour, noted that those who would receive priority in terms of this policy would be children, youths, women, mothers with babies, the elderly and people with disabilities and chronic illnesses.In line with this law, an offender may serve only one-sixth of their sentence in custody, and the remaining period under correctional supervision.Certain categories of crime were ineligible, namely aggressive, firearm-related, sexual or drug-related crimes.In June, the correctional supervision and parole board approved Pistorius's release under correctional supervision. At the time of its decision he had been incarcerated for only eight months, and should have been eligible for consideration for early release only after serving 10 months.The decision is now under review.Those following the court proceedings will remember that Pistorius's legal team was confident on the day of his sentencing that he would serve minimal jail time.The early release policy was amended to provide an incentive for good behaviour. It was certainly not intended as a loophole to enable violent offenders to secure a "get out of jail free" card as soon as they set foot in a prison.A 1994 study by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation noted that until the Correctional Services Act No 8 of 1959 was amended in 1993 to restructure the early release policy along a "credits" system, "prisoners were often granted remission of sentence on their admittance to prison, and the date of their release, taking into account the remission, was often written into their prison cards".If Pistorius's release date was calculated and granted "automatically" before he had even fulfilled the criteria for early release, the spirit of the amendment is rendered meaningless.Early release should be a privilege, not a right. In the case of those who assault and kill women and girls, courts and parole boards should be more aware of their responsibility to eradicate gender-based violence.When they fail to do so, as required of them by law, the existing policy instruments to combat crimes against women and girls are significantly weakened.Gender-based violence robs women and girls of quality of life. In Reeva Steenkamp's case, of her very life.Pistorius had a history of firearm-related incidents. He shot and killed his intimate partner. Those are the facts.The question to be asked is: what message does a decision to parole him so soon send?In particular, what message does it send to women and girls who have been battered and assaulted - and to the families of those who were killed by their intimate partners?It sends the message that justice can not be seen to have been done, and that the criminal justice system cannot protect them.Indeed, as the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation study on the early release policy notes: "The department has been severely criticised by the public and the judiciary for these early releases, particularly due to the recommittal of serious offences by some of these released prisoners."Worse yet, it sends a message to those even considering laying charges against those who batter and abuse them that they should keep quiet.Molewa is an executive member of the ANC Women's League..