y File analysis shows that the Intervention Centre reached out to nearly all victims of intimate partner violence and counselled them in an initial consultation.
The proactive approach of the Intervention Centre as well as Child and Youth Welfare – the interviewed victims were promptly contacted by these institutions – is very welcome and seen as supportive.
In any case, support is necessary. It is important to have someone to talk to, who explains what has to be done next. Otherwise one would be lost, all alone with police and judiciary.
Clara, Austrian, 41 years old
y According to the analysed files, only a small percentage of victims – i.e. roughly ten per cent – had psychosocial (and legal) court support; this, however, from the preliminary proceedings onwards.
y Victim support institutions criticise that the Austrian regulation is more restrictive than the EU Victim Protection Directive which recognises the right to support of all victims of crimes.
y According to victim support institutions, funds for court support are insufficient, and therefore sufficient support cannot always be offered.
y In addition, most representatives of the judiciary did not recognise the effects of psychosocial court support.
Victims’ needs are respected when:
¾ Information on court support is provided to all eligible victims of violence at an early point in time and in an intelligible form, and if the important role of court support is explained to them.
¾ Minors who have witnessed the offence but who were not immediate victims are not eligible for court support. In particular in cases of serious violence against close relatives, they need it, because of the special need for protection of minors, but also to ease the burden of the relatives affected by violence.
34
(v) Protection – Victim Protection Directive, chapter 4, articles 18–24
This issue not only refers to protective measures during court proceedings that result from the EU Victim Protection Directive, but over and above also to Austria-specific measures within the scope of police.
Research results
y In the vast majority of the incidents examined in file analysis, a barring order was issued.
y The transfer of information regarding the issuing of a barring order to the Intervention Centre and, where applicable, to Child and Youth Welfare works;
however, the notification of Child and Youth Welfare is not always recorded.
y Four out of ten interviewed victims had the experience that police only issued a barring order after repeated calls for help. In particular, this affected women who did not live in one household with the perpetrator, or who had taken refuge in a women’s shelter.
y Initially, police officers refused to notify reports which victims wanted to bring in only the day after the violent incident.
y When the endangerer picked up personal belongings after the barring order was issued accompanied by police, there was no further danger, but objects were also taken that are not part of the personal sphere without the officers reacting to this fact.
y Because of the restrictive definition of stalking, it is difficult to find protection from such prosecution. In some cases, measures were suggested to the interviewees that would have led to serious constraints in their own everyday lives.
y Police and victim protection institutions criticise that remand custody is only rarely imposed, and the justification regularly used by the prosecutor and the court is that as a protective measure the “less severe means” of a barring order was already in place.
y According to victim protection institutions risk assessment by the police and the prosecutor often is wrong. While the police have a standardised tool of risk assessment, the documentation sheet for barring orders, the prosecutor’s office uses no comparable approach.
y The conversations with endangerers and victims following a barring order are rated as highly effective by the police. Hardly an endangerer did not take up the offer, and repeat offences in this group are rare; victim conversations are used to give security tips and legal information etc. The conversations require sufficient German skills, however.
y There are diverging opinions regarding contradictory hearings, amongst victims and victim protection institutions as well as in the judiciary. Some regard separate hearings as more effective.8
8 One important counterargument is that the victim is not perceived as an individual at court – while personal impression played an important role in the consideration of evidence. Victim protection institutions also said that some clients felt uncomfortable with contradictory hearings: They felt trapped, did not feel they were on top of things, they were unable to see the accused while he could see them.
35
y The technical requirements for contradictory hearings are usually met; in particular, but not only in rural areas, there are sometimes long waiting periods.
y One of the main tasks of psychosocial court support is to make sure protective measures like avoiding meetings between the victim and the perpetrator are observed. This is one of the reasons why the low percentage of court support is problematic.
Victims’ needs are respected when:
¾ In the context of trainings for the executive forces, the subject of requirements for barring orders is allowed more space (e.g. that a common household is not a necessary precondition).
¾ The police must not use a time delay between the act of violence and its reporting by the victim as an argument for not notifying the report.
¾ In the police force as well as the prosecutor’s office, a strong focus of trainings should be on recognising risk factors for (repeated) use of violence.
¾ Risk assessments of victim protection institutions should be given more consideration in the prosecutor’s decision on imposing investigative custody.
¾ “Less severe means” like barring orders or interim injunctions do not offer equal protection as investigative custody.
# Court
(i) To Understand and to Be Understood –Victim Protection Directive, articles 3, 5 and 7
Research results
y In court proceedings, interpreters are regularly used when necessary. However, adjournments are often required because the final police report does not point out insufficient linguistic skills.
Then I have to reschedule, and when I criticize police, they say “things often need to happen very quickly” or “that’s so expensive”.
Judge
y The lack of qualified interpreters who have some knowledge of domestic violence and traumatisation is a problem at court, too.
Victims’ needs are respected when:
¾ Legal information, court summons amongst others, are translated into the victim’s mother tongue when there is an evident language problem.