DV in Criminal Law in Hungary: a case in worst practice or just a long beginning of the road

1
DV in Criminal Law in Hungarya case in worst
practice or just a long beginning of the road?

• Regional Conference on Domestic Violence Legal
  Reform
• February 12-14, 2008
• Judit Wirth
• Sofia, 13 February 2008

2
NANE Womens Rights AssociationHungary

• Internet www.nane.hu
• E-mail info_at_nane.hu
• Mail 1447 Bp. Pf. 502.

3
Advocacy for legislation

• Public awareness raising (1994 ?)
• Learning in an international environment (Sofia
  1997 gt)
• Targeting decision-makers (Baden Conference
  Report 1998 ? Min. of Social Affairs CEDAW
  Shadow report 2002 and letters to Min. of Social
  Affairs position papers to Min. of Justice 2002,
  2004, 2006 and on Silent Witness Marches from
  Supreme Court to Parliament, from Min. of Justice
  to Parliament, etc. NGO statistics)
• Signature collection campaign (2002-2003)

4
Fora of the debate

• Ministries (Justice, Social Affairs, Interior)
• Police
• Parliament
• Constitutional Court (mostly infortmally)
• Conferences (sites of backlash and of progress)
• Media
• Politically loaded, gender blind and biased
  legal arguments, WHR standards disregarded,
  international results selected according to needs
  of backlash (mediation, family group conf.)
  grim scene

5
Legal changes

• Soft law
• 34/2002 Ministry of Interior Order
• 13/2003 (III. 27.) Chief of Police Provision
• 45/2003 (IV. 16.) Parliament Decree on the
  creation of a national strategy to prevent and
  effectively combat DV
• Hard law
• Code of Penal Procedure Restraining Order
  (effective as of July 1, 2006, drafts in 2004,
  2005)
• Penal Code Harassment (effective January 1,
  2008)

6
A law limited by legislators ignorance,
indifference or cynicism?

• Court decision
• Well founded suspicion of crime punishable by
  prison sentence if there is reason to believe
  that accused would
• interfere w/ the criminal procedure by
  intimidating the victim
• complete the crime, or commit another (punishable
  by prison) agst victim
• (language presupposes a kind of pre-judgement
  lack of training!)
• In case of private motion crime, the motion is
  required for the application for restr. order
• Issued for 10-30 days
• Court sends the decision to victim and
  prosecution
• If the accused deliberately breaches the rules
  of restraining and fails to supply adequate
  reasons for that later, his/her pre-trial
  detention may be ordered or if the latter is
  not necessary
• a disciplinary penalty may be imposed on the
  accused

7
Reported missing

• DV not defined, not even mentioned
• Not immediate (no deadline for court)
• Private motion-crime catch 22 ( no remedy in
  case of offences)
• Non-renewable, no extension
• Inadequate in case of violation of the order
• Non-coordinated response, no victim-support
• Safety of victim(s) lost (rather, safety of
  procedure)
• Non-response for cases where parties never lived
  together
• Result in effect restraining order is used,
  instead of arrest

8
Harassment (stalking) in the Criminal Code

• Art. 176/A (1) Who, with the goal of intimidating
  (terrifying) another person, or in order to
  arbitrarily intrude upon another persons private
  life, or everyday routines, regularly or for a
  lengthy period perturbs that person, especially
  (not exclusively) by contacting them through
  means of telecommunication or in person, if no
  graver crime is committed, commits a misdemeanour
  punishable by an imprisonment of up to one year,
  public service, or a fine.
• (2) Who, with the goal of intimidation
  (terrifying) threatens another person, or a
  relative of the target person, with the act of
  violence against person or an act causing public
  danger commits a misdemeanour and is punishable
  by imprisonment of up to two years, public
  service, or a fine.
• (3) Who commits the stalking against
• a) an ex-spouse or ex-common law partner,
• b) a person under his/her education,
  supervision, care or medical care,
• in case of section (1) above will be punishable
  by imprisonment of up to two years, public
  service or a fine, in case of section (2) above
  will commit a crime and will be punishable by
  imprisonment of up to three years.
•  
• In effect as of January 01, 2008.

9
Still missing

• Result vs. goal of perpetrator
• Threatening non-relatives
• Ex-officio procedure linking w/ restr. order
• Fine in cases when parties live together?!
• Some of the recommendations of NGOs were
  implemented... but may be useless because of the
  formulation goal
• How many more victims will have to suffer for the
  legislator to take a stand?