Ilona Bērziņa, BNN
One month ago, on the 16th of April, after a long period of time of harassment and threats, an ex-husband mercilessly stabbed his ex-wife in front of her child and mother. This murder caused a wave of uproar among residents. State officials in Latvia later busily voiced claims about zero tolerance about all forms of violence.
Police were quick to present excuses, saying that they did all they could. The Saeima also conceptually supported amendments to the Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law. However, violence in our society was not born yesterday, and one thing remains unclear:
how can the police afford to look at such cases through their fingers?
Last year’s survey on violence performed by the Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia indicates that every third woman has experienced psychological, physical or sexual violence or a combination of several. 10.2% of women in Latvia have experienced harassment. This is only only the tip of the iceberg, because victims often stay quiet. 76% of women do not tell anyone about physical violence. 83% say nothing about emotional violence.
This is one big rock in the garden of law enforcers. Perhaps victims feel ashamed or they suffer from a twisted sense of guilt, but it’s more likely they believe there is no helping.
There are political documents, but no action
There have been reports and studies about violence against women, as well as various discussions and conferences. European Union’s various directives, UN resolutions, Beijing Declaration on Women’s Opportunities for Full Participation in Different Areas of Life are all binding for Latvia, and yet there is no comprehensive violence prevention policy in the country.
There was the Programme for reduction of domestic violence 2008-2011. There was also the Law on the Protection of Persons at Risk of Violence and Violence developed by the Ministry of Justice in 2017, but it never saw the light of day.
The odd uniform honour concept
After the murder in Jekabpils and the public backlash, Chief of Latvian State Police Armands Ruks rushed to cover his peers. Police lack the resources to oppose domestic violence. On top of that, the person in danger does not have access to instruments like special protection programme. This instrument only comes into play in severe or especially severe crimes. Excuse me, but does that really mean it is necessary to wait until the victim is either disfigured or killed?
In 2016 Saeima organised a conference, during which a US expert said in America the perpetrator is either put in prison or is forced to undergo a rehabilitation programme. In Latvia things are different. I don’t know about other people, but I am still shocked by what Prosecutor General Stukāns said, that the murder – Leons Rusiņš – became even more violent after a short time in prison.
But Mr. Prosecutor! What else can be done? Should the police give him some candy and wag a finger at him?
Perhaps the prosecutor general wants to avoid responsibility this way?
It is public knowledge the victim wrote him a letter, which started with the words: “Please, Mr. Prosecutor General, provide immediate assistance and protection against threats to my life!” There was no response, or any reaction to this desperate call for help.
Istanbul Convention is like a red rag for a bull
The fact that amendments to the Criminal Law that would tighten sanctions for causing threats to health or severe injuries is the accomplishment of public pressure. More severe punishments should have been brought in years ago.
The Istanbul Convention, the goal of which is to protect women from any kind of violence and prevent domestic violence would be beneficial. To accomplish this goal, the convention provides for the development of a comprehensive system, policy and measures to protect all victims and help them.
Unfortunately, for some Latvian politicians this convention is something akin to a red rag in front of an angry bull. The Constitutional Court, meanwhile, has recognised it as complimentary to the Constitution, adding that the convention covers only prevention of violence, not any special rules and definitions for the concept of family.
Latvia’s ex-President Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga mentioned that the inability to ratify the Istanbul Convention is shameful. “What happened in Jekabpils and the general volume of violence against women in Latvia are a dramatic message for those who for years have trusted propaganda that everything is fine in Latvia. It is not. Latvia needs to immediately pass the Istanbul Convention and all necessary laws.”
Before people start foaming at the mouth about “Europe interfering with our lives”, please think for a moment about violent people spending months and years sending various threats and harassing your wife, daughter, sister or known acquaintance and the police tell you – there is no crime composition to speak of.
Imagine some testosterone-fuelled man beating your female acquaintance, but she stays silent, hides injuries and lies about broken ribs just because they is afraid to tell the truth, to say nothing about reporting anything to the police…
How long is the chain of responsibility?
Symbolically that the term for submission of proposals for the legislative draft for the Criminal Law is the 16th of May, the day that marked one month after the murder in Jekabpils. I would like to hope the second and third reading will pass as quickly as the development approval in the first reading.
But let’s not forget that on the 24rd of June the Saeima will go on summer holiday. This means the approval of the legislative draft may end up delayed. An electronic tracking bracelet would be a good measure to monitor violent people, but without a restraining order it would be useless. And once again the issue of criminal prosecution surfaces…
Publicly the scapegoat is known. It is Latvian State Police Eastern Zemgale Police Department Chief Rolands Bērziņš who was forced to leave after the murder in Jekabpils. But I think the chain of responsibility is longer than that. Higher ups would do well to answer the question – how is it that domestic violence and harassment because a second, third and fourth order priority?
Or can we expect news about another refusal to commence criminal proceedings simply because
the victim did not block the anonymous text message sender on her phone?
Still waiting for answers…
After the murder in Jekabpils I sent questions to the Chief of Latvian State Police Armends Ruks, Minister of the Interior Māris Kučinskis and Minister of Justice Inese Lībiņa-Egnere. But the workload or arrogance of high-ranking officials was so great no response came even after two weeks.
We did ask the Chief of State Police:
“Do the police always initiate criminal proceedings when a woman turns to the police with a report on violence, threats or harassment. If not, then why not? Do the police really consider such reports beneath their notice? Is there are control mechanism that would help assess how appropriate the response of law enforcers is in cases when residents report receiving threats or constant harassment?
What are the real capabilities of the State Police to protect people who are terrorised, harassed or have fallen victim to domestic violence or have received death threats?”
One of the questions asked to the Minister of the Interior and Minister of Justice was this:
“Perhaps it would be a good idea to ensure there are consequences for police officers if they ignore or provide only a formal response to cases when people’s lives are in danger (with Jekabpils this led to a murder).”
I still hope officials will one day respond.
Also read: After murder in Jekabpils, three police officers become suspected of misconduct