In our previous post we summarized the stories of two victims of domestic violence, Barbara Seres and Bernadett Orosz, who participated in Nőkért Women's Association's roundtable discussion on August 26th (https://dontlookaway.blog.hu/2020/09/03/the_inadequacy_of_victim_protection_in_hungary_through_the_stories_of_two_abused_women). Besides the two victims, Bernadett Orosz and Barbara Seres, the participants were: Valéria Czifranics, grandmother of baby Ádám (see the story in part 1.); dr. Júlia  Spronz, lawyer of PATENT Association; Rita Béres-Deák, activist of Viennese women’s rights group Schau nicht weg! / Ne nézz félre! and Miklós Toldi, former police officer, one of the founders of a yet unregistered advocacy group for victims of abuse, BÉKE Központ Egyesület. The discussion was moderated by Rita Antoni, president of Nőkért Women’s Association.

After the stories of the victims, Júlia Spronz summarized the situation of victim protection in Hungary. She emphasized that important changes have taken place in legislation in the past 20-25 years, but these have not made their way into legal practice. For instance, the institution of restraining orders – thanks to perseverant lobbying by women’s rights organizations – has eventually been introduced but is often applied the wrong way. It was never meant to protect victims whose life is in danger – in such cases, much stronger sanctions would be needed – but it is often used for that.

A serious lack in legislation, said Spronz, that most types of domestic violence are only punishable on a private motion and not ex officio. Most victims should not be burdened with the responsibility of making a report, as often they are not in the position to do so for several reasons: they are afraid of further violence, they are financially dependent on the abuser, or do not want to send the father of their children to jail. She also referred back to Bernadett’s story with its cycles of violence: a social and institutional environment which is prepared and aware of violence – including the doctor who first treated her – could have prevented this series of abuse by making a report after the first instance.

What Spronz finds the most frustrating is that we know good practices, and yet case after case proves that the victim protection system is dysfunctional. The police has had an internal policy for dealing with such cases since 2003, but if the individual officer is not familiar with it, they will not apply it, so no change can be expected until there are regular trainings on the topic.

Regarding the problem of private motion, Miklós Toldi said that the very first patrolling officer Bernadett Orosz contacted should have reported the case. Toldi also mentioned that there are huge tensions in Hungarian society, resulting from everyday hardships, and these often find an outlet in domestic violence. He thinks that the damage done by abuse causes much higher costs to the state than prevention would.

One of the central questions of the discussion was what civilians, former victims and their family do to improve victim protection. Rita Béres-Deák suggested that professionals who would have to apply the law are not informed enough, so they should be sensitized. For instance, if the police and the judge are aware that as a result of trauma, victims often do not remember every detail, they would not doubt their words and claim that the victim cannot recall details because she has invented the whole story. The general public should also be educated, as many people do not notice the telling signs in their environment, so the lack of information sustains domestic violence. Béres-Deák added that the Istanbul Convention also encourages such awareness-raising, so one form of action would be to lobby for its ratification in Hungary.

In Miklós Toldi’s opinion, the legislator should change the regulations in a way that abuse cases should be prosecuted ex officio, even if the victim is not in a condition right after the crime to start a criminal procedure. He added: if every case was prosecuted, suddenly over 200,000 cases would appear in the system, and as prisons are overcrowded and resources scarce, this would require a complex solution.

Barbara Seres contested that the problem is not the lack of resources but the harmful or inefficient functioning of the system. The authorities do deal with cases of domestic violence, but the present tendency is that victims take a huge risk if the case gets into court: for instance, sometimes the child is taken away from the mother and given to the abuser, just because his financial situation is better. “Work is being done, although it is bad work, and if energy is wasted on harassing victims and taking away their family support, I don’t think the fault is with the resources; the fault is with using them for the wrong purposes,” she emphasized.

Rita Béres-Deák said it would be a step forward if we admitted that there are in fact power imbalances within the family. In Hungary we pretend there are none and cherish an idealized image of the family which has little to do with reality. The state should be aware of family power structures in order to be able to balance them. Instead, the system reinforces these dependent relationships and makes the victim even more vulnerable. For instance, when an abused mother has to move into a different town with her children and start a completely new life, which puts a considerable financial burden on her. The victim is punished, though she is not the one to have done anything wrong – this is institutional betrayal.

Júlia Spronz agreed that domestic violence is caused by power imbalances in the family, and the right interventions should consider this context. Unfortunately, the state often claims to protect the families, whereas in such cases it is not the family but the victim who needs protection. For instance, the father’s visitation rights are placed above all else, including the child’s safety. She told us that the majority of cases received at Patent’s legal aid are about forced visitation, which illustrates that legal practitioners are not aware of the abusive nature of a relationship and that they should treat it differently than a “plain” divorce case.  This way the authorities do not only do their job badly but put citizens at risk. In Spronz’s opinion, the most fundamental problem is that there are no special protocols in Hungary for the handling of intimate partner and domestic violence.

Bernadett Orosz agreed that protection is an area that needs to develop. As an example, she suggested that after reporting the case, it should not be the victim but the perpetrator who is isolated, because they can only be influenced if their personal interests are harmed. She added that after the sentence perpetrators should be rehabilitated because otherwise, upon returning to society, they will continue to abuse others. She said that both authorities and average people might be afraid: what would the abuser to do them, if they treated like that a woman they love? Also, blaming the victim has a special psychology: when people face stories of abuse, they automatically try to find excuses for the abuser to preserve their calm. Prevention should include raising awareness that these are not individual horror stories but a systemic phenomenon. “If they unconditionally accepted what we are saying, they would have to face a systemic problem, and their faith in a just world would crash. So, it is easier to find excuses – and we, victims, do the same.”

The panelists emphasized: a critical mass is indispensable for change, but politicians should not only take a step in this issue when tens of thousands protest in the street. Efficient legislation and legal practice, as well as social awareness-raising would be vitally important in Hungary.