Malta ratified the Istanbul Convention a year ago but domestic violence victims are still not being given the necessary protection and peace of mind through temporary protection orders until the court hearing.
Family lawyer Lara Dimitrijevic, who runs the Women’s Rights Foundation, described the current system as discriminatory and one which was empowering perpetrators instead of victims.
The Istanbul Convention stipulates the use of emergency barring orders to provide immediate protection to people at risk of violence until representation can be made before the courts.
However, in Malta, this measure is only issued by family courts in the case of people filing for separation, ordering the aggressive person to stay away from his spouse for the duration of the proceedings.
“This is discriminatory because there are many cases of harassment, violence and stalking which do not involve married couples,” Dr Dimitrijevic told the Times of Malta.
“Some would have children while others might not even have been in a relationship.”
While victims abroad received immediate protection through a temporary restraining order which would then be extended or revoked during the eventual court hearing, victims in Malta could only file a police report and wait for the court hearing, which could take between three to six months.
The period could even be lengthened further if the perpetrator did not turn up for the sitting or if the case was deferred.
I’ve seen many women living in fear, waiting for the court hearing and for the perpetrator to be found guilty
Meanwhile, Dr Dimitrijevic argued, the blackmail and abuse would continue, if not intensify due to the fact that a police report had been filed.
“I’ve seen many women living in fear, waiting for the court hearing and for the perpetrator to be found guilty. They are given no form of protection. Meanwhile, this only fuels the perpetrator with more arrogance and power to keep playing their cruel cat and mouse game.”
One case involved a young woman who had been stalked by her ex-boyfriend for three whole years. Another woman had her former partner break into her home, where he would drag her down the street with a knife at her throat.
Meanwhile, women would live with a crippling fear, sinking into depression and unable to hold down a job.
It was contradictory that precautionary garnishee orders were issued concurrently with the start of legal action.
“It’s a contradiction in the law. Property and funds are important but it’s rather contradictory that material objects are secured and protected immediately as a precautionary measure but a person’s life isn’t.
“This needs to be taken seriously. It’s great that we ratified the convention but there has been no change in the law.”
There were instances when perpetrators violated their protection order but no immediate action was taken because the order had been issued by the family court and not by the criminal court.
“Reports would be filed and some police would tell you there was nothing they could do. When you explain to them that, according to the law, temporary protection orders issued by the family court should be treated like those issued by the criminal code, they would tell you they didn’t know.”
Not all members of the police force were like that, Dr Dimitrijevic added – some did a sterling job but there needed to be a greater sense of uniformity across the board.
Apart from the devastating effects on the victim, one should not forget the children, who were often traumatised by the events they witnessed.