States are required “to get in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against personal dignity, backed by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions, and this requirement also extends to ill-treatment administered by private individuals”.

This is an excerpt from the Valuiliene v. Lithuania judgment (March 26, 2013) of the European Court of Human Rights with reference to the provisions under Article 3 of the Istanbul Convention. Article 3 is all encompassing and not conditional on whether the victim forgives, or otherwise, the perpetrator.

Known as the Istanbul Convention, The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence was incorporated into the Laws of Malta by Cap 581 of 2018 to promote and protect the right of everyone and particularly of persons who are at risk of domestic violence to live free from violence in both the public and private sphere.

The Commission on Gender-based Violence and Domestic Violence deems that Cap 581 has been indeed a significant step forward to address the scourge of gender-based violence in our society particularly in the context of the high number of women victims who are thus in need of protection from their aggressors.

The level of this violence can escalate to murder with 26 of 37 assassinated women killed by a partner or relative since 2000. A number of these women were killed even after the relationship was over. Some had even forgiven the aggressor.

Many ask why victims forgive their perpetrators. There can be various reasons especially since the perpetrators are often their husbands, partners, children and family members. In many cases women want the violence to stop in order to go back to a normal life.

A number of these women were killed even after the relationship was over. Some had even forgiven the aggressor

They do not want to be seen as causing family break-up. They do not want to take their husbands, children or relatives to court. Others do not want to spend years in court facing their aggressor. Victims may have fear of further abuse and reprisals. Others may be afraid of the trauma of separation having been dependent on their aggressor all their lives. Last but not least is the pressure from family members, from friends and from a patriarchal society pushing to keep the family together.

Even in court the victim is asked if she wants to forgive the aggressor with him present in the same court room.

But what is of greater concern is the fact that when the victim does forgive the perpetrator, no one asks why this change of heart came about. Not only, but professionals in the field in such cases are reported to have criticised the victim for having done so.

The fact that women victims forgive their perpetrator does not mean that there is no longer any danger of further violence for all concerned. Moreover, forgiving the aggressor for whatever reason does not exonerate the State from its obligations to protect the victims and society. We need to move away from the mentality that police action on cases of domestic violence depends on the report of the victim.

 The State is in duty bound by due diligence and such offences should not be incumbent upon the evidence of the victim.

The Commission on Gender-based Violence and Domestic Violence is committed to work solidly to bring together all the stakeholders working in the field to combat this scourge in Maltese society.

The effective implementation of Cap 581 is now our major challenge to ensure that the four pillars of the convention – prevention, protection, prosecution and integrated policies – truly and effectively come together to bring about much needed change in our patriarchal society for the benefit of all, but particularly of victims.

Simone Azzopardi is Commission for Domestic Violence commissioner.

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece