Overview of the Domestic Violence Legal and Policy ... - UNDP Croatia

Overview of the Domestic Violence Legal andPolicy Framework in Croatia[Final Draft for Discussion]Authors (in alphabetical order): Susanne Risser, Filip R.V. TanayProject managers: Jasmina Papa, Hans RisserConsultants: Tamara Karaica, Krunoslav Katić1

Executive summaryThis assessment aims to provide an overview of the legal and institutional mechanism forpreventing and responding to domestic violence (DV). To this end, it looks into themeasures set out in the National Strategy, examines the suitability and problems withimplementation of the formal framework for dealing with DV, and finally reviews thecurrent data and empirical research available regarding DV in the Republic of Croatia.Since 2003, Croatia has developed a framework for the prevention and suppression ofdomestic violence, in order to comply with UN and EU standards. As a result, a lot of therequired laws and mechanisms are already in place. In the last three years the trend of DVcases has indeed also been stagnating, in terms of reported perpetrators of DV as amisdemeanour offence, and falling, in terms of reported perpetrators of DV as a criminaloffence.However despite this progress, the information contained in section 6 still indicates thatevery third family in Croatia experiences DV and 40% of Croatian citizens know at leastone DV victim. Further complicating the situation is the lack of shelter and counsellingcentres in the country. The 2008 shelter capacity is at least 20% below the EU standard,and not all counties have a shelter or a counselling centre for victims and perpetrators.Varaždin County, to mention one example, has the second largest overall share inconvictions for domestic violence as a misdemeanour offence, but only one shelter wherethe maximum stay is limited to 21 days. The counties of Koprivnica-Križevci, Krapina-Zagorje, Požega-Slavonia, Virovitica-Podravina and Lika-Senj lack shelter all together. All inall, the services available for victims of domestic violence differ significantly from one partof the country to the next.The 2008-2010 National Strategy on domestic violence covers a wide scope of areasnecessary for having an efficient framework and mechanism for prevention and protectionfrom DV. However, the overview of the Strategy, presented in section two, also finds that:• Whilst the indicators on the whole managed to capture well the realisation of themeasures’ activities and their outcomes, the effectiveness of the National Strategyin the future would be increased with more preliminary research, more preciseindicators with definite goals (amounts, quantities) and more exact timeframes.• Indicators need to be more reflective of the measure rather than the activities,and more resources need to be devoted to implementing certain measures.• Less ambiguous and more precise wording of measures may enhance theefficiency of their implementation and reporting on their progress.• Lastly, the achievements of the National Strategy could be expanded withmonitoring and evaluation activities, and more precise plans with goals and targetsfor policies and programmes.Section 3 is an analysis of gaps in legal provisions and implementation problems, identifiedby actors who deal with DV. Some of the conclusions it provides is as follows:• The criteria for distinguishing between DV as a misdemeanour and criminaloffence are not clear. Other than repetitiveness and severity of the offence it isnot clear what exact criteria are applied.• Similar problems exist when it comes to reporting domestic violence. All serviceswho come into contact with domestic violence are obligated to report it. However,only within reasonable doubt, the details of which are not specified. In practice,this often translates into only fresh signs of physical abuse.• Much needed services for the victim, such as the outcome of the courtproceedings and the victim and witness support services, are only available upon2

equest. The free legal aid that should be available for victims of domestic violenceis also far too difficult to access.• With the new laws and protocols in place, the workings of the institutions dealingwith DV have improved overall. However, there are still considerable differencesbetween the different geographical areas, and education has reached theinstitutions somewhat unevenly. Criticism still persists regarding lengthy courthearings, and lack of educated staff at centres for Social Welfare.• The police appear to be the institution most praised for their inter-institutionalcooperation and capability to respond adequately to cases of DV. However, thereare still cases where the police are said to have failed to inform the victim of theirfull rights or failed to act according to the protocol.• A number of factors further complicate the situation for a victim of domesticviolence, including not qualifying for free supplementary health insurance, anddifficulties with obtaining employment benefit when moved to a location awayfrom their home county.• Victims without full Croatian citizenship experience problems when trying to dealwith DV, including inability to access health care or state benefits.• The number of cases of DV amongst the Roma community is estimated to be highand rarely reported. Lack of formal paperwork is also often a problem for victimsamong the Roma community, and in addition they sometimes face considerableprejudice.• More attention and resources should be invested into long term preventionprojects that aim to change attitudes on gender roles, gender equality and, inparticular DV. Utilising county Family Centres as part of the DV mechanism couldexpand the preventative counselling and education capacity in Croatia.• Geographical differences, between Zagreb and the rest of Croatia, between citiesand rural areas, seem to dictate the level of knowledge, sensitization and services.The bigger the town/city the better the provision and sensitization. In some areasthe institutional mechanism has little or no training and resources to date to dealwith cases of DV. Moreover, the social stigma of reporting a case of DV is lowerthe bigger the settlement.Sections 4 and 5 of the assessment deal respectively with shelters and psychosocialtreatment for the perpetrator. The shelter section is a comparison between some of theexisting shelters in the country, ranging from state to NGO run, and Zagreb versus ruralareas. It finds that:• There is currently a lack of shelter and counselling centre service capacity inCroatia• While almost all shelters regardless of type have recently experienced a lack/cut infunding as a result of the economic downturn, state shelters, to a greater extent,claim they have enough resources to carry out the work they do.• The number of staff is higher with the two Zagreb shelters.• There is quite a distinctive difference between State and NGO in terms of theaverage length of stay, with the State shelters stating an average of 2-4 monthsas opposed to the 10 months to a year with the NGO shelters. As 10 months toone year is also the average time for court cases, such as divorce and custodyrights, it is possible to assume that women stay in the NGO shelters until theirsituation has been resolved to a higher degree than in the State shelters, thatcould perhaps be seen as more of an emergency housing.The section on psychosocial treatment of perpetrators outlines the curriculum,implementation and circumstances surrounding the provision of the treatment. It finds thatthe biggest problem facing psychosocial treatment in Croatia is the lack of funds. This hasresulted in a lack of official monitoring and evaluation, and also presents a problem wheneducating relevant actors as well as enabling them to utilise their acquired knowledge. As3

far as the participants, it shows that the majority are sent by misdemeanour courts. Mostare men, and most fulfil their obligations of the treatment.The final section is an analysis and overview of data and research on domestic violence inCroatia on a national and regional level. It yielded many conclusions of which the followinghave been singled out:• The official research available thus far is insufficient to analyse with adequatedepth and certainty the efficiency of the legal framework and mechanism forprevention and protection from DV. Whilst a lot of statistics are available about thenumber of reported cases of DV, the number and demographics of theperpetrators, the number of victims of DV, the number and type of court decisionsthere are still a lot of important areas of concern left uncharted. For example, it isunknown what on average happens to victims of DV once they leave the shelter,how effective psychosocial treatments being conducted with perpetrators are, howwell people are educated on DV once they have undertaken a seminar or courseon it, or how much resources are exactly needed to fully tackle the problem of DVin the Republic of Croatia.• There is no data approximating the total cost of DV, the funding required to tacklethe estimated level of the problem of DV in Croatia or regarding the costeffectivenessof prevention and current policies being implemented. Suchinformation could enable better channelling of resources, and determine howmuch focus and resources should be placed on prevention compared to dealingwith the problem of DV.AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank to Anamarija Gospočić, Branka Lučić, Danijela Čukelj, DanielAntunović, Dragan Jusupović, Gordana Lukač-Koritnik, Ivana Sučić, Katarina Matić, JasnaLenuzzi, Neva Tolle, Valentina Andrašek, Jasenka Ražov, Tanja Repalust, ZdravkaSadžakov, Željka Barić, Dubravka Vujnović Radaković and Danijela Brunović who gavetheir time to share with us wealth of knowledge, experience they accumulated over yearsof passionate and professional commitment to analysis of causes and consequences ofdomestic violence and providing support to those who need safe place and respite togather the pieces to be able to rebuild their lives. The Ministry of Family, Veteran’s Affairsand Intergenerational Solidarity has provided us with an insight into institutionalframework and raised a number of themes that this report attempts to discuss. However,the responsibility for the text rests with the team who worked on it.4

List of abbreviationsAreas of Special State ConcernCentral Bureau of StatisticsCroatian Employment ServiceDomestic violenceGender-based violenceGovernment Office for Human Rights of the Republic of CroatiaGovernment Office for Gender Equality of the Republic of CroatiaState AttorneyMinistry of Foreign Affairs and European IntegrationMinistry of Family, Veterans’ Affairs and Intergenerational SolidarityMinistry of Science, Education and SportMinistry of JusticeMinistry of Interior AffairsMinistry of FinanceMinistry of Health and Social WelfareSociety for Psychological AssistanceASSCCBSCESDVGBVGOHRGOGESAMoFAEIMoFVAISMoSESMoJMoIAMoFMoHSWSPA5

ContentsASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEGAL ANDPOLICY FRAMEWORK IN CROATIA [FINAL DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION] ...................... 8INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 81. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND MECHANISM FOR DEALING WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ................ 102. THE NATIONAL STRATEGY OF PROTECTION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FOR 2008-2010..................................................................................................................................................................... 13I. Education of Experts who Work in the Field of Protection from Domestic Violence......................................................................................................................................................................... 13II. Psychosocial Treatments of Perpetrators of Domestic Violence ................................. 15III. Analysis and Implementation of Laws in the Field of Protection from DomesticViolence ....................................................................................................................................................... 16IV. Shelters and Support for Victims of Domestic Violence ................................................. 18V. Improving the Status of Victims in the Proceedings in which They Participate .. 20VI. Sensitization of the Public with Respect to the Issue of Domestic Violence .......... 22OVERALL COMMENTS ON THE 2008-2010 NATIONAL STRATEGY ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ... 233. ANALYSIS OF GAPS IN LEGAL PROVISIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS ....................... 24Misdemeanor vs Criminal: .................................................................................................................. 24Free legal aid ............................................................................................................................................ 25Personally requested services ........................................................................................................... 25Procedures for reporting domestic violence .............................................................................. 26The Court and State Attorney ........................................................................................................... 26Police ............................................................................................................................................................ 27Centre for Social Welfare .................................................................................................................... 27Employment Office ................................................................................................................................. 28Shelters and counselling centres ..................................................................................................... 28Further complications for the victim: ........................................................................................... 29Inter-institutional cooperation and coordination: ................................................................. 31Prevention: ................................................................................................................................................. 32Geographical differences and lack of education and funding: .......................................... 324. PROVISION AND WORKINGS OF SHELTERS - COMPARISON BETWEEN SHELTERS RUN BY CITIESAND NGO RUN SHELTERS ....................................................................................................................... 341) GENERAL INFORMATION: .................................................................................................................. 342) FURTHER DETAILS: ............................................................................................................................. 36Problems with capacity and resources: ........................................................................................ 36Cooperation with the police: ............................................................................................................. 36Rules and Procedures: .......................................................................................................................... 37Overall conclusions: ............................................................................................................................... 375. PSYCHOSOCIAL TREATMENT OF PERPETRATORS .......................................................................... 39DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAMME: ..................................................................................................... 39FURTHER ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED: .................................................................................................... 41Women perpetrators: ........................................................................................................................... 41Lack of funds: ............................................................................................................................................ 41Conclusions: ............................................................................................................................................... 426. ANALYSIS AND OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH AND DATA ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN CROATIA 446.1 The National Level .......................................................................................................................... 446.2 Regional Differences ...................................................................................................................... 55INTERVIEWED PERSONS .......................................................................................................................... 62BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................................... 62LAWS & MECHANISMS ............................................................................................................................ 65WEBSITES .................................................................................................................................................. 666

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the DomesticViolence Legal and Policy Framework in Croatia [FinalDraft for Discussion]Introduction and BackgroundThe United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in partnership with the Ministry ofFamily, Veterans Affairs and Intergenerational Solidarity is in the process of researchingthe effectiveness and implementation of the legal and institutional mechanism ofprotection from domestic violence (DV). The Overview is part of a longer-term project thatworks to enhance the coordination of all actors responding to incidents of domesticviolence by ensuring that victims have access to all services needed to recover andreintegrate into society. The project also aims to establish that the necessary responseservices are available in all parts of the country (i.e. not just in urban centres), particularlyin impoverished and war-affected areas of special state concern. The Overview, thusexamines the implementation of measures set out in the National Strategy, the suitabilityand problems with implementation of the formal framework for dealing with DV, andanalyses and reviews the current data and empirical research available regarding DV in theRepublic of Croatia.In 2003 Croatia formally and comprehensively recognised DV as a societal problem andcreated a framework and mechanism for its prevention and suppression. This frameworkand mechanism, presented briefly in section 1, have formally developed over the course ofthe last seven years to match and comply with CEDAW definitions 1 and EU and UNstandards. Along with a Protocol on Cases of Domestic Violence, a National Strategy hadbeen formed to implement the framework and mechanism for dealing with domesticviolence for the 2005-2007 and 2008-2010 periods. The latter National Strategy isexamined in section 2 along with comments on its conceptualisation and implementation.As with any legislation, implementation problems, delayed effects and legal gaps are animportant concern. Thus, section 3 presents an analysis and an overview of UNDP findingswith respect to the effectiveness and implementation of the domestic violence mechanismand framework. In Croatia, responses to the societal problem of domestic violence, forwhich there was not an adequate legal framework, first came from the civil sector. Section4 analyses the provision and work of shelters through a comparison of several state andNGO-run shelters with particular attention to their capacity, funding, services andpractices. Section 5 provides an overview of psychosocial treatments of perpetrators inCroatia as well as its provision, curriculum and estimates of effectiveness in rehabilitatingoffenders of domestic violence (in terms of preliminary results of the success of theseprogrammes in helping perpetrators not re-offend). Section 6 contains an analysis and an1Croatia ratified CEDAW on the 9 th of September 1992 and it entered into force on the 9 th ofOctober 1992; Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).1979 – available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/ ; Zakon of potvrđivanjuFakultativnog protokola uz Konvenciju o uklanjanju svih oblika diskriminacije žena [Law onthe confirmation of the Optional Protocol for the Convention on the Elimination of All Formsof Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 3/01. 14/03;2005. Fakultativni protokol uz Konvenciju o uklanjanju svih oblika diskriminacije žena[Optional Protocol for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discriminationagainst Women (CEDAW) – available at www.ured-ravnopravnost.hr ;8

overview of research and data on domestic violence in Croatia on national and regionallevels.The Overview utilizes a mixed methodology including quantitative and qualitative dataanalyses, interviews with relevant actors and desk-reviews. In order for the content of thisOverview to be comprehensive, relevant and properly contextualised, it is framed by theregulation and policy environment of DV. Interviews were conducted in person or viatelephone with notes taken. In many cases interviews were audio recorded, after whichthey were transcribed. A number of people interviewed were subsequently telephoned fora follow-up to ensure reliability, comparability and completeness of information. BecauseEU integration is a major driver of reform in Croatia, EU accession requirements, expertrecommendations and examples of good practices were most often cross-referenced 2 aswell as that of the UN 3 . All six sections of the Overview hope to present a holistic anddetailed overview and analysis of the current framework and mechanism for protectionfrom and prevention of domestic violence in Croatia, highlighting successes and areas inneed of improvement alike, and possibly clarifying directions of future policy efforts andresearch.2 Kelly, Liz – The Council of Europe. 2008. Combating Violence Against Women: MinimumStandards for Support Services, p. 18; Council of Europe, Group of Specialists for CombatingViolence against Women. 1997. Final Report of Activities of the EG-S-VL including a Plan ofAction for Combating Violence against Women, Strasbourg; Blueprint of the Council of Europe2006 Campaign to Combat Violence against Women, including Domestic Violence, EG-TFV(2006) 8rev5, Strasbourg; EU European Parliament Resolution on Violence Against Women(1986) Doc. A2-44/86 Official Journal. C. 176; EU Conference on Violence Against Women,Cologne (1999) Expert Forums Recommendations; Standards and Recommendations of theConference of Experts on Police combating Violence against Women – Baden, December 1998,point 37.; and Recommendations of the EU-Expert Meeting on Violence Against Women –Jyväskylä (Finland) 8-10 November, 19993UN. 1979. Konvencija o uklanjanju svih oblika diskriminacije žena prihvaćena na općojskupštini UN-a [The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination againstWomen (CEDAW) adopted by the UN General Assembly]; UN. 1993. Deklaracija UN-a oeliminaciji nasilja nad ženama prihvaćena na općoj skupštini UN-a 20. prosinca 1993 [UNDeclaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women Accepted by the UN GeneralAssembly on the 20 th of December 1993].9

