Removing Abuser from Police Records

pregnant?” the police ask, “has the alleged perpetrator beaten you while you were pregnant?”. We strongly suggest that the RA be revised, both in content and language, and the word “alleged” for the perpetrator be taken out – see Appendix 1.

Recommendations:

1. Amend the questionnaire of risk/danger assessment, to remove the word “alleged” from the questionnaire and to bring it in line with international criteria;

2. Train police officers on how to administer the RA questionnaire.

Removing Abuser from Police Records

The DV lawindicates whenthe perpetrator’sname is to beremovedfrom the police record. However, this is not at all in compliance with the standards of preventing further abuse. For example, the removal of the abuser from police record can be done if the person is diagnosed as being mentally ill (but not institutionalized), if the person resides outside of Armenia (even though he could return at any time), if the record-registration expired (unclear when), if the abuser is doing compulsory military service (2 years) and in other cases prescribed by law which are unclear. In one instance, when police gave a Warning, the abuser went to the social services department and stated that there was no need for police visits to the house. This indicates the lack of procedures and coordination between social services and police.

These exemptions and practices do not protect victims. Since perpetrators normally do not change their behavior and they often repeat their abuse, this is a very dangerous practice. Under no circumstances, other than their death, should perpetrators be taken off the record. Furthermore, it is our understanding that the police record for DV cases is not part of a national registry. Thus, an abuser can move to a different region and have no record there.

Recommendations:

1. Review the criteria in the DV law for removal of the person from the police records;

2. Create a national database for perpetrators registered for cases of gender-based violence.

Investigator’s Work

When a DV victim presses charges, the police report goes to the investigator who then does his own examination and the findings are sent to the prosecutor. Before this step is taken, however, there is another pre-investigator’s report which we find completely unnecessary, especially since the victim has to repeat her story yet again which can be retraumatizing. Generally, these interviewers lack sensitivity, are not victim-centered andusea tone thatdoes notinspires confidence and calmness. The inspectors are often biased and end up victimizing the victim further. The investigators try to minimize the gravity of the event. If the deposition of the victim is done without her having a lawyer present, the victim is manipulated to use words that diminish the gravity of the event. Often the victim pulls out her claim at this stage. The inspector’s office has the power to close the case which is often done under the pretext that there is not sufficient

evidence. As with the police, this body lacks proper training and does not understand the dynamics of trauma and how the victim is affected by the violence.

Another completely unnecessary and problematic procedure in DV cases, which is not allowed by DV standards, is having the abuser and victim give depositions to the police at the same time. The presence of the abuser in the same room with the victim can be very intimidating and traumatic for her and her safety is not guaranteed. In one instance, when the victim left the police station after giving her deposition, she was abducted by the abuser and his family. Police officers need to ensure the safety of the victim once she has left the police station. Further, especially for victims at high risk and who are staying at a shelter, the deposition must be done at the offices of the Support Center or in another safe environment.

We should also note that the Istanbul Convention also includes regulations such as Article 18 which clearly stipulates that Parties (service providers) shall ensure that measures taken shall be based on a gendered understanding of violence against women and domestic violence and shall focus on the human rights and safety of the victim while aiming to avoid secondary victimization of the victim. Both police and the inspector’s office also constantly violate the confidentiality of the victim. Often, they inform the abuser when the victim is scheduled to come to police station or inform the abuser that the victim is at the WSC. This not only jeopardizes the safety of the victim, but that of the WSC staff as well.

As mentioned above, most of the cases are closed by the inspectors under the pretext that there is not enough evidence, or they change the articles of the crime, so it is less serious. In these instances, the crime never makes it to court, or the victim does not press further because there will be little or no consequences for the perpetrator, other than a light fine.