While ending gender-based violence is at the forefront of public debate in many countries, the Albanian government needs to do more to end such violence.
The Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO) found that while there has been some progress, obstacles still remain. GREVIO are responsible for monitoring implementation of the Istanbul convention and while they were “pleased” some countries have improved legislative and policy standards, “persistent problems” need to be addressed.
GREVIO criticised the gender-neutral approach to legal provision and policy documents that address domestic violence in the country. While Istanbul Convention provides a gender-neutral definition of domestic violence that encompasses both victims and perpetrators of both sexes, it spells out with great clarity that domestic violence affects women disproportionately and is therefore a form of violence that is distinctly gendered. The gender neutral stance taken by states including Albania fails to address the specific experiences of women that differ significantly from those of men, thus hindering their protection. This, GREVIO says, deflects focus away from the women and children who predominantly suffer violence at the hands of male perpetrators.
Furthermore, this gender-neutral approach fails to recognise domestic violence as a way of keeping women in a subordinate position to men. This contravenes the fundamental emphasis on the need for a comprehensive and holistic approach to combatting violence against women.
Another concern raised was the “insufficient allocation of financial and human resources” when it comes to implementing policies, measures and programmes to prevent all forms of violence. There was a lack of financial support to specialist NGOs at a national and regional level, indicating a “limited degree of commitment” to preventing and combating violence against women. This, they said “must therefore be addressed as a matter of priority.”
GREVIO also found that in Albania, government institutions involved in the matter of domestic violence have insufficient decision-making powers which limit their ability to exercise their functions. Relevant NGOs are also not involved in the design and coordination of policies, contrary to requirements of the Convention.
The report also found that authorities were not collecting data, again a violation of the Convention. Under Article 11, states are requested to collect statistical data on all cases relating to all forms of violence covered by the scope of the Convention. This is to ensure the proper design and implementation of evidence-based policy making. The police, judiciary, health-care services and social welfare institutions should set up data systems that collect data on victims and perpetrators, disaggregated by sex, age, type of violence, relationship of the victim to the perpetrator and geeographical location. They should also record conviction rates of perpetrators of all forms of domestic violence against women.
Some data that was collected showed worrying rates of violence that resulted in the death of a woman. As we have seen regularly in Albania, the authorities had prior knowledge of a woman’s exposure to violence, prior to her murder. This raises the question of whether the victims could have been saved if the proper, immediate and efficient measures of protection had been applied to ensure the women’s safety.
In Albania, there was a failure to provide specialist support services in rural areas leading to the exclusion of segments of the population. There is also no rape crisis centre or referral centre for victims of sexual violence, as required by the Convention. To make matters worse, a telephone helpline set up did not meet the standards required, notably not being round the clock, free of charge, being fully operational or having due confidentiality.
Lastly the attitude of the courts to the safety of mothers who are victims of domestic violence was deemed as not sufficient. The courts tend to give priority to the presumed best interests of the child which is usually to maintain contact with both parents at all costs. This approach consistently disregards whether the child has witnessed violence.