1. Legal Framework and Mechanism for Dealing with Domestic ViolenceThe Law on the Protection from Domestic Violence 4 adopted in 2003 forms the legalfoundation for protecting victims and their families from perpetrators of domestic violence(DV). The new Law on the Protection from Domestic Violence that was adopted in 2009,defined family more broadly to include former marital partners, those who live in acommon law marriage and same-sex unions. It has also increased financial and prisonpenalties for perpetrators. The Law has been amended in 2010, in order to make it morefunctional and make data gathering and reporting compulsory (and the lack thereofpunishable with a fine). Importantly, this amendment introduces the definition of economicviolence and gives it more severity. 5 In 2004, the State decided to address the issue of DVmore seriously by making DV a criminal act under Article 215.a in the Criminal Code, whichprescribes punishment of imprisonment up to 5 years, whereas under the Law on theProtection from DV it is a misdemeanour violation. 6Article 4 of the Law on the Protection from Domestic Violence defines DV in terms ofphysical (attack, force, coercion), psychological (causing feelings of fear and/orvulnerability, verbal assault) sexual acts or attempts, acts of illegal isolation (restrictingfreedom of movement or communication with third parties) as well as economic(damage/destruction of property or attempts to do so, restriction of economicactivities/paid work, limiting/banning use of personal/joint financial resources andproperty, forced economic dependency). Members of the family are defined under thesame law as man and wife in a marital or extramarital community, blood relatives, familycohabitants and their children, people who have children in common, adopter orguardian. 7According to the Law on the Protection from DV and rules of the Protocol in Cases ofDomestic Violence, anyone is allowed to report an instance or case of DV to the police,whilst public officials (social workers, nurses, doctors, psychologists and education staff)have an obligation by law to report any case within reasonable doubt. 8 By law allinstitutions involved in the process of dealing with DV have to act with urgency, which alsoentails the court reaching a decision in a shorter period than usual. 9 The police areobligated to immediately dispatch at least two police officers, preferably of different sex, tointervene to the reported location. Based on their insight into the situation encountered,the police are supposed to immediately undertake actions to protect and aid the victim ofDV and prevent the perpetrator from continuing their violent behaviour. After collectingthe relevant information and statements, the police are obligated to file charges againstthe perpetrator.The severity of the offence(s) determines whether the charge brought against theperpetrator is a misdemeanour or criminal act. The exact criteria for whether DV is treatedas a misdemeanour or a criminal act is not clear as Article 215.a only says that a “memberof the family who by violence, abuse or exceptionally insolent conduct puts anothermember of the family into a humiliating position shall be punished by imprisonment for4 2003. Zakon o zaštiti od nasilja u obitelji [Law on the Protection from Domestic Violence],Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 116/03.5 2010. Zakon o zaštiti od nasilja u obitelji [Law on the Protection from Domestic Violence],Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 137/09, 14/10.6 Članak 215a Kaznenog zakona Republike Hrvatske [Article 215a of the Criminal Code of theRepublic of Croatia], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 110/97, 27/98, 129/00, 51/01, 111/03,105/04 i 84/057 2010. Article 3, Zakon o zaštiti od nasilja u obitelji [Law on the Protection from DomesticViolence]8 Article 8, Ibid9 Article 5, Ibid10

three months to three years.” 10 In practice it relies on the severity and frequency of theinjuries/abuse perpetrated. It is also important to note that sometimes some types of DVas a misdemeanour offence such as threat, if frequent and severe, will not be chargedunder Article 215.a but under an article in the Criminal Code that relates to the particularabuse more directly, in this example Art. 129 Threat. The police decide under what basisto file charges. If the offence is treated as a misdemeanour then the possible sentencesrange from protective measures, such as compulsory psychosocial treatment, restrainingorder, confiscation of weapon and addiction rehabilitation, to fines (min./max. 5 000/10000kn), prison terms (min./max. 15/90 days) and others.The aforementioned protective measures/sentences are suggested to the judge with theintention of rehabilitating the offender and protecting the victim(s) from any further abuse.In order to ensure this, if seen as necessary, the perpetrator of the DV can be held incustody until sentencing has taken place and the sentence taken effect. The police officialsare obligated to immediately notify the victim if the judge does not rule in favour ofdetention/custody of the assumed perpetrator. If reasonable doubt exists that the DV hasinjured or distressed a child or a minor then specialised police officials are directly involvedin the workings to resolve the case.The victim of DV must be familiarised with their rights 11 and the further actions/proceduresthe police will take regarding the case. This particularly relates to actions that concern thevictim’s safety including ways in which the victim can ensure their own protection,addresses of relevant institutions and organisations and the possibilities of seeking refugein shelters for victims of DV. If the victim requests accommodation within a shelter or ahome for children and adult victims of DV, the administratively responsible Centre forSocial Welfare will be asked to undertake the necessary steps to immediatelyaccommodate the victim in the appropriate shelter. In case the Centre is unable to do sofor justified reasons, police officials will transport the victim to the shelter whilst keepingthe address of the shelter secret. If also accommodating victim(s) who are children orminors as a matter of urgency then a social worker will be called immediately to ensureproper care is taken of the children or minors. 12For purposes of inter-institutional coordination regarding cases of DV, the police areobligated to draft and send written notification to the Centre for Social Welfare regardingactions taken and evidence relating to the case in order to undertake the necessary socialinterventionmeasures or measures of legal family protection. To ensure interdepartmentalcooperation and protection of the special needs of children and minors, the work of thepolice on DV is overseen and coordinated by police officials specialised in children/minorsin conflict with law and legal protection of children and minors. In case the perpetrator ofDV is an addict, the Centre for Social Welfare must be immediately notified in order toexercise its legally specified powers in this matter.10 2000. Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Kaznenog Zakona [Act on Amendments to theCriminal Code], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 129/0011 2008. Zakon o kaznenom postupku [Law on Criminal Proceedings], Narodne Novine [OfficialGazette] 152/0812 This entails making sure its stay in the police station is as brief as possible, that the child isinterviewed separately from the possible perpetrator and all other parties involved, if theybelieve the child is in danger to immediately suggest to the courts a restraining order againstthe aggressor or other protective measures, supervise the implementation of these measuresat least twice a month, that a plan for accommodating the victim and child in a shelter is madewith the victim, that the best interest of the child is considered and that if needed the child isassigned a special guardian with respect to the violation procedures in question.Article 103 Family Law prescribes that children can be separated from parent only in caseswhen children stay without proper parental care (e.g. father is imprisoned, mother is inhospital) than Center for Social Welfare can nominate person or institution which will takecare of a child.11

The Centre for Social Welfare is obligated to inform the victim of their rights as well as theCentre’s competencies and further actions on the matter. The Centre should also constructa safety plan with the victim, mediate and help the victim to use her right to free legal aidand representation with the Croatian Bar Association, use her right to free medicalassistance or to direct her to the appropriate Counselling Centre, and, if with children orminors, help them get their children into nearby kindergartens or schools. In urgent cases,the Centre will give an oral decision regarding placement in institutionalcare/accommodation outside of the family and order post-haste implementation of theverdict to ensure the victim’s safety. 13 The Centre needs to notify the police of this verdictand its action(s) and suggest to the court the imposing of a measure that resolves thestatus of the underage child and provides immediate and temporary protection fromfurther abuse.To conclude, the introduction of the Law on the Protection from Domestic Violence in theRepublic of Croatia has formally recognised psychological, physical, sexual and economicforms of abuse as acts of domestic violence when perpetrated by and on members of afamily and instituted a mechanism for helping victims of DV and dealing with their abusers.It recognises DV as a societal and not merely private problem and, accordingly, includesduties of state employees to report observed cases of DV. The Protocol in Cases ofDomestic Violence outlines step-by-step obligations of relevant actors who are part of themechanism for DV prevention and suppression. Formally, the victim, once the case of DVhas been reported and if sufficient evidence is provided, is shielded from further abuse bythe relevant institutions and provided with the resources and options they need to escapethe violent situation, relationship and circumstances. To this end there exist medical,shelter, legal and livelihood provisions. Section 2 overviews how the National Strategy onDV for the 2008-2010 period planned to implement and advance these formal provisions,whilst section 3 outlines certain areas that require further improvement and attention.13 Written verdict is to follow within eight days of the oral verdict according to Article 93 and105 of the Law on Social Welfare.12

2. The National Strategy of Protection against Domestic Violence for2008-201014The National Strategy on Domestic Violence covers six wide areas that are seen asneeding attention to improve and implement the formal mechanism for prevention andsuppression of DV: education of experts who work in the field of protection from DV,psychosocial treatments of perpetrators of DV, analysis and implementation of laws in thefield of protection from DV, shelters and support to victims of DV, improving the status ofthe victims in the proceedings in which they participate and sensitization of the public withrespect to the issue of DV. It is important to note that in the following overview of the2008-2010 National Strategy of Protection against Domestic Violence only activities thathad the deadline of 2009 were commented on using primarily, although not solely, the2009 report on the implementation of the 2008-2010 National Strategy in 2008 and 2009 15and the 2009 report on the workings of the Office of the Ombudsperson for GenderEquality in 2008. 16I. Education of Experts who Work in the Field of Protection fromDomestic ViolenceThe education of experts and personnel who work in the field of protection from DV is anessential part of operationalising the legal framework and mechanism in place for dealingwith the issue of DV. The legal framework in place cannot be properly implementedwithout relevant actors being aware of the protocol for dealing with DV and theirrespective powers and the rights of and options available to victims and perpetratorsinvolved in DV. Thus, education of staff involved in prevention of and protection from DVcan also be seen as a necessary form of capacity building. Until the year 2005, 2500people from ministries (Ministry of Internal Affairs (MoIA) – 603), legal institutions (Courtsand State Attorney (SA) – 360), public institutions (schools – 1021, Social Welfare – 326,Health - 100) and NGOs (staff and volunteers – number not specified) participated ineducational activities. In 2007 the police academy and the judicial academy have joinedthe education scheme. The initial report in the 2008-2010 National Strategy also notedthat the education programs done till 2008 only satisfied a portion of the needs ofpersonnel in particular institutions, highlighting that certain areas of the Republic ofCroatia such as Varaždin, Split-Dalmatia, Osijek-Baranja, Sisak-Moslavina, Meñimurje andPožega-Slavonija counties were not included in this education programme.In order to rectify the lacking education of experts working within the field of DV the 2008-2010 National Strategy proposed to intensify the education programme and educateanother 3640 people who work in the field of prevention and protection from DV in the2008-2010 period. The focus was on achieving a ‘critical mass’ and hence education wasdistributed across police, health, legal and social service sectors including psychosocialexperts. Nevertheless, it is important to note that it was unspecified how the exact figuresand reasons how the figure of an additional 3640 educated personnel (making it a total of14 MOBMS [Ministry of Family, Veterans' Affairs and Intergenerational Solidarity]. 2007.Nacionalna strategija zaštite od nasilja u obitelji za razdoblje 2008.-2010. [National Strategy ofProtection against Domestic Violence for the 2008-2010 Period], Narodne Novine [OfficialGazette] 126/0715 MOBMS [Ministry of Family, Veterans’ Affairs and Intergenerational Solidarity]. 2009.Izvješće of provedbi nacionalne strategije zaštite od nasilja u obitelji za razdoblje 2008.-2010.tijekom 2008. godine [Report on the Implementation of the National Strategy of Protectionagainst Domestic Violence for the 2008-2010 Period during 2008]; and MOBMS [Ministry ofFamily, Veterans’ Affairs and Intergenerational Solidarity]. 2010. Izvješće of provedbinacionalne strategije zaštite od nasilja u obitelji za razdoblje 2008.-2010. tijekom 2009.godine [Report on the Implementation of the National Strategy of Protection against DomesticViolence for the 2008-2010 Period during 2009]16 Pravobraniteljica za ravnopravnost spolova [Ombudsman for Gender Equality]. 2009.Izvještaj o radu za 2008. godinu [Work Report for 2008]13

approximately 6100) achieves a ‘critical mass’ in the field of protection from DV wasarrived at. However, the initial analysis mentioned that outcomes of the programme haverarely been evaluated or analysed and that there is also no formal verification orstandardization of the programme content. It was highlighted that correcting this wouldenable the trainees to receive official certificates of participation in the educationprogramme, a move that was expected to increase the motivation for attending thecourses.According to the measure 1.2 of implementing education of experts working within thefield of protection from DV, systematic education of employees of state bodies, publicinstitutions and NGOs involved with the problem of DV, meetings, conferences,roundtables, work meetings, workshops and education programmes were organised andattended by employees of various state bodies. In the 2008 report, the Ministry of InteriorAffairs (MoIA) was the only body that gave precise numbers of people who attended thesecourses and programmes (486) and implemented a clear curriculum for all newemployees. It also highlighted a MATRA project that, in collaboration with the Society forPsychological Assistance (SPA), plans to educate approximately 540 DV related actors infourteen counties during 2010. 17This success could be further built on in the future with the inclusion of the 7 countieswhich were not covered, including Vukovar-Srijem, Sisak-Moslavina, Osijek-Baranja,Virovitica-Podravina and Varaždin, all of which have significant shares in the overallproblem of DV (see section 6.2). Due to financial constraints and the economic downturn,the 5-day format of the seminars has been shortened to 4 days to cut down on cost. Manypeople who are willing to attend or wish to fully participate are unable to do so due to theproblem of covering their travel and accommodation costs, which were not provided bythe programme. As a result, many people cannot participate and many do not get the fullbenefit of networking and developing inter-institutional cooperation. The reason is that theonly one way they can attend the seminars is to travel to the seminars every day and thenback at the end of the day to sleep at home. 18 The number, quality and curriculum ofcourses/programmes as well as the number of attendees educated by participating wasinconclusive from the reports of other state bodies (Ministry of Science, Education andSport (MoSES), SA, MoFVAIS), a future challenge which could aid the provision and thecost-effectiveness of the education of relevant DV actors.With regards to measure 1.2 above and 1.1, drafting joint, specific and optimal contentand method for the programmes of education for state employees, it is unclear from the2008 report whether a systematic joint programme was implemented by the end of 2008.However, a systemic joint programme for the 2009-2011 period exists in the form of theaforementioned MATRA SPA programme. The MoIA also reported on the inclusion of DV intheir foundation and higher police vocational programmes. Other institutions such as theMoSES and the SA only stated that they have been systematically educating theiremployees. It is difficult to conclude whether a system of quality control and outcomeevaluation of vocational training programmes with respect to protection from DV has beendeveloped. A challenge that would build on existing achievements would be theinstitutionalisation of a standardised education programme and curriculum similar to thatcurrently being implemented under the MATRA project. Even though the Ministry ofFinance (MoF) reported that a special item has not been provided in budget for advancingprotection from DV, the MoSES, the MoFVAIS, the Government Office for Gender Equality(GOGE) and Government Office for Human Rights (GOHR) secured funds for activities17 Counties included are: Krapina-Zagorje, Bjelovar-Bilogora, Koprivnica-Križevci, Požega-Slavonia, Slavonski Brod-Posavina, Lika-Senj, Istria, Primorje-Gorski Kotar, Šibenik-Knin,Zadar, Split-Dalmatia, Dubrovnik, Zagreb and city of Zagreb counties - Interview with DraganJusupović from Society for Psychological Assistance (SPA) 01.04.2010.18 Interview with Dragan Jusupović from SPA 01.04.2010.14

