Social work centers, police, prosecutors, and courts need ongoing training, their human resources and material and technical capacities must be strengthened, and judges and prosecutors must be specialized exclusively in handling domestic violence cases.
This is, among other things, the conclusion of the semi-annual report of the operational team for combating domestic violence and violence against women, which was published in the Government.
Although some recommendations are repeated, the report's authors point out that there is a lack of coordination between institutions.
The Operational Team was formed by a Government decision in February 2022. The report covers the period from April 1 to September 30. During that period, as stated in the document, the Team continuously monitored and analyzed institutional action in cases of violence against women and domestic violence, with a focus on improving the efficiency and accountability of the protection system.
In the reporting period, 16 cases were considered and analyzed, involving various forms of domestic violence and violence against women, as well as the work of institutions.
Systemic irregularities in social work centers
They state that an analysis of the work of social work centers in several cases has revealed that some centers have a number of systemic irregularities and inconsistencies in their procedures.
"A formalistic and reactive approach was observed, instead of acting in accordance with legally prescribed competencies, especially with regard to self-initiative risk assessment and proposing/taking victim protection measures," the report says, adding that some centers "still do not act in the spirit of the Istanbul Convention and the national Protocol on Action in Cases of Violence against Women and Domestic Violence."
"And that they lead victims into situations of retraumatization and revictimization."
In practice, as they stated, this is reflected in the fact that victims share space with perpetrators of violence during case conferences, and that joint interviews are scheduled with victims and perpetrators of violence.
"Which is a practice that persists, despite numerous requests from both international bodies, such as GREVIO, and the Team itself," it states, adding that representatives of civil society organizations that provide support and psychosocial assistance to victims are still not invited to case conferences.
In several cases reviewed, it was noted that in some centers, primarily in the CSW Podgorica, despite knowledge of domestic violence, parents were treated as equal parties, "even when there was evidence of violence and documentation indicating a risk to the child and the non-violent parent - the mother."
In the part relating to the Police Directorate, the Operational Team states that their actions in the majority of the analyzed cases demonstrate "formal fulfillment of obligations".
"But there are still problems that indicate the need to strengthen institutional sensitivity and coordination."
It is stated that there was cooperation between different organizational units of the police in most cases, but that there is still a lack of uniformity in communication and exchange of information, "especially in cases that are being handled in parallel in several cities."
In some situations, the report adds, the police did not inform the CSW about the presence of children in a family affected by violence, which, it says, resulted in the lack of necessary measures to protect minors.
Prosecutors' mistakes
The operational team states that although the Criminal Code has been amended in terms of the definition of the criminal offense under Article 220 Domestic or Family Violence and the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office has issued binding instructions on the conduct of state prosecutors' offices in cases of domestic and family violence, in practice this is not always the case:
"Some of the cases analyzed indicate that certain prosecutors (in the specific ODT in Nikšić) qualified acts of violence in which there were clear elements of a criminal offense as misdemeanors," the report states.
The operational team, however, also notes that some cases of violence were "unfoundedly processed through misdemeanor proceedings."
"Due to the fact that one specific incident of violence was assessed, and not the broader context of violence, its continuity and history, which indicated the possibility of recurrence of violence and a high risk for the victim and the child."
Therefore, ongoing education is recommended for prosecutors, while at the same time emphasizing the importance of consistently implementing the VDP's instructions from October 2024, that state prosecutors act urgently and without delay in cases of violence, and that prosecutors immediately and directly question victims.
"And in cases where the elements of a misdemeanor have been met, the request to initiate misdemeanor proceedings is represented by state prosecutors, not police officers, as was the case before the Instruction was adopted."
Some courts do not respect the principle of urgency
In the part related to the work of the courts, the Operational Team states that the findings include only a limited number of cases considered, that they do not reflect the work of all courts in the system, but that in some cases it has been observed that due to the volume of work, the courts do not fully respect the principle of urgency in domestic violence cases.
They state that the first hearings in some cases were held several months after the application was filed. Also, some procedures related to the exercise of parental rights take too long, and in some cases it was noted that the courts did not deliver decisions on temporary measures to the social work centers, which left these bodies deprived of the opportunity to monitor the implementation of contacts between parents and children or to take additional protective measures.
It was also observed that in some cases, judges remained passive in relation to violations of procedural discipline in situations of inadequate behavior by individual attorneys or defendants, and did not impose measures for belittling the victim.
"Although these are individual cases, such situations can further undermine victims' sense of security and trust in institutions," the report states, recommending that such practices be consistently improved to ensure respect for victims' rights and prevent secondary victimization during court proceedings.
Institutions often do not cooperate
In the section relating to communication and cooperation between institutions, the Operational Team states that it is noticeable that institutions often act independently:
"Not contributing to an integrated and coordinated approach to violence against women and domestic violence, which is a legally binding standard," they state, adding that this is particularly important in cases where court decisions have been made on supervision measures, security measures or protective measures.
"So that the protection of victims would be implemented unhindered and continuously while the measures are in place and so that the authorities would not rely solely on the statements and reports submitted by victims when obtaining information about violations of these measures."
They state that the Protocol on Procedure, although formally binding, is not applied uniformly in practice, especially in the areas of risk assessment and coordination.
"There is a need for more careful public communication of cases of violence, as inaccurate or sensationalist media reporting can further endanger victims and influence the course of proceedings," they state, and recommend the introduction of regular coordination meetings at the local level, between all stakeholders - CSW, police, prosecutors' offices and courts, in cases whose risk assessment requires ad hoc action.
Bonus video:
