The Armenian government has submitted proposals concerning draft amendments and additions to the Law on Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence and Protection of Persons Subjected to Domestic and Family Violence, as well as several related laws. The package was authored by Civil Contract parliamentary faction lawmakers Zaruhi Batoyan, Sona Ghazaryan and Tsovinar Vardanyan.
At the government’s Sept. 3 meeting, Interior Minister Arpine Sargsyan said a large-scale campaign against domestic violence had been launched at the initiative of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s wife, Anna Hakobyan, Armenpress reported.
“The campaign aims to prevent violence in the family from the outset, meaning not allowing it to occur, to conduct effective investigations into ongoing cases and also to foster zero tolerance in society toward violence as a phenomenon in general. It is within the framework of this campaign that the package of draft laws presented to the government for consideration today was developed,” she said.
According to the minister, violence occurring within the family that threatens a person’s safety, life, health, mental or physical integrity, as well as sexual freedom and integrity, cannot be regarded merely as a personal or family matter. She said the state bears direct responsibility and has a major role in responding rapidly to such cases and preventing further violence.
The interior minister said the package focuses on two main issues: how the state should protect people subjected to violence in their closest environment — their family and everyday life — and what mechanisms should be used to prevent further incidents.
Arpine Sargsyan outlined four main areas.
“The first important area concerns strengthening protection against these phenomena at the level of the Criminal Code. I should note that under the code, the authors of the draft recognize domestic and family violence as an independent and separate phenomenon, and relations in this area are treated in the Criminal Code as a matter requiring separate attention, with separate chapters establishing them as independent criminal offenses. The penalties for them are also being toughened.
“Second, another important area concerns strengthening victim protection within criminal proceedings. Today, the state places almost the entire burden of initiating the process on the victim of violence, requiring the victim to file a report for it subsequently to proceed. Under the draft, the authors propose that in such cases the process should not depend on a complaint or report from the victim and that all cases should be subject to public prosecution. This means the state will respond in every case, criminal proceedings will be initiated and the case will duly move forward. It is also important that we exclude any reconciliation process during this period because we very often encounter cases where people are persuaded or coerced in various ways into withdrawing their reports, preventing further proceedings. In this case, the state will pursue the matter to the end and hold the perpetrator accountable. From the standpoint of proceedings, it is also important that we frequently see victims of violence complaining, within the context of secondary victimization, about repeated questioning in individual cases. We propose limiting repeated questioning of victims, allowing the authority conducting the proceedings to arrange another interview only when new circumstances have emerged and clarification is required in connection with them.
“We prohibit house arrest in cases where the victim and the accused continue to live together, while supervision of special protection measures will also be carried out through electronic monitoring. Accordingly, we are structuring proceedings so that, as far as possible, the victim is protected from new trauma or any new source of danger.
“The third important area concerns protection measures. From the outset, we are removing warnings as a protection mechanism because we frequently observe that in practice they are not an effective measure, and police practice generally records repeated violence after warnings have been issued. We are removing this mechanism altogether. The package also proposes an important change to current practice. At present, when we deal with a case of violence, the state’s initial response is to remove the victim of violence from the home and place them in a shelter. But we must understand that under these circumstances the perpetrator very often remains at home, in their familiar environment, until subsequent stages of criminal proceedings, charges being brought and so forth. This appears to put the victim of violence in an even more vulnerable position. We therefore envisage that, as a rule, the person who committed the violence will be removed from the shared environment, unless, of course, we can guarantee the victim’s safety in another environment.
“Another important change is envisaged in terms of improving the quality of the state’s response: police officers will be required to wear body cameras so that when an officer arrives at the scene, we can immediately obtain all evidence and relevant information and subsequently ensure a better process for the authority conducting the proceedings. From the Interior Ministry’s perspective, this is also an oversight tool enabling us to understand and assess the responses of our officers.
“And the final important change is the introduction of a mandatory rehabilitation requirement for people who commit violence. Of course, it is very important that the state punish a person who commits violence, but if we want prevention to be a major component, it is logical that, in addition to punishment, we must work on changing the perpetrator’s behavior. We envisage that, alongside punishment, a mandatory requirement for the perpetrator to undergo a rehabilitation program should also be established,” the minister said.
Addressing the legislative initiative, Nikol Pashinyan recalled that the framework for preventing violence within the family had been adopted and established years ago. According to the prime minister, at the time it was introduced amid demands from international organizations, while the state itself did not confront the issue with the necessary seriousness.
The government meeting included an exchange of views on the issue, with a number of observations presented.