elating to protection from DV for 2008 (measure 1.3). Hence, what remains is for existingeducation efforts to be sustained in order to ensure long-term success.II. Psychosocial Treatments of Perpetrators of DomesticViolenceThe initial analysis emphasizes that the past ten years in the EU and North America haveshown that psychosocial treatments of perpetrators of DV has had 60-80% success rate inpreventing repeat offending of the same crime within a two to five year period followingtermination of the treatment and that its cost is three to four times lower than that of a30-day prison sentence. It is also worth emphasizing that even before 2007 the Ministry ofJustice (MoJ) had already published Standards for the Implementation of PsychosocialTreatment 19 and the Public Call for Applications for Permission to Implement PsychosocialTreatment of Perpetrators of Domestic Violence Outside of Health Facilities 20 . Threemeasures were drafted in order to improve the implementation, capacity and success ofpsychosocial treatments of perpetrators of DV: measure 2.1, establishing plans forexpansion of network of institutions and experts to conduct psychosocial treatment,measure 2.2, ensuring finances for conducting psychosocial treatment, and measure 2.3,equipping experts to conduct the psychosocial treatment.The criteria and dynamics of the development of the network of planned institutions andauthorized experts for conducting psychosocial treatment were created in due time as wellas list of institutions and experts to partake in this network (measure 2.1, indicators 2 and3). A three-phase plan has been created where, firstly, treatment centres were establishedin the biggest 14 cities and county centres, secondly, in all county centres and in 13additional cities, and, thirdly, in another 20 locations. Thirty one experts have beenlicensed to conduct psychosocial treatments outside of health institutions. It has beensuggested that the lack of financial means has rendered all cities other than Zadar,Dubrovnik, Rijeka, Zagreb, Split and ðakovo without trained experts to conduct thepsychosocial treatments. 21 The Society for Psychological Assistance (SPA) noted in the2008 report of the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality that in 2008 also 61 experts from allof Croatia were educated, 15% (57 000kn) of which was paid for by MoFVAIS, making thetotal number 67, that is, 48% of the 140 expert total capacity approximated by the 2008-2010 National Strategy to be needed. It was estimated by SPA that an additional 60 needto be educated to provide sufficient capacity and plan for achieving this is alreadyunderway. 22 These achievements would be more visible if it was explicitly stated whetherthis planned network is sufficient to provide treatment to the planned 2500 perpetrators ofDV 23 (indicator 6), what the needs for treatment and the dynamic capacity of existingimplementation of treatments are (indicator 1), how many experts are needed to providethe requisite level of treatment (indicator 4) or what the total number of experts forconducting psychosocial treatment is.19 Standardi za provedbu psihosocijalnog tretmana [Standards for the Implementation ofPsychosocial Treatment], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 28/0620 Javni poziv za podnošenje zahtjeva za odobrenje za provođenje psihosocijalnog tretmanapočinitelja nasilja u obitelji izvan zdravstvenih ustanova [Public Call for Applications forPermission to Implement Psychosocial Treatment of Perpetrators of Domestic ViolenceOutside of Health Facilities], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 59/0721 Vesna Kesic: CROATIA CASE STUDY: Gender Dimension of Violence, with the focus on theprevention of DV programming through inclusion of boys and men (2010)22 Pravobraniteljica za ravnopravnost spolova [Ombudsman for Gender Equality]. 2009.Izvještaj o radu za 2008. godinu [Work Report for 2008], pp. 98-99; Interview with DraganJusupović from SPA 01.04.2010.23 This number constitutes 54% of total number of court ruling of psychosocial treatment injust 2008 but is 20% more than total psychosocial treatment decisions in 2001-6 period onthe basis of which this number was constructed.15

Finances have been successfully ensured for seven authorised psychosocial experts(measure 2.2) and the number of treated perpetrators in 2008-2010 period was estimatedto 2500 (indicator 2). Future challenges for the psychosocial treatment provision are toprovide systematic monitoring and evaluation of the scheme (indicator 3, 4 and 5) oncethe scheme is old enough to get reliable results.The funding for the training of experts authorized to conduct psychosocial treatments(measure 2.3) has ensured the training of 19 experts from the Centres of Social Welfare in2008 and 30 experts in 2009 by the SPA as well as the organisation of roundtablediscussions, public lectures, radio and TV shows in order to acquaint the public with theconducting of psychosocial treatments of perpetrators, spending a total of 69 194 kuna in2008 and a 199 000 kuna in 2009. Funds have also been secured for continued trainingand education of experts. Whether the funding provided is enough to achieve the desiredgoal of a 140 authorised and trained psychosocial experts is unclear from the report. Theaforementioned successes could be expanded upon in the future by assessments of qualityand effectiveness of the training performed.III. Analysis and Implementation of Laws in the Field ofProtection from Domestic ViolenceNoting the Protocol in Cases of Family Violence and the legal framework already in place,the focus of this section was to improve the status of the victim and the effectiveness ofrehabilitating perpetrators of DV. Even though a working group for the analysis of the legalframework of the Republic of Croatia in the field of protection from DV (measure 3.1) hasnot been formed, a separate workgroup that has been assembled to prepare a draftproposal of the Criminal Code will also discuss issues relating to DV.Furthermore, an analysis of the compliance of the existing Croatian legislation with thefundamental international documents relating to the eradication of DV has been carriedout (measure 3.2) and a report has been produced. The visibility and dissemination of thereport’s findings could benefit from it being published online (indicator 4). The reportregarding the prevalence, causes, forms and recidivism of DV is in its first phase (measure3.3). The existing legislative-making efforts related to DV would have been very wellcomplemented by the use of the aforementioned research projects and findings (measure3.4).As already mentioned in section 1 of this report, a 2009 Law on Protection from DomesticViolence has made data gathering and reporting compulsory (and the lack thereofpunishable with a fine) and defined economic violence widely, in greater detail and togiving it greater severity (measure 3.5). Working groups were founded consisting ofrepresentatives of all relevant ministries and departments, and included representatives ofthe civil sector. The success of this measure could be enhanced with greater clarity suchas specifying which or what kind of amendments the National Strategy would hope to beincluded in the new law.The MoJ is in the process of amending the Criminal Code (measure 3.6). The MoIA hasreported that it has delivered its suggested Criminal Code amendments to the MoJ. It isunclear whether other relevant institutions have done so (indicator 1), whetherrepresentatives of NGOs have been consulted and whether a public discussion has beenconducted (indicator 2).The MoJ as chief coordinator of measure 3.7 has successfully adopted an amended Law onCriminal Proceedings 24 that includes special provisions for victims and injured parties in24 Zakon o kaznenom postupku [Law on Criminal Proceedings], Narodne Novine [OfficialGazette] 110/97, 112/99, 58/02, 62/03, 115/06, 152/0816

accordance with international practice. 25 The amendments to the Misdemeanor Law or theLaw on Juvenile Courts relating to the protection of DV victims (measure 3.8 and 3.9respectively) have not yet been finalised, although a workgroup for the amendments tothe Misdemeanor Law has been formed. The drafting of an amendment to the Law onPolice has been successfully initialised (part of measure 3.10). 26 The MoJ submitted itssuggestions for the amendment of the said Law to the MoIA who successfully amendedand adopted it in July 2009. The new Law includes the requirement of the police tocooperate with organisations, bodies, NGOs, communities and neighbourhoods in order tocreate partnerships for preventing and detecting unlawful behaviour and its perpetrator. Italso includes a duty for special consideration when dealing with underage, old or disabledpersons as well as victims of crimes and misdemeanours. The suggestion to include in theamendment the distancing of perpetrators from the house, apartment or any otherhousing facility for the purposes of protecting the victims of violence or other crimes andmisdemeanours was not accepted by the MoIA. The existing efforts can be built on by thedrafting and adoption of the Protocol of Police Proceedings (indicator 4 and 5). Theimplementation of a public discussion regarding the amendments to the Law on Police andcontent of the Protocol on Police Proceedings (indicator 2) could both enhance the qualityof the content as well as build awareness and inter-institutional and inter-sectoralcooperation.The Law on Free Legal Aid was drafted and adopted ahead of schedule in 2008 (measure3.11) and includes aid in all court proceedings, administrative bodies and other legalpersons with public powers, especially for victims of DV, as well as a resolution ofexistential matters. 27 Legal aid in cross-border disputes has been drafted but will not beput in place until Croatia’s accession into the EU. A newer version of the said Law is beingalso drafted by the MoJ. The Law on Financial Compensation of Damage of the Victims ofViolent Crimes has been drafted and adopted in accordance with the European Conventionon the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes (measure 3.12) and will come into forcefollowing Croatia’s EU accession. 28 The drafting of a Law on Reconciliation in accordancewith Recommendation R (81)1 regarding the procedure of reconciliation within the familyis still in its inception phase (measure 3.13).Measure 3.14, the creation of a system of management of statistical data on DV and interinstitutionalexchange of relevant data, is currently successfully being implemented.Several government bodies such as the MoIA, MoSES, the SA and Ministry of Health andSocial Welfare (MoHSW) have all started to collect statistical data relevant to DV such asdemographics of perpetrators and victims, number and demographics of people usingshelters, the length of their stay and the reason for the leaving, cases of violence betweenyoung people in schools. The gathering of the aforementioned statistical data often differsbetween reporting bodies and organisations, as can be seen from the reports included insection 4 regarding shelters where the information provided by the shelters variesconsiderably between them. However, attempts are being made to standardise datagathering more and to create a joint database where institutions can exchange informationrelevant to DV for the purposes of a more unified and holistic approach to dealing with theproblem of DV.25 The amendments include special duties of bodies involved in criminal proceedings withrespect to their treatment of the victim, special protection of the victim similar to that of anendangered witness, duty of informing the victim of their rights, special rights of child victimsof criminal offences, restriction of the number of questionings in order to prevent secondaryvictimization and a partial acceptance of ensuring victims with ability to testify via video andaudio link.26 Zakon o policiji [The Law on the Police], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 76/0927 Zakon o besplatnoj pravnoj pomoći [Law on Free Legal Aid], Narodne Novine [OfficialGazette] 62/0828 Zakon o naknadi štete žrtvama kaznenih djela nasilja [The Law on Financial Compensationof Damage of the Victims of Violent Crimes], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 80/0817

The implementation of the legal mechanism of prevention and dealing with DV is beingmonitored (measure 3.15) by gathering yearly reports from many relevant actors such asthe MoIA, the MoSES, the social services, the shelters and SA. The standardised forms forreporting on the implementation of the protocol have been successfully drafted (indicator1) and published online (indicator 2) on the MoFVAIS website for each particularprofession involved in the prevention and protection from DV (measure 3.17). Forms thatwill include information whether an injury has been sustained through DV or not are alsoin the process of being implemented in the Croatian Registry of Health Insurance. Yetcertain challenges remain, since some statistical data that could improve the effectivenessof the mechanism for prevention and suppression of DV is not being collected or puttogether from different institutions. For example, it would be useful to know what happensto victims of DV once they leave the shelter or once the court has reached a verdict, howlong on average it takes for a case of DV to get fully resolved, how wellinformed/educated are any of the key actors involved in the process of dealing with DV orhow effective prevention (via psychosocial treatments and various education programmes)is. Existing achievements could also be enhanced with the establishment of a database ofperpetrators of criminal offences of sexual exploitation and abuse of children in accordancewith the European Council recommendation (measure 3.16).IV. Shelters and Support for Victims of Domestic ViolenceThe priority of this section is to improve the status of the victims of DV, in particular,housing, financial and material aid, employment, healthcare, free legal aid and taking careof the victim’s children.An overview of legal and sublegal acts relevant to the housing problem of victims of DV(measure 4.1) was not produced on time in 2008 by the Ministry of Regional Development,Forestry and Water Management and it remained as one of the challenges for 2009. In2009, however, the Ministry of Regional Development, Forestry and Water Managementreported that it only deals with the housing problem of people living within Areas ofSpecial State Concern (ASSC) who do not have alternative inhabitable housing inaccordance with the Law on Areas of Special State Concern. 29 It also highlighted that thisLaw does not take into account the issue of DV and that hence they do not have anystatistical data regarding how many victims of DV were provided with housing using thisLaw. The Ministry’s report does not mention whether any other law or legal act enablesvictims of DV outside of ASSC to be provided with alternative housing. Nevertheless,activities to ensure systematic and permanent satisfaction of accommodation for DVvictims, and legal and institutional protection of victims of DV (measure 4.2) have beenundertaken. The MoFVAIS and the MoSES have made an overview of financial outgoingsfor the fulfilment of needs of victims of DV in 2008, which constitutes a part of indicator 1.The funding scheme currently in place that presumes 30% funding from the nationalbudget, 30% funding from county level, 30% from the city and 10% from other sourcescan be said to be part of a systematic plan of funding for the future (indicator 2), providedit remains in place (hereinafter 30/30/30/10). The implementation success of this measurecould be further enhanced by a more institutionally widespread and detailed account ofsources of funding at every level for dealing with DV and the legal basis for this (secondpart of indicator 1) and an evaluation of the suggestions and changes made in order toensure this (indicator 3). A total of 6.218.973,84 kuna was spent on this measure byMoFVAIS and MoSES in 2008 and 2009. Preliminary research regarding the level of fundingneeded to provide the requisite amount of help to victims of DV would add clarity andprecision to the measure and remains a possible challenge for the future.The MoFVAIS asked all of the shelters in Croatia to deliver a report on their workings. Theanalysis highlights that there were 16 shelters active in Croatia at the beginning of 2008,29 Zakon o područjima posebne državne skrbi [Law on Areas of Special State Concern],Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 86/0818

