I refer to the article ‘Disheartened domestic victims suffer in silence’ (July 7). Having looked into what actually happened in the two cases mentioned, the following clarifications are in order.

The authors of the article highlight the fact that two alleged perpetrators accused with domestic violence were granted bail and protection orders were issued in favour of their wives. However, the article fails to mention that in both cases the prosecuting officer and the wife of the person charged and her lawyer, both present during the arraignment, declared they had no objection that the alleged perpetrators are granted bail subject to the condition that the accused leaves the matrimonial home and subject to the issue of a protection order. Bail was, in fact, granted precisely on these lines.

These facts were mentioned in the online report regarding the arraignment, which appeared on July 6, however, they were incomprehensibly omitted in the printed edition. This omission is significant since it tends to give credence to the heading of the article that the alleged victims of domestic violence are ‘suffering in silence’, implying that they are ignored by the court, not consulted and their views not considered. This was definitely far from the truth in the cases mentioned.

It is relevant to point out that, in the arraignment, the court did not enter into the issue of guilt or otherwise of the alleged perpetrators. In these hearings the court limited itself to deciding whether bail should be granted. The issue of guilt or otherwise and the adequate punishment that might be due shall be addressed at a later stage after all the evidence to be produced by both parties is heard.