Criminal Prosecution of Domestic Violence

This edited collection addresses the obstacles and challenges on prosecuting domestic violence cases effectively as the ECtHR stressed its significance in various landmark judgments such as Opuz v. Turkey, 2009. The perpetrators of domestic violence (and violence against women) may enjoy impunity or receive lenient punishment and this lies as one of the main concerns of victims as well as lack of protection of victims. Just recently, in 2020, the ECtHR highlighted that “violence against women was under-reported, under-investigated, under-prosecuted, and under-sentenced.” (Tërshana v. Albania, para. 156). This is mainly because that ‘domestic violence cases have their challenging features that that bring out some obstacles for carrying out an effective investigation such as victim’s vulnerability, requiring a prompt response and taking reasonable and appropriate measures for protection of women victim and difficulties on obtaining evidence and the like’. It is quite common that the victim may withdraw their complaint under the pressure of the perpetrators. Further, the victims mostly do not want their partners to be prisoned, rather they simply seek for ending violence. Therefore, these cases requires a peculiar prosecution approach unlike incident-based crime such as burglary. Therefore, ‘a holistic approach to domestic violence cases is essential. Considering domestic violence cases’ challenging features — also for procedural authorities in terms of evidence or qualification of violent act as unique or multiples, as expressed in the legal sense of criminal law concepts, with respect to the vulnerability of the victims. ‘DV [domestic violence] cases are difficult to prosecute’. The classical tools and approach of the criminal law may fail to response these cases effectively. The comparative analysis draws conclusions from different jurisdictions in Europe, as such, to reach a holistic solution on how to tackle the issue of ineffective criminal prosecution.