ut the shelter MIRTa in the Split-Dalmatia County closed in the second half of 2008 dueto financial difficulties. MIRTa has since re-opened at the beginning of 2010. The totalshelter capacity in Croatia in 2008 was estimated at 329 users and shelters existed in 12out of 21 counties. The efforts to ensure shelter accessibility are visible from the datawhich show that in 2009 there were 17 shelters in 14 counties, and in 2010, 18 shelters in15 counties. The detailed reports from the shelters might be enriched by an inclusion of anoverall summary of problems encountered by shelters, that is, the adequacy of theircapacity and services or their financial needs.The MoHSW produced an overview of legal and sublegal acts relevant to obtaining andusing healthcare (measure 4.4) and concluded that victims of DV are not a specialcategory that would be entitled to getting state provided supplementary health insurance.Thus it would seem that victims’ of DV special needs are not being specifically catered toor that they are considered as not needing special provisions and thus do not requirebeing formally assigned a status of a group requiring free supplementary healthcare dueto their exceptional circumstances. Future challenges for this measure include anestimation of the number of victims of DV using existing healthcare provisions (indicator 3)and perhaps preliminary research regarding problems victims of DV may encounter withaccessing basic and supplementary healthcare or why they might particularly need it. Suchactivities could aid the effectiveness of the allocation of funds to tackle the difficultiesexperienced by DV victims and enable greater precision in setting future goals.The employment of victims of DV was programmed and planned, and as a result six ofthem were employed in 2008 under the special provisions and incentives scheme of theEmployment Service (HZZ) (measure 4.5). Funds were also given to NGOs for employmentprogrammes aimed at employing victims of DV that educated women and resulted inanother 10 women being employed during the programme. During 2009, 22 registeredunemployed persons identified themselves to the employment service as DV victims. Twoof them were included into educational activities organised by CES, 2 were engaged in apublic works programme and 11 were employed.In order to enhance employment prospects and the effectiveness of the scheme ofemploying victims of DV, the Employment Service in all of its regional (22) and localcentres (95), and to all of its partners and employers presented the special incentivesscheme as part of its Yearly Plan of Aiding Employment for 2008. In addition to this, 50000 different informative materials were printed and distributed and special 17 519 visitsto employers were made in order to present the Employment Service’s schemes (measure4.6). Similar activities directed towards employers were carried out in 2010: 345 000different informative materials were printed and distributed, while measures supportingemployment of women victims of DV were introduced at all public events that CESparticipated in. The effectiveness of the scheme might benefit from systematic monitoringand evaluation of the satisfaction of participants and employers with the employmentachieved through the scheme. The success of this measure could in the future beenhanced by indicators with specific targets such as the exact number of DV victims thatshould be employed by the scheme.In 2009, CES engaged into an initiative facilitated by the Centre for Social Welfare inVukovar, where they established collaboration with a shelter to train women while they arein the shelter regarding effective approaches to job searching and self-presentation atinterviews. It seems that this initiative established a model for partnership that might bereplicated in other places. Several initiatives aiming to raise the employability of womenshelter users were carried out in Osijek- Baranja and Meñimurje counties.Measures 4.7 (planning and provision of additional schooling for victims of DV) and 4.8(inclusion of children victims of DV in kindergartens and school) are meant to help victimsof DV re-integrate into society and escape DV more easily by helping them enrol theirchildren into the education system. No special conditions or funds were used for19

supplementary education of victims of DV or for their children’s inclusion intokindergartens and all levels of schooling. Whilst there may not seem to be a need for this,in practice victims of DV who are accommodated in a shelter not in their area of registeredresidence might experience difficulties in getting their children into local schools. Also, DVvictims often have financial difficulties, partially or fully stemming from the abuse theyhave experienced. As a result, DV victims are unlikely to be able to afford sending theirchildren to kindergartens without financial aid (measure 4.8, indicator 3), which may inturn become a barrier to employment. It has, however, been pointed out that educationalinstitutions in cases of children who experienced DV coordinate with the social services tofind the best possible solutions for each case (measure 4.8, indicator 4).Throughout 2008 the MoFVAIS funded 33 and the GOHR funded 5 domestic-violencerelatedNGO projects (measure 4.9) spending in total close to 3 million kuna. In 2009, theMoFVAIS, MoHSW and GOHR funded 11 projects and several organisations aimed atdealing with and combating DV with a total of 1.822.984,00 kuna. Measures 4.10 and 4.11were partially implemented as user and service capacity expansion as well as the runningof existing shelters and counselling centres was financially backed (indicator 10.2 and11.2) with a 600kn increase in subsidies per user of the shelters 2008. 30 In addition to this,in 2009 MoHSW made a contract with 9 legal entities who deal with child and adult victimsof DV, 2 of which were new to the field. This resulted in an increase in shelter capacity of19 places compared to 2008. A future challenge is to build on these successes byestablishing new shelters and counselling centres, particularly in the 9 counties thatremain without shelter provision (indicator 10.1 and 11.1).In 2009, MoFVAIS funded five NGO’s who are supporting victims of domestic violence andentered into contractual relationship with 4 cities and three counties in order to ensurefunding for shelters. This was based on the 30/30/30/10 funding scheme for NGO sheltersmentioned above. MoFVAIS has spent 1.635.030,01 HRK for this purpose in 2009.Ministry of Health and Social Welfare has funded nine NGO projects dealing withprevention and response to domestic violence, as well as five one off support payments.Total amount devoted to dealing with domestic violence through NGO initiatives, withinthis MoHSW was 1.432.984,00 kuna. GoHR has funded five initiatives in the amount of160.000,00 HRKV. Improving the Status of Victims in the Proceedings in whichThey ParticipateNoting the relevant conventions, declarations and recommendations on this matter fromthe international sphere, the National Strategy highlights certain areas for improvement inthe status of victims in the legal processes they take part in. In particular, the lack ofregulation on state compensation of victims of DV, absence of sufficient mechanismspreventing secondary victimization, providing adequate protection for victims and theirprivacy, sufficient education of official persons who come into contact with victims of DV,and adequate provision of free legal aid were mentioned. Certain types of help available tovictims of DV in the form of social work services, and state and NGO counselling centreswere noted. Still, no organized or systematic help for victims in general was said to exist in2007. The elimination of all of the aforementioned obstacles was included in the generalgoals of this section.Several steps were undertaken by the state in order to ensure that the goals of thissection may be achieved. The GOHR in cooperation with the Female Room – Centre forsexual rights from Zagreb has begun the initial phases of the research entitled “RightsProtection and Support Provision to Victims/Witnesses of Domestic Violence”, which is30 However, not all users of shelters are subsidised.20

intended to provide a sensible and rational basis for the formation of a policy on thoseissues (measure 5.1). 31 The GOHR was assigned the role of main implementing actor incharge of drafting policies that offer support to victims/witnesses of DV and monitor theimplementation of policies relating to protection of rights of victims of DV (measure 5.2).However, its jurisdiction, powers and scope have not been clearly defined in the report(indicator 2). Two new laws were drafted and adopted: the Law on Criminal Proceedings,which contains provisions for protecting the rights of victims, and the Law on Courts,which prescribes the founding of a Department for Victim and Witness Support in CourtProceedings within county courts. 32 The GOHR also participated in the amendment anddrafting of the Law on Free Legal Aid, Law on Criminal Proceedings, Criminal Code and theLaw on the Suppression of Discrimination. 33 The MoIA performed an analysis of the legalframeworks of European countries and gathered information on good practice of dealingwith DV.Protection of victims of criminal offences in general and of DV has been included in thedrafting of new laws, the details of which were discussed in measures 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9,3.10, 3.11 and 3.12 above (measure 5.4). The MoJ has enhanced their protection furtherwith the inclusion of the legal obligation for penitentiaries and prisons to inform theprobation office of the release of an inmate who committed crimes of a sexual or violentnature so that it may in turn inform the victims and their families. This obligation enteredinto law through the Law on the Amendment of the Law of Serving a Prison Sentence. 34The Protocol in Cases of Domestic Violence already sets out guidelines for all the relevantactors on how to prevent secondary victimization of the victim of DV and ensure theprovision of the support they need (measure 5.5). In addition, a Sector for Witness andVictim Support has been founded within the Directorate for Probation and Victim andWitness Support. The Sector consists of two departments, that is, the Department for theDevelopment and Coordination of the Systems of Victim and Witness Support, and theDepartment for the Organisation of Victim and Witness Support. The latter departmenttook part in a joint UNDP and MoJ project entitled “Assistance to the Development of aVictim and Witness Support System in Croatia” which amongst other things foundedDepartments for the Organisation and Provision of Victim and Witness Support at Zagreb,Osijek, Vukovar and Zadar County Courts. This is complemented by the education of frontline DV staff and the MoIA Protocol in Cases of Domestic Violence. The SA reported thatthey request for cases of violence an urgent court procedure and that they insist onnecessary safety measures and protection of victims/witnesses from secondaryvictimization. It remains unclear what the MoHSW and relevant NGOs do to this effect.Even though the deadline for its full implementation is 2010, the provision of free,available-to-all help for victims of DV provided by specialised institutions, organizationsand services such as counselling, medical and forensic help, post-traumatic psychologicaland social help, and protection of security (measure 5.7) can be said to have already been31 It is worth noting that the implementation deadline by which the report was meant to befinished and published was 2009.32 And in some cases is used by courts of other levels e.g. the municipal and misdemeanourcourts in Vukovar; Zakon o sudovima [Law on Courts], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette]113/0833 Zakon o besplatnoj pravnoj pomoći [Law on Free Legal Aid], Narodne Novine [OfficialGazette] 62/08; Zakon o kaznenom postupku [Law on Criminal Proceedings], Narodne Novine[Official Gazette] 110/97, 112/99, 58/02, 62/03, 115/06, 152/08; Zakon u suzbijanjudiskriminacija [Law on the Suppression of Discrimination], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette]85/0834 Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o izvršavanju kazne zatvora [The Law on theAmendment of the Law of Serving a Prison Sentence], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 83/0921

achieved to an extent. 35 Also the Protocol in Cases of Domestic Violence mentioned in theoverview of the mechanism of dealing with DV (section 1) specifies certain legal provisionsand precautions taken to ensure the safety of the victim in such situations.Progress had begun ahead of schedule on two measures in this section. Even thoughmeasure 5.9 was due to be implemented in 2009 and 2010, a plan had already been madefor equipping 49 rooms in all main police stations with furniture and equipment adequatefor children and minors, and 20 of those (one in each main police station) have begun tobe furnished in 2009 and financial resources to carry this out have been secured (441000kn) (indicator 2). It is unclear from the report whether plans for separate waitingrooms for victims and perpetrators exist (indicator 1 and 3).A separate and printed guide book on how to handle victims/witnesses of DV, ways ofthem being questioned and ways of avoiding secondary victimization (measure 5.10) hasnot been created. Instead the MoJ has placed a link to the web pages of the Offices ofVictim and Witness Support which contain information regarding these matters. Measure5.11, the organisation of further education of all relevant actors on the issue and tacklingof DV, was being undertaken as specified in section 1, measures 1.1 and 1.2. What hasnot been noted previously is that the MoIA, within the framework of the EU CARDS 2004programme “Women’s Shelter and Counselling Centre – providing and strengtheningservices and support for women and the children survivors of DV”, has founded theCoordination for Monitoring and Improvement of Protection from Domestic Violence in theArea of Zagreb. The Coordination consists of expert representatives from all of theinstitutions (health, social services, education, police, judicial, SA and NGOrepresentatives) who meet quarterly to analyse and discuss problems and solutions to theproblem of DV. Based on this they themselves attempt to implement some of the solutionsagreed as well as make joint recommendations to the government on how to improve theeffectiveness of the overall system of prevention and protection from DV. In addition, theSociety for Psychological Assistance (SPA) through the MATRA programme implements theeducation curriculum of civil servants involved in the DV mechanism and has prepared amanual with UNDP on procedures in cases of DV in which measures as well as proceduresare specified for all relevant institutions/actors working on cases of DV. In 2009, the MoJorganised two-day workshops on the topic of “Suppression of Domestic Violence – theLegal Context” in which judges and attorneys from all levels participated. Employees of theMoIA and MoHSW took part in numerous seminars, roundtables and discussions on thetopic of tackling DV.It is important to note that the measures in this section that have an implementation datelater than 2009 included the following: creating a program and drafting the measures thatneed undertaking in order to minimise the negative consequences of DV and providevictims with support and rehabilitation into society (measure 5.6); link into a networkdifferent state services and NGOs that are involved in the mechanism for dealing with DVand ensure their coordinated working (measure 5.8).VI. Sensitization of the Public with Respect to the Issue ofDomestic ViolenceThe bad practices of the media when dealing with issues of DV (publishing pictures of thevictims of DV, sensationalist headlines etc) that can lead to additional stigmatization andsecondary victimization, and the need to educate and sensitize the public to the complexissues surrounding DV were noted by the National Strategy. Good journalist practice hadalready been promoted with the Manual with Guidelines for Media Reporting on DomesticViolence published by the Ministry of Family, Veterans’ Affairs and Intergenerational35 As specified in the comments above in measures 5.2 on legal basis of protection of victimsof DV, 4.4 on the health status of victims of DV and 4.9 on the funding given to projectsproviding some of the aforementioned services to victims of DV.22

Solidarity. It contained the legal stipulations relating to media reporting as well asexamples of good and bad practices. The goals of this section of the strategy were thus toimprove the quality and sensitivity of media reporting on DV, and to sensitize, educate andraise the awareness of the public on this issue.Measure 6.1 required organising and holding expert lectures, round tables and seminarsfor media employees to inform them of the possibilities of reporting on DV. However, theCroatian Journalist Association as the main implementing actor of this measure failed todeliver a report on their implementing activities.The MoFVAIS created a directory of all of the institutions and organisations that providehelp and assistance, support and protection to victims of DV in 2008, printed it in 10 000copies and distributed it to all of the relevant bodies, institutions and organisations(measure 6.2). International days relating to the advancement of human rights and thestatus of victims of DV (measure 6.3) were regularly commemorated in order to sensitizethe public and raise awareness. These included International Women’s Day, InternationalFamily Day, National Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and InternationalDay for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Events, conferences and round tablediscussions were held, spending a total of 443 825kn. In addition to this, 10 000 copies ofthe National Strategy for 2008-2010 and 10 000 copies of the Protocol in Cases ofDomestic Violence were printed and distributed to the relevant institutions and bodies inorder to enhance the availability of information regarding the mechanism of preventionand protection from DV (measure 6.4).Overall Comments on the 2008-2010 National Strategy on DomesticViolenceThe National Strategy covers a wide scope of areas and issues necessary for an efficientand holistic framework and mechanism for prevention and protection from DV. It includesa comprehensive list of measures aimed at tackling the problem of DV before it evenoccurs (prevention) and up until a victim is recovered and free from the cycle of DV withthe perpetrator punished and rehabilitated. The National Strategy also devotes significantattention not just to the creation of a European-standard formal mechanism of dealingwith the problem of DV but also to the implementation of it in practice through education,capacity building, efficiency, and monitoring and evaluation.The National Strategy could build on its existing success with the inclusion orintensification of several areas of activity. Greater focus could be put on preventionstrategies such as active involvement of male population in initiatives to prevent DV andgender based violence in general through their direct participation in education, awarenessraising and psychosocial treatment, and through preventive education of the population,e.g. in schools, regarding the problem and complexities of DV that might create more solidand better attitudes towards DV at an earlier age. More attention could also be devoted toincreasing the capacity of local level mechanisms to implement gender equality, and inparticular DV, policies. Finally, as will be particularly highlighted in the sections to follow,greater efforts need to be devoted to ensure that hard to reach population (e.g. minoritymembers and people with disabilities) and administratively difficult people (e.g. non-Croatian citizens, non-Croatian citizens with Croatian children, residents with temporaryleave to remain and citizens with no formal paperwork) are to a sufficient extent beingprotected by the mechanism and legal framework for dealing with DV.A majority of measures were successfully achieved. Whilst the indicators on the wholemanaged to capture well the realisation of the measures’ activities and their outcomes, theeffectiveness of the National Strategy in the future would be increased with morepreliminary research being conducted in the areas that the measures aim to tackle. Thiscould in turn help make its indicators more precise with definite goals (amounts,quantities) and more exact timeframes within which they need to be satisfied (e.g. a23

