8 minute read
The Cabinet has submitted its position on a package of draft laws introducing amendments and additions to the Law on Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence and Protection of Persons Subjected to Domestic and Family Violence and a number of related laws.
The package was authored by Civil Contract faction MPs Zaruhi Batoyan, Sona Ghazaryan and Tsovinar Vardanyan.
At the Cabinet meeting, Minister of Internal Affairs Arpine Sargsyan said that a large-scale campaign against domestic violence had been launched by Anna Hakobyan, wife of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.
“The campaign aims to prevent violence from occurring in the family in the first place, that is, to prevent it from happening, to ensure effective investigation of ongoing cases, and also to build zero tolerance in society toward violence as an occurrence in general. It is within the framework of this campaign that the package of drafts being presented to the government for discussion today was developed.”
According to the minister, acts of violence occurring within the family that endanger a person’s safety, life, health, mental or physical integrity, or sexual freedom and integrity cannot simply be considered a personal or family matter, and the state has a great deal to do and bears direct responsibility for responding quickly to such cases and preventing further incidents. The Minister of Internal Affairs said that the package addresses two main issues: how the state protects a person who is subjected to violence in their closest environment, their family and everyday life, and how it prevents further cases.
Minister Sargsyan highlighted four areas.
“The first important area concerns strengthening protection against these phenomena at the level of the Criminal Code. I should note that the authors of the draft recognize domestic and family violence as a separate, distinct phenomenon, and related matters are treated in the Criminal Code as a separate subject of protection, with separate chapters providing for them as independent criminal offenses. The penalties prescribed for them are also being tightened.
“Second, an important area concerns strengthening the protection of victims within criminal proceedings. Today, the state places almost the entire burden at the initial stage on the victim of violence, requiring them to file a report so that the report can subsequently be processed. The authors propose that in this case the process no longer be linked to the victim’s complaint or report, and that all cases become subject to public prosecution. In other words, the state will respond in all cases, criminal proceedings will be initiated, and we will duly proceed with the subsequent process.
“It is also important that we rule out any reconciliation process during this period, because we often have cases in which, through persuasion or various forms of coercion, people withdraw their reports and prevent the process from continuing. In this case, the state will pursue the matter to the end and hold the perpetrator accountable.
“From the perspective of proceedings, it is also important that we often see victims of violence repeatedly complain about repeated questioning in individual cases, within the logic of revictimization. We propose limiting repeated questioning of the victim, allowing the body conducting the proceedings to arrange a new questioning exclusively when a new circumstance requires clarification.
“We prohibit house arrest in cases where the victim and the accused continue to live together, while monitoring compliance with special protection measures will also be carried out through electronic monitoring devices. Consequently, in the context of the proceedings, we seek to ensure that the victim is spared, as much as possible, further trauma or any new source of danger.
“The third important area concerns the logic of protection measures. We are removing the warning as a protection mechanism, because we often see that it is not an effective measure in practice, and as a rule, the police record cases of repeated violence after a warning. We are removing this altogether.
“An important change is also proposed in the package to change the current practice. At present, when we are dealing with a case of violence, the state’s primary response is to remove the victim of violence from the home and transfer them to a shelter. But we must often recognize that under these circumstances the perpetrator remains at home, in their familiar environment, until the further course of the criminal proceedings, the bringing of charges, and so on. Here, it seems that we are placing the victim of violence in an even more vulnerable position. We therefore provide that, as a rule, the person who committed the violence should be removed from the shared environment, unless, of course, we guarantee the victim’s safety in another environment.
“One more important change is envisaged from the perspective of the state’s response. Police officers will be required to wear body cameras so that when a police officer arrives at the scene, we can primarily obtain all the evidence and relevant data and subsequently ensure a better process for the body conducting the proceedings. From the perspective of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, this will also be a monitoring tool to understand and assess the responses of our officers.
“And the final important change is the introduction of a mandatory rehabilitation requirement for persons who have committed violence. Of course, it is very important that the state punish a person who has committed violence, but if we want to have a significant prevention component, it is logical that, in addition to punishment, we must also work on changing the perpetrator’s behavior. We envisage that, alongside the punishment, perpetrators will be required to undergo a rehabilitation program.”
Addressing the legislative initiative, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan recalled that the mechanism for preventing violence in the family had been adopted and established years ago. However, according to the prime minister, it was adopted at the request of international organizations, and the state did not seriously confront the problem.