CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

PETRA PRESSEROVÁ CYIL 14 (2023) often encounter the words that their situation is not “serious enough” for an intervention. One of the author’s clients was told by the police that they may not act “until they see real blue bruises”. When it comes to the Czech version of eviction order, 84 according to the author’s experience, a victim has to call the police on average at least three to five times before the authorities decide to evict as they tend to disregard the level of danger. Moreover, in cases of domestic violence, the longer the victim remains in the violent relationship, the harder it may be for her to recognize the “right” time to ask for help. The unsuccessful search for help can be very demotivating for victims, who often encounters trivialization and mistrust. Disinterest of the authorities may negatively affect their trust in the state apparatus and, above all, reduce the chances that they will turn to the authorities again when the situation is truly “serious enough”. Thirdly, the fundamental aspect is that when the risk is truly “real and immediate enough,” it may already be too late. 85 As described, victims (and often their loved ones) are forced to endure the struggle until something serious happens. However, that moment may already be fatal. This is also illustrated by the stories from the cited rulings, in which the authorities waited so long as the cases ended tragically. In the case of Opuz v Turkey , the victim experienced domestic violence and threats from her husband for a long time. He regularly beat her, stabbed her at least on one occasion, or ran her over with a car. After some time, she and her mother turned to the police several times, but under the influence of manipulation and blackmail by the perpetrator, they withdrew their criminal complaints. The police did not address their reports in any way. The case ended with the perpetrator murdering the victim’s mother, about a month after she had last sought help from the police. Similarly, in Kontrová v Slovakia , the victim of long-term domestic violence, whom was for example repeatedly beaten with cables, decided to file a criminal complaint. The police did not address it, even though the victim informed them that the situation was escalating. The case ended tragically, with the perpetrator shooting their two children dead. Regarding the last aspect of the critique, it is necessary to shift the approach from the one in the previous paragraphs, which was mainly in support of state intervention in addressing violence against women. It is also appropriate to question even this assumption and consider whether and how state intervention, especially the criminal one, is actually suitable and safe for victims. The concept of due diligence leans upon an assumption that when the state – “the good guy” – learns about violence being committed, it will positively intervene in the name of protecting the victim. Yet, this is in fact rather utopian. States differ greatly in terms of respect for human rights and women; there are still states that commit violence against women themselves. 86 Therefore, in the current, non-ideal state of affairs, excessive insistence on state involvement in responding to violence against women can also bring risks for the victims. It may lead to escalation of violence (for example, investigating domestic violence can make the perpetrator’s 84 “Vykázání” in Czech. 85 Concurring opinion of judge Hüseynov to the ECtHR judgment of 04.07.2019 in Kurt v Austria , no. 62903/15, § 4. 86 See Judgment of the ECtHR of 13.11.2012 in I. G. and others v Slovakia , no. 15966/04 (forced sterilisations); Judgment of the IACtHR of 28.11.2018 in Mujeres en Atenco vs. México (sexualised police violence on women); Judgment of the ECtHR of 10.11.2022 in Sládková v ČR , no. 15741/15 (police violence against a woman).

188