common timeframe was set to just ‘continually’). More attention should also be devoted toensuring that the indicators and measure activities are distinct as the indicators should bemore geared to fulfilling the measure rather than the activities of the measure. In addition,it would be helpful for some measures to be more precisely worded so as to make clear topolicy-makers and practitioners alike what is set to be done (e.g. measure 4.2 Createassumptions necessary for ensuring systematic and permanent satisfaction ofaccommodation, and legal and institutional protection needs of victims of DV). In thisregard, the utilisation of the distinction between input, output, process and impact wouldhelp make the National Strategy more precise and, hence, more effectively and easilyimplemented.The most successfully implemented measures according to the National Strategy’s ownindicators were those concerning education of experts, improving the status of victims ofDV, analysing and implementing laws on protection from DV and the sensitization of thepublic regarding the issue of DV. Measures that still contained challenges were in theareas of psychosocial treatments of perpetrators of DV, and shelters and support forvictims of DV. The achievements of the National Strategy could be expanded withmonitoring and evaluation activities and more precise plans with goals and targets forpolicies and programmes. The new National Strategy of Protection against DomesticViolence for 2011-2016 will no doubt build on the successes of the 2008-2010 NationalStrategy and take on some of the challenges that remain.3. Analysis of Gaps in Legal Provisions and Implementation ProblemsMisdemeanor vs Criminal:As already pointed out, DV can now be charged both as a misdemeanour, under the Lawon Protection Against Family violence, and as a criminal offence, under article 215a of theCriminal Code. The article 215a was added in 2004 making possible a more serioustreatment of the violence. However, as our later overview in section 6 will show, themajority of DV cases are still being charged as misdemeanours. Even in the county ofVukovar, which has so far been somewhat of an exception, the number of cases chargedas a criminal offence went down last year, correlating with an increased number of casescharged as a misdemeanour. Overall, for many of the concerned parties, this generallyseems to be looked upon as something positive, mainly because of the overall shorterprocedures, with the goal of a three-day urgent response for the whole process. However,it is necessary to address two problems created by having these dual procedures.First, the distinction between the two charges does not always seem clear. The criteriadistinguishing them appear to lie in the severity and frequency of the injuries afflicted.Usual police practice, at least in the Zagreb area, is said to be that criminal charges arepressed after three to four misdemeanour offences. This is not the only criteria however,and there is also an unofficial, detailed and difficult medical determination of what is amisdemeanour and what is a criminal offence, with a criminal offence generally involvingbroken bones. This despite the fact that Article 215.a itself defines violence as placing amember of the family “into a humiliating position”, not specifying any physical injuries. Asa result, the exact distinction between the two charges is still unclear to manypractitioners. Nevertheless, the data from the State Attorney presented in the dataoverview section below seem to indicate that the police are getting better at doing thisover the years as the number of Article 215.a reports are stagnating whilst the number ofindictments exhibits a clear upward trend.24

Secondly, it is further important to at least note the warnings from women’s NGOs 36 thatby treating most cases of DV as a misdemeanour, the message is sent out that it is still notviewed as a serious crime. Critics point to the sentencing of DV cases as further evidencethat DV is not taken serious enough, because fines and probation far outnumber theprison sentences, even when tried as a criminal offence. 37Free legal aidAs described in this paper's overview of the National Strategy (section 2), the Law on FreeLegal Aid was adopted in 2008. In it, victims of DV are specified as a group, for which thislaw should be especially catered. However, in practice free legal aid still seems particularlydifficult to access. There appear to be three main reasons for this:• The forms necessary to fill out, in order to receive legal aid are lengthy andextremely complex. Many women are unable to finish this without the help of aperson with legal knowledge.• The income threshold for receiving legal aid is so low that many women fail toqualify. This is despite them not earning enough to be able to afford the fullfees. 38•Due to low per case budget, many lawyers are unwilling to take on free legal aidcases. 39Furthermore, despite the law being in place for two years now, there are still individualsand institutions dealing directly with DV cases that are unaware that free legal aid forvictims even exists.Personally requested servicesWith regards to the Courts, the Protocol states that a victim of DV will only be informed ofa) relevant legal aid, and b) the outcome of the proceedings, upon personal request. Thecase is the same with the Office for Victim and Witness support, where they will meet withthe victim before the court hearing only if the victim specifically requests to do so.Otherwise they first meet at the day of the court hearing. The latter do hand outbrochures about their services to police stations, and the police are also often the firstpoint of contact who are obliged to inform the victims of their rights. However, it is difficultto ensure that these brochures reach all the victims, as well as it being tremendously hardfor a traumatised victim to take in information given verbally at such an early stage. Thus,for victims who do not know how or what to ask for, it is likely that they will miss out onmuch needed rights and information.36 Interview with Autonomous Women’s House Zagreb 23.02.2010., Centre for Education,Counselling and Research (C.e.s.i.), 28.01.2010., and Be Educated, Be Emancipated (B.a.B.e),01.2.2010.37 Vesna Kesic: CROATIA CASE STUDY: Gender Dimension of Violence, with the focus on theprevention of DV programming through inclusion of boys and men (2010)38 Interview with Autonomous Women’s House Zagreb 23.02.2010.39 Ibid. and Interview with Gender Ombudsperson 16.02.201025

Procedures for reporting domestic violenceAs already mentioned, The Protocol in Cases of Domestic Violence states that allconcerned officials are obligated to report cases of DV within reasonable doubt, the criteriaof which is to some extent described in the law on Protection against Family Violence.Despite this it would seem that the interpretation of it is not always without complications.In practice, reasonable doubt, often translates into fresh signs of physical abuse.According to the information given by shelter employees, if the police are called to a scenewhere DV has been reported, unless there are obvious signs of physical abuse (i.e. cutsand bruises in uncovered parts of body and face), or the victim explicitly asks for help,there is little the police can do. 40Also, as the research report referenced in section 6.1 below demonstrates, the educationregarding DV among the medical service employees, and hence their ability to recogniseand report it, is often lacking. As a result, cases of DV do not get spotted in time or dealtwith properly due to lack of evidence.On the same topic several NGO run shelter employees strongly object to the newamendment to the Law on the Protection from Family Violence, stating that also shelterswill be obligated to report DV. 41 Failure to do so will be punishable with a fine that many ofthe already financially stretched shelters will have problems to pay. More importantly, asfar as the victim is concerned this amendment might also lead to more women hesitatingto seek refuge.The Court and State AttorneyWith the new laws and strategies in place, the workings of the court and State Attorneyare reported to have improved, along with the work of other concerned institutions. Thatsaid, it is still the case that a large part of the complaints handed into the GenderOmbudsperson are concerned with lengthy, or even unfinished, criminal andmisdemeanour proceedings, which is particularly problematic in cases where there is anurgent need for the assignment of protective measures. 42 In addition, some cases includeexamples of failing to take into account a victim’s right to self-defence. 43 Also otherproceedings, that may be connected with DV, such as divorce, can take an unacceptablylong time, further complicating and drawing out decisions on custody and visiting rights.Perhaps the biggest problem is that too much still depends on the individual judge and hisor her knowledge and will to deal with DV. Combined with the lack of continuousmonitoring and relevant education that has yet to reach a substantial number ofindividuals, the court experience for a victim of DV can vary greatly from one place to thenext.40 Interview with Duga Shelter 16.02.201041 Interview with Autonomous Women’s House Zagreb 12.02.2010.42 Examples of this include the case study of Jelena Sabina Jakopović described inAutonomous Women's House Zagreb report entitled “Structural Violence against Women”where the assigning of protective measures took longer than the required 48 hour period, thatis, 4 months. The interview with the Autonomous Women’s House on 12.02.2010. and thereport states that this is not unusual.43 6 case studies from Autonomous Women's House Zagreb report entitled “StructuralViolence against Women”26

PoliceFrom our interviews with shelters, it appears that the police are the institution most likelyto sufficiently cooperate with shelters. Most notably in Zagreb, the police are said to be onconstant call for the state shelters. However, also in the case of the police, the situationvaries throughout the country, and there are still difficulties and complaints:• the failure of police to inform the victims of their rights and options in time, inaccordance with sections 3.2 and 3.4 of the Protocol in Cases of DomesticViolence. 44 In the Gender Ombudsperson's report this concerns almost all of theproblems relating to police, with particular emphasis placed on the right to a copyof the judge’s decision.• Police have also been reported failing to sometimes act in accordance with theProtocol in Cases of Domestic Violence. Most commonly cited complaints have todo with failing to take sufficient action when arriving to a scene of DV. Examplesinclude simply separating the victim and perpetrator and then leaving, and notcharging or detaining the perpetrator when there is enough evidence and reasonto do so. 45• The preferred situation of sending a mixed gender team to investigate situationsof suspected DV, in practice, happens rarely. This mainly seems to be a problemof the police force lacking a sufficient number of women. Thus, if the hope of amixed gender team for every case of DV is ever to materialise, more effort isneeded to attract women. Reports that the presence of female police officers hasimproved the sensitivity and awareness of DV, 46 should make this even more of apriority.Centre for Social WelfareCentres for Social Welfare are often said to be struggling with a lack of qualified staff, whoare forced to deal with an overwhelming workload. As a result, there have been reports ofsocial workers failing to give any advice, financial help, or even recognising cases of DV. 47Some shelters feel that a number of female victims are immediately, and perhapsunnecessarily, referred to them instead of the Centres first dealing with the womendirectly. 48 As for the cooperation between the Centres and other institutions, the reportsdiffer between Zagreb and other areas. Whereas one report states that the cooperationbetween the police and the Social Welfare Office in Zagreb 'happens automatically”, 49 in44 Interview with Vukovar Shelter 12.02.2010, Ombudsperson's 2008 yearly work report andInterview with Karlovac Shelter Korak 23.03.2010.45 2 nd case study of Marija, 22, 5 th case study of Ines, 26, 6 th from Babe – Katica, 65, 7 th casestudy of Zora, 39 and 8 th case study of Katarina, 30 from B.a.B.e. [Be active, Be emancipated].2004. A ‘ko joj je kriv! [Who can she blame (other than herself)]46 Interview with Vukovar Shelter 12.02.201047 2 nd case study of Marija, 22 and 6 th case study of Katica, 65 from B.a.B.e. [Be active, Beemancipated]. 2004. A ‘ko joj je kriv! [Who can she blame (other than herself)]48 Examples include social workers siding with the abusive father on his right to see hischildren, sometimes even though a restraining order was already put in place or father beendetermined to be mentally unstable, or telling the victim when they ask for help that theycan put their children in a Children’s Home - Interview with Vukovar Shelter 12.02.2010;Ombudsperson's 2008 yearly work report; case PRS 03-02/08-10 from Ombudsperson's2008 yearly work report; case of Jelena Sabina Jakopović from Autonomous Women’sHouse report called “Structural Violence against Women”; 5 th case study of Ines, 26 and 8 thcase study of Katarina, 30 from B.a.B.e. [Be active, Be emancipated].2004. A ‘ko joj je kriv![Who can she blame (other than herself)]49 Interview with Duga Shelter 16.02.201027

areas outside Zagreb their cooperation is described as far less satisfactory. 50 Although itshould be pointed out that more staff is in the process of being trained, the relevanttraining for DV seems to have reached the country somewhat unevenly.Employment OfficeIn general, not enough victims are able to become financially independent by the timethey leave the shelters. As explained earlier, the Employment Service has to follow therecommendations set out by the National Strategy, and created a special scheme for thevictims of DV. However, overall the scheme does not seem to be working to its fullpotential. Few people have been employed using the scheme, that is, 6 in 2008. 51 TheEmployment Service did, themselves, notify the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality of theproblems encountered enforcing this measure. It was mentioned that due to privacyregulations the victim needs to give their permission to the social worker and/oremployment service worker for their personal circumstances to be shared in order forthem to be included into the special scheme. Often victims refuse to do this for fear offurther stigmatisation.There have also been reports on Employment Service branch offices not being aware ofthe scheme, and otherwise unable to give adequate information. Another complication thatwas given as an explanation is that the general recession meant that there is simply notenough funds to offer this scheme throughout the whole year. 52Furthermore, despite some positive feedback about the scheme, it seems that even incases where it has been successful, a different problem that may arise is that the womenthemselves choose to leave the employment after only a short amount of time. Onereason for this that was suggested 53 is that the women find it hard to combine professionalwork with that of looking after their children, being able to pick up from daycares etc. Asituation that is in many cases made worse because of the fear that the abusive partnermight at any point take the children, if they are not constantly under the woman'ssupervision.Additionally, unemployed DV victims taking shelter in places other than their officialresidence in some cases (i.e. when unregistered at shelter or place of refuge as officialresidence) have to travel to their original Employment Service office once a month in orderto keep receiving benefits. 54Shelters and counselling centresShelters and counselling centres provide victims of DV with accommodation andpsychological/legal/practical assistance respectively, with a few of the counselling centresalso providing psychosocial treatment to perpetrators. As mentioned in the analysis of the2008-2010 National Strategy, the shelter capacity in 2008 was estimated at 329 users.Since then Zagreb has had an increase in shelter capacity of at least 22 (Duga-Zagreb50 Interview with B.aB.e 1.2.201051 MOBMS [Ministry of Family, Veterans' Affairs and Intergenerational Solidarity]. 2009.Izvješće of provedbi nacionalne strategije zaštite od nasilja u obitelji za razdoblje 2008.-2010.tijekom 2008. godine [Report on the Implementation of the National Strategy of Protectionagainst Domestic Violence for the 2008-2010 Period during 2008], p. 3152 Vukovar Shelter Ibid; and Autonomous Women’s House Zagreb interview 12.02.2010.53 Interview with Duga Shelter 16.02.201054 As is the case with women with official residence outside of Zagreb taking shelter inAutonomous Women’s House – Interview with Autonomous Women’s House 23.02.2010. orwomen from Rijeka taking shelter in Slavonski Brod – interview with Ombudsperson forGender Equality 16.02.2010.28

Home) making the total approximately 351. Approximating Croatia’s population to be 4.5million, the total capacity according to the European Council should be one per 7500 to 10000 55 of the population which would make it 600 or 450, that is, 250 (42%) or a 100(22%) less than there are at the moment. Even though these recommendations refer todistribution of services as well, the Council of Europe recommendations and practices alsosuggest there being at least one shelter within every municipality/canton/province. 56 InCroatia in 2008 shelters existed in 12 out of 21 counties and even less counties havepsychosocial treatment facilities. Only five cities in Croatia (Zagreb, Rijeka, Zadar, Split andDubrovnik) had counselling centres that provided psychosocial treatments in 2008. 57Utilising county Family Centres as part of the DV mechanism could expand thepreventative counselling capacity in Croatia.Further complications for the victim:• Victim being removed from home – The police can hold a perpetrator of DV incustody, most commonly, for up to 24 hours. If there are still fears for the safetyof the victim after this period, the victim is moved out of the home, if necessarywith police escort. If the victim chooses to go to a shelter, this can mean not onlyhaving to leave the family home, but also the town, and possible support network,in order to ensure her safety. All of which is putting the victim under more stressand trauma. The alternative, to instead remove the abuser, is far morecomplicated, both for safety reasons and for the fact that in most cases theproperty rights lie with the perpetrator who then has a constitutional right to useit. However, a few countries in Europe have laws that enable the victim to stayand force the perpetrator to leave. Among them are Serbia, 58 Albania, 59 Austria, 60Australia 61 and the United Kingdom 62 where the law includes forced relocation ofthe perpetrator for a certain period of time regardless of whether the perpetratoris the owner or leaseholder of the property in question.55 Kelly, Liz – The Council of Europe. 2008. Combating Violence Against Women: MinimumStandards for Support Services, p. 18; Council of Europe, Group of Specialists for CombatingViolence against Women. 1997. Final Report of Activities of the EG-S-VL including a Plan ofAction for Combating Violence against Women, Strasbourg; Blueprint of the Council of Europe2006 Campaign to Combat Violence against Women, including Domestic Violence, EG-TFV(2006) 8rev5, Strasbourg; EU European Parliament Resolution on Violence Against Women(1986) Doc. A2-44/86 Official Journal. C. 176; EU Conference on Violence Against Women,Cologne (1999) Expert Forums Recommendations; Standards and Recommendations of theConference of Experts on Police combating Violence against Women – Baden, December 1998,point 37.; and Recommendations of the EU-Expert Meeting on Violence Against Women –Jyväskylä (Finland) 8-10 November, 1999;56 Kelly, Liz – The Council of Europe. 2008. Combating Violence Against Women: MinimumStandards for Support Services, p. 1257 Interview with Society for Psychological Assistance (SPA), 01.04.2010.58 Porodični zakon [Family Law], Službeni glasnik RS [Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia]18/2005; and Nikolić-Ristanović, V. and Dokmanović, M. 2006. International Standards onDomestic Violence and Their Implementation in the Western Balkans, Aim for Human Rights,p. 105 - available athttp://www.aimforhumanrights.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Balkanreport.pdf59 Nikolić-Ristanović, V. and Dokmanović, M. 2006., p. 14260 Logar, R. 2003. Stopping the Perpetrator – The New Domestic Violence Bill and the Work ofthe Intervention Centres in Asutria. In DG Human Rights – DG II.2003. Measures Dealing withMen Perpetrators of Domestic Violence. Strasbourg, 25-26 June 2003, pp. 75-8561 Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre (DVIRC). 2002. Family Violence andHomelessness: Removing the Perpetrator from the Home, DVIRC Discussion Paper No. 362 Home Office. 2009. Tough New Powers to Help Victims Break Cycle of Domestic Violence.29 th of September 2009 available at http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/toughnew-powers.html29

• Childcare – As described in the National Strategy analysis section under measure4.7, as of yet there have been no special conditions and funds set aside for theinclusion of children of DV victims into kindergartens and schools. In practice thismay cause problems as victims of DV, who are accommodated in a shelter not intheir area of registered residence, might experience difficulties in getting theirchildren into local schools. Also, DV victims very often have financial difficulties,partially or fully stemming from the abuse they have experienced, which are likelyto result in them not being able to afford to put their children in kindergartenswithout financial aid and may in turn become a barrier to employment. It has,however, been pointed out that educational institutions in cases of children withspecial needs coordinate with the social services to find the best possible solutionsfor each case.• Free supplementary health insurance – As already mentioned in measure 4.4of the National Strategy, supplementary health insurance in Croatia covers thecosts of hospital and policlinic treatment which victims of DV are likely to need andbe unable to afford. Nevertheless, victims of DV are still not entitled to freesupplementary health insurance. A possible issue with this may be formallydetermining the end of such benefits, but it is difficult to see how this would differin any way from the employment scheme mentioned above.• Victims without full Croatian citizenship – Victims of DV who are still fullcitizens of another country, are referred to the MoFAEI once the police have beeninformed. What seems to be the most common next step 63 is to arrange for themto return back to their home country. It would be highly unfortunate if a victim isforced to leave children behind in the care of the perpetrator, and one shelterinterviewed claimed to bypass the police in these cases for this specific reason.Also victims not fully covered by the system, such as ethnic minority womenwhose families are Croatian, but have not gained full citizenship themselves, arefailing to receive requisite amount of help. As a typical example can be mentioneda Bosnian woman staying in the shelter of Vukovar, 64 whose children had Croatiancitizenship, but who, at the time of seeking help from the abuse, had no possibilityof health insurance, and could only get temporary social support. Alternativesinclude British Immigration policy that gives spouses, civil partners, unmarried orsame sex partners of a British citizen or a person settled in the UK the ability toqualify for settlement as a victim of domestic violence and to apply for IndefiniteLeave to Remain without meeting usual requirements. 65 The Sojourner Project, arecent interim solution in Britain, also enables immigrant victims of DV to obtainfinancial assistance and accommodation. 66 In the United States, if you are a victimof domestic violence, it is possible to access legal and medical assistanceregardless of their immigrant status and the possibility to apply for U Visas underwhich they are authorized to stay and obtain employment under the ViolenceAgainst Women Act (VAWA). It is also one of the CEDAW recommendations “togrant immigrant women who have been or who are victims of domestic violencean independent right of residence”. 67• Roma victims of DV - A particular problem regarding Roma victims is notmentioned in the National Strategy. At the same time the number of DV caseswithin the Roma community is estimated to be high, but few are seeking help due63 Interview with Duga Shelter 16.02.2010. and Autonomous Women's House Zagreb23.02.2010.64 Example taken from interview with Vukovar shelter, 12.02.201065 Paragraph 289A of the Immigration Rules – More information available at Home Office: UKBorder Agency. Victims of Domestic Violence: Requirements for Settlement Applications -available at http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/residency/domesticviolence-questions-answ;and66 For more information see Sojourner Project website - http://www.sojournerproject.org/67 CEDAW recommendation 1582 (2002) 7 – available athttp://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta02/EREC1582.htm30

to a distrust of authorities and police. 68 We have had reports of Roma womenbeing met by prejudice from both social services and courts. These women werein the end unable to bring the case to court, or receive any protective measures. 69It has also been reported that Roma victims of violence, because of theirtraditionally patriarchal society, and close knit communities, bring with them themost serious threat to safety, not only of themselves, but also of shelter and thepeople working for it. 70 For the same reasons, Roma women who are victims ofviolence, are only rarely able to take all, or any of their children with them toshelters, which in turn leads to the majority returning to their abusive partners. Allof these issues are necessary to be aware of, and should be taken intoconsideration when discussing best practices for DV response.• Victim treated the same as perpetrator - Several case studies point out theproblem of equalizing the victim and perpetrator by not taking into an account avictim's right to self defence. Neither is previous abuse considered where a victimmight be reacting to past violence, verbally or physically, and is instead alsotreated as a perpetrator of DV. 71Inter-institutional cooperation and coordination:Significant efforts have been made to improve the coordination and multi-disciplinary andmulti-departmental response to DV. Some institutions at the local level organise meetingsbetween representatives to discuss how they could better tackle the problem of DV (e.g.the quarterly meetings organised by the Women of Vukovar Association in Vukovar). 72Also, as already mentioned, a Protocol on Cases of Domestic Violence along with a morerecent publication of the SPA and UNDP regarding the implementation of the protocol is anattempt to clarify steps to be taken by all tasked to respond to DV. In addition, there arecommittees and coordinators for gender equality at the county and local levels that arealso meant to ensure that the Protocol is being implemented properly. Unfortunately, thecommittees and coordinators seem to be quite often uninformed of the Protocol andinactive in the field of protection from and prevention of DV. 73 There exists a SpecialAdvisory Committee for Improving the Implementation of Prevention and Protection fromDomestic Violence that was founded in 2009.While all courts report to the MoJ, the MoJ does not necessarily provide each court withthe unified information of the perpetrator, thus, sometimes resulting in the court sentencebeing given without taking into account past convictions that exist on other courts.Cooperation between the police and shelters, different shelter with one another, and socialservices and shelters is in general rated as good. However, cooperation between otherinstitutional actors is of a more (geographically) varying quality with examples of socialservices being unaware of court decisions or not liaising with other institutions enough tofind adequate solutions, judges not asking for more information from the police when68 European Roma Rights Center. 2005. CEDAW Shadow report on the Republic of Croatia’scombined second and third periodic reports - http://www.iwrawap.org/resources/croatia_ERRC(English).pdf69 Ibid70 Autonomous Women’s House Zagreb interview 12.02.2010.71 Autonomous Women's House Zagreb interview 23.02.2010.; 6 case studies fromAutonomous Women's House Zagreb report entitled “Structural Violence against Women”; 8 thcase study – Katarina, 30, from B.a.B.e. [Be active, Be emancipated].2004. A ‘ko joj je kriv![Who can she blame (other than herself)]72 Interviews with the Vukovar Office for Victim and Witness Support and the Vukovar Shelter12.02.2010.73 Pravobraniteljica za ravnopravnost spolova [Ombudsman for Gender Equality]. 2009.Izvještaj o radu za 2008. godinu [Work Report for 2008], p. 8931

needed, 74 and other state employees, for example nurses, not reporting cases of DV tosocial services. 75Prevention:Even though the percentage of the overall budget that should be put aside for preventionhas been agreed, the exact sum that this translates into is not clear, 76 and is oftenregarded as insufficient. Women's NGOs are calling for more attention and funds beinggiven for long term prevention projects, aimed at changing people's attitudes on genderroles, and gender equality in general. Prevention of this kind, is a long and slow process,that needs to start at very early ages, and would take time before any benefits could beevaluated, which may be part of the reason why these types of measures are not the mostpopular. However, research shows that violence in relationships is present already inadolescence, with two thirds reporting some sort of violent behaviour from their partner, 77making early, preventative projects a necessity. Utilising county Family Centres as part ofthe DV mechanism could expand the preventative counselling and education capacity inCroatia.Another form of prevention suggested are projects aimed at empowering womenfinancially before they have to go into a shelter. According to one NGO, the vast majorityof women who end up in their shelter are from a poor socio-economic background. Themain obstacle for them leaving their husbands is the lack of financial security, so this issueneeds to be addressed. Further, the vast majority of the women in this shelter have littleor no education. Only two women had higher education and these women were able tosuccessfully start an independent life after leaving. Otherwise most women return to theirabusive husbands after some time in the shelter. 78 In the general economic recession, andespecially in areas that are overall suffering from a high unemployment, this form ofprevention is of course particularly challenging.Geographical differences and lack of education and funding:Perhaps the most striking issue when looking into the situation of DV response is how theservice and knowledge differs so greatly, depending on which part of the country you arein. The biggest difference appears to be between Zagreb, which has the biggest share ofthe budget for DV, and the rest of the country, with one NGO specifically describing thesituation as getting “worse and worse the farther from Zagreb you come”. The differencealso lies between bigger towns in general and smaller rural areas. Vukovar can bementioned as one example, where the city itself has one of the best-equipped courts anda trained Witness and Victims Support Office. At the same time in the rural areas of thesame county, the police and judges are described as “having their own views of violence,and making their own decisions”, 79 making no special considerations in cases of DV. 80According to the Gender Ombudsperson, this is also the case when it comes tointerdepartmental cooperation, where the real problem lies on the local level. 81Part of the reason must lie in more practical problems, such as the outreach of thetraining, where some areas has received little or no training to date. It could further be74 Examples taken from interview with Vukovar shelter, 12.02.201075 As mentioned below in the data and research analysis and overview (section 6), 80% ofnurses had never had any contact with the Centre for Social Welfare.76 Interview with Duga Shelter 16.02.201077 Extract from C.e.s.i. 2007: Nasilje: ne prolazi samo od sebe [Violence: Does not Go Away byItself] - http://www.cesi.hr/attach/_n/nasilje.pdf78 Interview with B.a.Bb.e 01.02.201079 Interview with B.a.B.e 01.02.201080 Interview with Vukovar Shelter 12.02.201081 Interview with Gender Ombudsperson 16.02.201032

alleviated by a more unified system of reporting, as well as a shared database, both ofwhich are already planned by the Ministry of Family, War Veterans and Inter generationalJustice. All in all, these are problems that are relatively easy to rectify, as opposed to themore socially defined problems. As pointed out by both women's NGOs and shelters, 82 thesituation of DV takes on a different dimension in rural areas, where everyone, includingthe perpetrator, police, and the judge, all know each other personally. The social stigmaattached to a victim reporting DV, is also far greater than for a more anonymous victim inZagreb.82 Interview with C.e.s.i. 28.01.2010., interview with B.a.B.e 02.01.2010, and interview withVukovar shelter 12.02.2010.33

4. Provision and Workings of Shelters - Comparison between sheltersrun by cities and NGO run shelters 83The following section is intended to outline practices and services of a sample of sheltersin Croatia. The five shelters described represent examples that are both city and NGO run,as well as from different regions of Croatia, including Zagreb and areas of special stateconcern. Particular attention will then be placed on possible differences between them soas to analyse differences in practices, provisions and funding, as well as their effectivenessin assisting victims in their overcoming of the complex situation DV has put them in.Despite representing most of the varieties of shelters in Croatia, it is necessary to bear inmind that they are only a sample, and that should all shelters be included, the findingsmay vary somewhat.Vukovar1) General information:Korak (Karlovac) U.Z.O.R(Rijeka)Duga ZagrebAutonomousWomen's HouseFounded 2008 2002 2007 2007 1990FundingThe Vukovar-Srijem Countypays threewages, theMinistry ofHealth andSocial Care paysfor up to 10users andB.a.B.e. anddonationsprovide therest. Since May2010, MoFVAISprovides funds.30% county 30%city and 30%MoFVAIS (slightlyless in 2010), and10% own funding.100% City ofRijeka and theDepartment forHealth andWelfare withsome sporadicadditionaldonations. Since2010 MoFVAISfunding hasbeen secured.100% funded bythe city ofZagreb.30% from thestate (MoFVAIS –slightly less in2010);30% from thecounty budget;30% from the citybudget10% own fundingNumber ofbeds20 = 13 women7 children15 women andtheir children10 women andchildren18 (expandingto 40)40Number ofwomen in200920 women and25 children49 women and 72children12 women and17 childrenTotal of 65; 29women + 36childrenTotal of 65; 22women + 38childrenAllowedlength ofstayUp to one yearOne year that canbe extended ifcourt proceedingsor life situation hasnot been resolvedin that time.6 months Unlimited 1 yearAveragelength ofstayNo data10 months to oneyear3-4 months 2 months 10 months83 Interview with Vukovar Shelter 12.02.2010, Autonomous Women’s House Zagrebinterview 23.02.2010., Duga - Home for Adult Victims of Domestic Violence Zagrebinterview 16.02.2010., Korak Karlovac Shelter interview 23.03.2010. and U.Z.O.R. Shelterinterview 31.03.2010. and 07.04.2010.34

Peopleemployed3 permanentstaff:1 social worker,1 sociologistand1 housekeeperIn shelter:1 social worker and1 socialpedagogue.Outside of shelter:1 psychologist,1 Lawyer and 1legal adviser.2 permanentstaff:1 psychologist+ part timepsychologist1 social workerOutside ofshelter – parttimepsychologist5 permanentstaff: 2psychologists, 2social workers,one lawyer (12permanent intotal and 8external)4 permanent staffto look afterwomen andchildren.Outside shelter:3 psychologistsand a team of 5lawyers.ServicesprovidedSecuritySpending(needed inbrackets)Unemployedwomenemployedduring stay(2009)• Legal andadministrative support;• Psychologicalcounselling• Temporaryfinancial helpfor healthinsurance• Cameras• Alarm systemconnected toa securityfirm.(However thesecurity firmgenerally donot respondquickly, andthey aremore helpedby thepolice.)800 000 – 900000 kn (more orless equal tothe totalbudget)None, but oneshortly afterwith the help ofthe programmeof theEmploymentOffice Legalrepresentationand counselling. Psychologicalcounselling Main security isto keep theaddress secret.Women whostay have to signa contract not togive out theaddress toanyone. Only asmall number ofpolice knowthe address In an'unsuspecting'building andlocation. Video camera.909.407,15 kn(1.381.170,50 kn) Psychosocialsupport• Social workercounselling 24hoursavailability. Help to freelegal aidoutside ofshelter• Administrative support• Cameras• 24-houravailability ofstaff• Panic buttons• Alarmconnected toa securityfirm• Securedwindows anddoor400 000 kn(603 929 kn -needed to get acounsellingcentre fullyworking)• Legalcounselling(whenrequested)• Psychologicalcounselling• Social workercounselling• 24 hoursavailability.• 24-hoursecurity guard• 24-houravailability ofstaff• Cameras• 2 official carswith tintedwindows• Panic buttonswith direct linkto the police3 400 000 kn - 4100 000 kn(4 500 000 kn)with newcapacity of 40users• Legal counsellingandrepresentation• Psychologicalcounselling• Social workercounselling• 24 hoursavailability.• Security suppliedby security firm• Cameras• Bullet proofwindows• Panic button.1 800 000 kn(2 500 000 kn)4 4 1 All35

2) Further details:Problems with capacity and resources:All of the shelters interviewed have had to turn women away at some point during the lastyear. The number turned away is for each shelter quite substantial. The AutonomousWomen’s House states their number of refused as being 3 – 4 to every woman accepted.This number was echoed by U.Z.O.R. The DUGA shelter organised by City of Zagrebrefused 16 adults and 25 children in 2009 due to lack of capacity or unsuitability ofapplicants (due to addiction problems or psychological problems) out of a total of 65users. It can thus be said that an approximately 30-400% yearly refusal rate can beconsidered to be a relatively apt estimation range for most shelters. In these cases, thewomen in question are referred to other shelters, and are said to always find alternativehousing. The cooperation between the shelters seems, in this way to be working well, alsobetween NGO and city run shelters. However, some of the NGO shelters still prefer to sendwomen to other NGOs, because of the different rules and regulations associated with thecity shelters.Likewise, all shelters described having to deal with a lack of funds, either currently or inthe future, however, here certain differences emerge. The shelters run by NGOs wouldappear to suffer more from lack of resources and funds than the city shelters. The shelterin Vukovar has for a while been unable to work at their full capacity with empty beds as aresult, due to their lack of staff and resources. Also, Korak Shelter in Karlovac andAutonomous Women's House are currently operating with fewer funds than actuallyneeded. A particular problem mentioned is the lack of a car, which complicates everythingfrom doing the necessary grocery shopping to picking up and escorting the womenvictims. U.Z.O.R shelter, which is funded by the city of Rijeka, described a need for onemore employee. Nevertheless, aside from this, the U.Z.O.R shelter claims to have most ofthe resources needed. The biggest difference arises when comparing all the shelters in thisgroup with the Duga shelter in Zagreb. Interestingly, Duga's funds for 2009 are more thanone and a half million kunas higher than the other shelters, despite having roughly thesame or less beds. 84 As a result, they are also able to have more staff and resourcesincluding two cars at their full disposal.Cooperation with the police:With the exception of Autonomous Women's House, all shelters claim to have a goodcooperation with the police, at least with regards to their own security. The city sheltersare perhaps the most positive, with Duga describing how the police are on constant call,and available in a matter of minutes. On occasions they have even been able to use thepolice as escorts to the women victims. Also, the shelter in Vukovar explains how thepolice respond to their call a lot faster than the security firm they have hired. However, theNGO shelters are more critical to how the police sometimes act with regards to the victims.Korak explains how some of the most common complaints include the police not informingthe victim of her rights, as well as making no distinction in their treatment of the victimand the perpetrator. AWH go one step further and describe also their own cooperationwith the police, with regards to safety, as unsatisfactory. Furthermore, while most of thewomen admitted to a city shelter have already been in contact with both the police andthe Centre for Social Welfare, this is not necessarily the case with the NGO shelters. Alsonot all of the NGO shelters automatically contact the police when they receive womenvictims of DV, as they believe it is the right of the women to remain anonymous.84 It is perhaps necessary to point out that Duga is planning to expand their shelter from 18 to40 beds, and it is so far not entirely clear if they will have funds to cover this expansion.36

Rules and Procedures:The stricter rules and more bureaucratic processes of city shelters are often pointed out asa difference between them and the NGO shelters. However, when it comes to moregeneral house rules and standards, the difference among this sample of shelters is notquite so clear. Most of them have quite similar rules of not disclosing the address of theshelter, and keeping themselves and their living space tidy, but the strictness of the rulesvary somewhat. With regards to phone calls and mobiles, both Duga and Autonomous givethe women either new SIM cards or new mobiles. The calls are also monitored; in theAutonomous Women’s Shelter only until they feel the women have learnt the rules and canbe trusted, in Duga whenever they feel it necessary. In the U.Z.O.R shelter women cankeep their own mobile phones, and their phone calls are not monitored, whereas inVukovar the only phone that can be used is the shelter's own. No contact can be madewith the perpetrator, in the case of Duga this also goes for other family members,although in most cases children can meet with their fathers after a clearance by the CSW.Both Duga and Vukovar have a no smoking policy. Duga is shown as having some of thestrictest house rules with a 3 strike policy, regardless of victim's circumstances. This policyconsists of: no smoking inside the building or outside, fixed eating times and healthy foodonly.Overall conclusions:City and NGO run shelters are run with somewhat different approaches, with the NGOshelters firmly based in a feminist ideology, while the city shelters are more open to theviewpoint that the problem can lie with both parties. The worry about losing theirautonomy kept the NGO shelters from conforming to the standards set out by the city,along with the possibility for full funding. In practice, this can mean that the NGO runshelters are of quite varying levels of standards and professional staff, often having to relyon volunteers. The perception is that the NGO shelters are more sympathetic andpersonal, whereas the State shelters are more bureaucratic but more formally skilled.According to the Gender Ombudsperson, both are needed, but they are too different to beplaced in the same category. 85Furthermore, it has been pointed out on a number of occasions throughout this report thatthe resources available to victims of DV depend on where in Croatia they come from, andthe biggest difference in standards lies between Zagreb and other more rural areas.It is difficult from this comparison to ascertain whether or not this is really the case withregards to shelters. Some of the main differences discussed may not necessarily liebetween city and NGO shelters nor with the different geographical areas. With regards tofunding and resources, as well as strict rules, it is Duga that stands out from the group.While also Autonomous have a slightly higher budget for 2009 than most of the sheltersoutside of Zagreb, they also have at least twice as many beds. When it comes to thesuccess of rehabilitating the women victims it is the Autonomous Women's House thatstands out. Out of all the shelters they are the only one to claim that all of theunemployed women staying with them, gained employment. Likewise though not specifiedhere, they also claim that 92% of the women leaving their shelter, not only do not fallback into the same abusive relationship, but that they, thanks to the shelter counselling,are able to stay away from any abusive relationship in the future. While it is necessary topoint out that this is so far only based on their own statement, this kind of success seems85 Interview with Gender Ombudsperson 16.02.201037

more likely to come from their number of years of experience, rather than the fact thatthey are located in Zagreb.However, there are certain aspects where differences between NGO and city run sheltersas well as between the regions become a little clearer. The number of staff, for instance, ishigher with the two Zagreb shelters. When looking at the average length of stay, there isquite a distinctive difference between city and NGO, with city shelters stating an averageof 2-4 months as opposed to the 10 months to a year with the NGO shelters. As 10months to one year is also the average time for court cases, such as divorce and custodyrights, it is possible to assume that women stay in the NGO shelters until their situationhas been resolved to a higher degree than in the city shelters, that could perhaps be seenas more of an emergency housing.Finally, despite there being some clear distinctions between city and NGO, as well asbetween Zagreb and other areas, it is also necessary to point out an overriding similarity.Almost all shelters, Duga included, are facing budget cuts in 2010, mainly because of theoverall decline in the country's economy. Despite the overall unfavourable economicsituation, a number of shelters (run by either NGO’s, cities or religious communities) hasincreased from 16 in 2008 to 18 in 2010, however, there still are several counties withoutany shelter at all. Still, it seems that all of the shelters have had to turn down aconsiderable amount of women due to lack of capacity, it can be assumed that that thepossibility and right for women victims of DV to find secure, emergency housing might bedifficult to attain.38

5. Psychosocial Treatment of PerpetratorsSome of the numbers and problems surrounding the planned and current psychosocialcounselling of perpetrators have already been mentioned in earlier sections of this report.The following is therefore a brief description of the specific programme used in Croatia,and some of the issues and problems surrounding it. The information is drawn mainly frominterviews with three of the organisations offering this type of service. Most of the detailsof the curriculum and treatment are taken from information received by U.Z.O.R who havethe longest running programme in Croatia, with five years of treatments in Rijeka, Societyfor Psychological Assistance (SPA), who have carried out treatments for three years, andDuga who are currently conducting their first series of treatments in Zagreb. Thecurriculum is based on a Dutch programme designed to treat violent men. The programmeis also implemented in ðakovo. In both Rijeka and Zagreb the program has been extendedto also include all female groups. While the specifics of the women groups might not beconsiderably different, it is necessary to point out that most of the details that followconcern the groups with men.Description of the programme:The participants:• The vast majority of men and women who undergo this treatment, have been sentby a court. The groups in Zagreb are exclusively for sentenced perpetrators,whereas Rijeka allows people to come on their own accord. However, as little as1% of their participants did. Duga has a helpline also accepting calls fromperpetrators. So far (in 2009) they have received 1 call from a male perpetrator.• Most are sent from misdemeanour courts, as many as 95% in the case of Rijeka.There used to be more referred from the criminal courts, with psychosocialsupport as an option to prison; however, when the maximum penalty wasincreased to five years, this option is no longer available. 86 Psychosocial supportcan still be given as a part of a longer prison sentence.• 90% of the participants in Rijeka are male. In Zagreb they presently have 2groups of male participants and 1 female.• In both Zagreb and Rijeka, most of the participants undergoing treatment are stillwith their partners.• Alcohol or drug abuse. No perpetrator is able to start the psychosocial treatment ifhe or she is determined as being an alcohol or drug abuser. Judging by the figuresavailable, this is an issue that needs to be dealt with on a regular basis. Out of the18 people not accepted for treatment in Zagreb, 14 were excluded because of anaddiction. 87 Further, in Rijeka, around 50% of all charged perpetrators of domesticviolence were under the influence of alcohol when the crime was committed. 88 Inthese cases, a combination of treatments is seen as the best solution, with anecessary treatment for alcohol abuse before beginning the psychosocialtreatment. This is something that can be decided upon already in court or afterthe abuse has become evident during the first individual meetings with theperpetrators.• Most of the perpetrators fulfil their obligations of the treatment. In Rijeka 1-2 outof the 8 – 9 men (i.e. 11-25%) in one group, give up after the first few86 Interview with Daniel Antunović 19.03.201087 The psychosocial treatment report from Society for Psychological Assistance for the periodbetween 1 st of July till the 31 st of December. 2009. In Pravobraniteljica za ravnopravnostspolova [Ombudsperson for Gender Equality]. Izvještaj o radu za 2008. godinu [Work Reportfor 2008].88 Interview with Daniel Antunović 19.03.201039

meetings. 89 In Zagreb, the report from SPA for 2008 states that 16 out of the 72(22%) people assigned for treatment either refused or did not sign in fortreatment. 90The curriculum:The treatment lasts for 6 months and is divided into 2 – 4 individual meetings (3 in Rijeka)and 16 weekly group sessions. During the initial period, the victim of the abuse is alsocontacted. No victim is forced to cooperate, but almost all do. In Rijeka, the victim iscontacted three times, in the beginning, the middle and the end. Duga plans to contactthe victim in the beginning, at the very end, and six months later. Aside from this contact,there is presently no other option of including or treating the victim alongside theperpetrator.The outline of the curriculum is divided into three parts:• Awareness of and responsibility for the violence committed• Dealing with their emotional background• Learning coping and dealing mechanisms that offer an alternative to violence.The curriculum holds the perpetrators fully responsible for their actions. There is acontinuous evaluation of the individual’s progress while in the treatment, which is againbased on three sections:• Attendance: In the treatment carried out by Duga, participants are not allowed tomiss more than two sessions without a valid excuse.• Homework• Ability to learn and apply the curriculum 91Both Duga and U.Z.O.R describe an overall satisfaction with the curriculum. After someinitial modifications, U.Z.O.R have now been using the existing curriculum for two yearswithout changes. One of the advantages pointed out, was that the curriculum works for allperpetrators of violence, regardless of their educational and socio-economic background.As for improvements that could be made, a few things were mentioned:Victims not included - both organisations expressed a will to treat victimsalongside the perpetrators in situations when this would be suitable. Due to mainlya lack of funds, this is not something that is available at the moment. However,both Duga and U.Z.O.R are able to refer the victims to different forms ofcounselling.Male and female psychologists – According to the curriculum used, the ideal set upof psychologists would be one male and one female. However, the majority ofpsychologists specifically trained for DV counselling are currently women. While itmay not be entirely negative for the male perpetrators to have their stereotypeschallenged in this way, Daniel Antunović from U.Z.O.R explains that often thewoman psychologist is the last in a line of women whom the male perpetrator hasdealt with since he was first arrested. According to Antunović, most of the policespecialised in juvenile delinquency are female. The majority of people working atthe Social Welfare Office are female. Also, out of the 16 he judges in RijekaCounty, 14 are women. Thus, there is also a need for a male role model. 92 It isunclear, but probable, that the situation looks the same in Zagreb, however, it wasnot stated as a problem by the psychologists interviewed from Duga.Assessment – Despite having worked with the treatment for five years, there are89 Ibid.90 The psychosocial treatment report from Society for Psychological Assistance for the periodbetween 1 st of July till the 31 st of December. 2009.91 All details of curriculum outline taken from interview with Duga 16.03.2010.92 Interview with Daniel Antunović 19.03.201040

no real figures or indicators of its successes and failures. The same curriculum hasbeen tested in both Austria and the Netherlands, showing a success rate of 60 –80%, 93 but to date there has been no evaluation proving the same numbers inCroatia. As far as the treatment in Rijeka, there is presently no official evaluation,and no follow up, aside from phone calls to the family members directly afterfinished treatment. This phone call is the basis for the report written to the court.While this is admitted to not be ideal, it is explained to be due to a lack of funds.SPA monitors their participants longer, with a follow up of two years aftercompleted treatment. They explain that while their sample is not yet big enoughto draw any reliable conclusions, certain preliminary data exists. For example, twogroups counting 10 people in total have finished their programme and of the 10people, 8 have not committed a repeat offence in the 2 years following the end ofthe psychosocial treatment, whilst 2 have under the influence of alcohol. Also, themisdemeanour courts statistics showed that out of 30 people they assignedcompulsory psychosocial treatment to, 2 committed a repeat offence within a yearof finishing the treatment. 94 Duga does plan a follow up after six months, but haveas yet not completed their first round of treatment.Women perpetrators:Further issues to be addressed:As the curriculum used is designed specifically for violent men, certain adaptations havebeen necessary to fit all the female groups of perpetrators. While Duga points out that onecomplication is that women perpetrators take longer to accept responsibility for theviolence they have committed, it is important to take into account the information givenfrom the longer running treatment by U.Z.O.R. Antunović estimates that 80% of thewomen who come to these sessions have been sent alongside their violent partners. Mostof them are not the instigators to violence, but have learned violent behaviour as areaction to the violence they were subjected to by their partners. There are a fewexceptions, but then the violence has usually been directed, not at their partner, but atother weaker members of the family, like older parents or disabled persons. In some ofthe cases, the psychologist realises that the violence the woman committed was selfdefence.In these cases, they have the authority to go against the court decision andrelease the woman from the obligation of psychosocial support or to send her toalternative counselling for victims.Lack of funds:The lack of funds has already been mentioned by U.Z.O.R in particular with regards toevaluation. SPA also describes how a lack of funding becomes a problem when educatingrelevant actors. This creates several problems for the current education. Due to lack offunding 7 counties will not be covered by the education. Also, the 5-day format of theseminars has been shortened to 4 days to cut down on cost and many people who arewilling to attend or wish to fully participate are unable to do so due to the inability to covertheir travel and accommodation costs, which are not provided for by the programme. As aresult, many people cannot participate and many do not get the full benefit of networkingand developing inter-institutional cooperation because the only way they can attend is bytravelling in for the seminar and travelling back at the end of every day to sleep at home.93 Mr. Jusupović stated that the success rate they came across for the psychosocial treatmentprogram that is currently being used was actually estimated at 50-70% successful. For moreinformation see Gondolf, E. W. 2002. Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, andRecommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage94 Interview with Dragan Jusupović from the Society for Psychological Assistance 01.04.2010.41

Also, the provision of spaces in which trained psychosocial experts can carry out theirtreatments, is a problem. Only a lucky few managed to get support from their localgovernment (e.g. Rijeka, Split, Dubrovnik, Zagreb), explaining at least in part the reasonwhy the available psychosocial treatment centres are located only in Zagreb, Rijeka, Split,Dubrovnik and Zadar (Caritas funded).Conclusions:The main problems when discussing the advantages and disadvantages of psychosocialtreatment of DV perpetrators are the complete lack of evaluation and monitoring, and thedesperate lack of funds. It could also be argued that the two are inextricably linked. Withthe issue of evaluation, it is probably justifiable to assume the success rate to be similar tothat in other countries using the same method (e.g. the Netherlands), but there is still aneed for real data from Croatia itself. At the moment, psychosocial support forperpetrators is offered amidst a wide array of criticism, ranging from the idea that amajority never completes the treatment, to it having no effect and simply serving as a wayfor perpetrators to take an easier option than prison. 95 The data obtained from U.Z.O.Rand the report from SPA, regarding the number of perpetrators who give up or never startthe treatment, does not show a majority, and thus this criticism can relatively easily berebutted. However, when the cost-effectiveness of the treatment comes into question, thisis harder to answer or disprove as long as no representative and reliable data on thismatter exists for the Croatian programme. As more time passes, the evaluation made byDuga and SPA could in the future offer at least an indication of the level of success.However, more funds are needed to make possible extensive, continuous assessment, andmonitoring.Another point of concern raised by NGOs 96 is that the women in violent relationships, whoperhaps should be treated as victims, now instead are being sentenced by misdemeanourcourts to psychosocial treatment for perpetrators, along with their partners. Theinformation offered by U.Z.O.R and mentioned above, would indicate that this criticismmight not be completely unfounded. However, Antunović further explains that even whenit is a consequence of violence they themselves were subjected to, the women's violentbehaviour is still something that needs to be addressed and stopped. In which case thepsychosocial treatment offered could still be helping these women. It is also encouragingthat at least in the case of Rijeka the psychologists have the authority to refer what theysee as cases of self-defence to other treatment. Although, as most of these women'sviolent acts happen as a reaction to the violence they are themselves being subjected to,one could at least assume that the line between self-defence and active violence could besomething quite difficult to determine. What would then seem as of utmost importance isthe knowledge and experience of the psychologists to be aware of these women'ssituation.Moreover, an issue already touched upon in the problem section above, is the availabilityof psychosocial help for violent men before it has gone as far as a court case. This type ofhelp is at least available with U.Z.O.R and SPA, however only 1% of those in treatment inRijeka and one man in Zagreb did in the end come on their own accord. In contrast,preventative programs of this kind in Sweden have a proven success rate, a success that isattributed precisely to the fact that the men themselves sought help. 97 Here, most of themen who come for treatment do so not when faced with prison, but with the threat of95 Interview with Autonomous Women's House, Vesna K. 2010. CROATIA CASE STUDY:Gender Dimension of Violence, with the focus on the prevention of DV programmingthrough inclusion of boys and men96 Interview with Korak 22.03.2010, and Autonomous Women's House …...97 See Manscentrum's webpage for more information: http://www.manscentrum.se/sid7.html42

otherwise losing their partner. This would indicate that there is at least a percentage ofviolent men who would be ready to change their behaviour, if DV is sufficiently stigmatisedwithin the society as a whole. Thus, it is to be expected that with the implementation ofcampaigns aimed at sensitizing the public to the problem of DV the demand for noncompulsorypsychosocial treatment will increase. As it stands, only SPA and U.Z.O.R.counselling centres are able to take on voluntary psychosocial treatment users and DUGAZagreb state counselling centre and shelter operates an SOS telephone with psychosocialadvice available for possible perpetrators.It could also be recommended that more effort is placed on achieving the ideal setup ofone male and female psychologist, when treating the male perpetrators. The effectivenessof male role models when changing behaviour and ideas of violent masculinities, especiallywith younger men, has been carefully tested in other countries. 98 Male psychologists wouldthus need to be particularly targeted when offering the training for treatment of DVperpetrators.Finally, overarching and affecting all of the aforementioned issues, is the lack of funding.More funds are needed to fully be able to conduct the educations, to make availablesufficient space in which to carry out the treatment and to conduct extensive long-termevaluation of the same treatments. It is difficult, if not impossible to discuss ways in whichthe treatment could develop, without first having it properly assessed.98 See, among others, research by Promundo in Brazil and elsewherehttp://www.promundo.org.br/43

6. Analysis and Overview of Research and Data on Domestic Violence inCroatia6.1 The National LevelThe official research available thus far is insufficient to analyse with adequate depth andefficiency of the legal framework and mechanism for prevention and protection from DV.Whilst a lot of statistics are available about the number of reported cases of DV, thenumber and demographics of the perpetrators, the number of victims of DV, the numberand type of court decisions there are still a lot of important areas of concern leftuncharted. For example, it is unknown what on average happens to victims of DV oncethey leave the shelter, or how effective psychosocial treatments being conducted withperpetrators are, or how well people are educated on DV once they have undertaken aseminar or course on it, or how much resources (e.g. funds, training, psychosocial experts,shelter capacity, service availability) are exactly needed to fully tackle the problem of DV inthe Republic of Croatia.Examining the current research it is possible to ascertain certain trends and characteristicsof the problem at hand. The size of the problem can perhaps best be represented by thefinding of the PULS polling agency commissioned by the Duga-Zagreb House in 2007which showed that every third family experiences DV, and up to 40% of Croatian citizensknow at least one victim of DV.A study conducted by Professor Otročak in 2003 investigated opinions and experiences ofa sample of approximately 1000 women. The most significant findings regarding opinionsare that 98% considered that research on violence against women is necessary, 85%considered violence against women to be an undervalued problem and 87% thought thatwomen are embarrassed to talk about violence that happens in their own family. 99Within the sample one in five women had at least once experienced physical violence froma man who she was in a relationship with and one in three were witnesses to theirguardian or mother being physically abused, which may point to the actual figure beingeven higher. 100 Looking at types of abuse, the study finds that on average one out of fivewomen in an intimate relationship and half of divorced women have experienced seriouspsychological and physical abuse. One out of three women experienced sexual abuse. Thestudy finds a strong correlation between physical and sexual violence. 101 Among theabused women more than half did not turn to anyone for help, and of those who did, mostturned to friends and family. 102 Only one in seven of the 57% of the poorest women in thesample had a high school level education or above.Certain trends can be found in the existing research. Research conducted by the CentralBureau of Statistics (CBS) on DV in the 2001-2006 period shows a clear upward trend inthe number of reports, court cases and convictions relating to DV both as a misdemeanourand criminal offence. 103 This is partially echoed by the statistics of the MoIA for the 2003-2009 period. As can be seen in Figure 6.1, the number of reported perpetrators of DVoverall peaked in 2007 and has slightly reduced since then and remained stagnant year onyear. The number of reported perpetrators of DV as a misdemeanour has been steadilyrising in all years other than 2008. On the other hand, the number of perpetrators of DV99 Otročak, D. 2003. Interpretacija rezultata istraživanja nasilja nad ženama u RepubliciHrvatskoj [Interpretation of the Results of Research into Violence against Women in theRepublic of Croatia], pp. 18-19100 Ibid, pp. 20-35101 Ibid, p. 36102 Ibid, p. 40103 DZS [Central Bureau for Statistics]. 2007. Nasilje u obitelji 2001.-2006. [Domestic Violence2001-2006] http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv/publication/nasilje.htm, pp. 18, 4044

as a criminal offence under Article 215a rose steadily and peaked in 2006, afterwards itsteadily declined. The aforementioned trend of reported perpetrators of DV as a criminaloffence is also true in cases of the same offence (Figure 6.3). According to the MoIA, thenumbers peaked in 2006 at 1,985 reported cases and continue to steadily decline afterthat. Examining the ratio of misdemeanour as opposed to criminal offence perpetrators ofDV in the 2003-2009 period (Figure 6.2) we can see that the criminal reports filed reachedits peak at 4% of total perpetrators reported for DV as a criminal offence in 2003 stayingthe same until 2006, and since then fell to the 3% level in 2007 which remainedunchanged up to 2009. However, it is important to also take into account the StateAttorney (SA) data on DV as a criminal offence (Figure 6.9) which points to a discrepancybetween the number of reported perpetrators for the DV criminal offence in the 2003-2008period and the MoIA data (e.g. for 2008, MoIA = 564, SA = 1285), which is likely to bedue to MoIA data obtained only noting perpetrators according to the severest crime theycommitted. 104 Taking into account the CBS, MoIA and SA data it is clear that there hasbeen a clear upward trend in the number of reported DV perpetrators up until 2006.Moreover, given the likely reason for the discrepancy between MoIA and SA data regardingperpetrators of DV as a criminal offence it is probably best to take SA data as being morerepresentative of the true figure of reported perpetrators of DV. Hence, it seemsreasonable to conclude that the number of perpetrators reported for DV as a criminaloffence has been overall experiencing an upward trend in the 2003-2008 period (Figure6.10). Regardless of whether these figures reflect the changes in the magnitude of theproblem of DV or merely the change in the efficiency of implementing the mechanism forDV detection and reporting, they are a concrete indicator of the severity of the problemand a guideline for the magnitude of the required response to combat it.The gender division of perpetrators of DV as a criminal offence, according to the studydone by the CBS for the 2001-2006 period, is on average 97% male and 3% female,whereas it is 88% male and 12% female for the misdemeanour offence. 105 The SA yearlywork reports show that these findings extend to 2007 and 2008 as well. Our analysis ofMoIA data echoes this ratio but with slightly different figures. According to the MoIA data,94% of perpetrators of DV as a criminal offence are male as opposed to 6% who arefemale.By age groups, the most common perpetrators of both types of offences of DV in the2001-2006 period according to the CBS were men 40-49 years of age who were a third ofthe perpetrators of the criminal offence and a quarter of the total perpetrators of themisdemeanour offence of DV. They were followed by men 30-39 who were a quarter ofthe total perpetrators of DV as a crime and a fifth of the misdemeanour perpetrators, andmen 50-59 years old who constituted every sixth perpetrator of the DV crime andmisdemeanour. Our analysis of the MoIA data for the 2003-2009 period shows similaritieswith these results (Figure 6.4). 106 The perpetrators of the criminal offence of DVpredominantly aged between 39 and 48 (27%), closely followed by the 49-58 age group,which was a quarter of the total number of perpetrators of this crime. Also, every fifthperpetrator of the crime of DV was between 29 and 38 years of age.Analysing the MoIA data for DV as a misdemeanour there appears to be an upward trendof cases taken to the misdemeanour judge in the 2000-2009 period. In the first four yearsexamined, one in six cases on average were taken to the misdemeanour judge, whereas inthe last four years this average jumped to almost one out of two (Figure 6.5).104 DORH [State Attorney of the Republic of Croatia]. 2009/8/7/6/5/4. Godišnji izvještaj za2008/7/6/5/4. godinu [2008/7/6/5/4 Yearly Report]105 Ibid, pp. 48-52106 Unfortunately, the age categories used by the Ministry of Interior statistics are somewhatdifferent so care should be taken when comparing them.45

The number of misdemeanour DV victims has risen in the 2000-2009 period from 5325 toapproximately 21 000 per year in the last four years (Figure 6.6). Thus, the averageamount of misdemeanour victims per year seems to be approximately 21 000. The numberof victims of the DV criminal offence seems to be also overall on the rise; however, theirnumber has varied from year to year. For example, the number of victims of DV criminaldecreased from 1,820 in 2006 to 1,669 in 2007 (-8%) only to increase by about 50% to2,494 in 2008 (Figure 6.7). It is important to note that the increase in the number ofvictims may be due to the increase in the effectiveness of the mechanism for suppressionof DV.The ratio of female to male victims of DV misdemeanour seems to be 70/30 overall, thatis, one male victim to every two female victims with a slight trend of an increase in themale proportion over the nine year period, according to MoIA data (Figure 6.8). This ratiois slightly different when looking at victims of DV as a criminal offence. The SA data showsthat on average the female to male victim ratio is 74/26. When only looking at adults, ananalysis of the SA data for the 2005-2008 period yields a ratio of female to male DVcriminal offence victims of on average 83/17, that is, approximately one male adult victimto every five female adult victims. The overall victim to perpetrator ratio is 1.4 victims toone perpetrator of the DV misdemeanour between 2003 and 2009 (MoIA data) and 1.7victims to each perpetrator of DV as a criminal offence between 2004 and 2008 (SA data)with a peak in 2008 of two victims to every criminal DV perpetrator.On average one out of five of total victims were minors in the 2000-2009 period (Figure6.9). The dominant relationship between the victim and the perpetrator of DV according todata gathered by the MoIA in for 2008 indicate that the predominant relationship is that ofhusband abusing his wife which happens in a third of all cases (Table 6.1).Approximately one out of every four perpetrators of DV as a criminal offence in 2006 hascommitted a crime before, and one in five for DV as a misdemeanour offence, according tothe CBS 2007 report. 107 Thus, repeat offenders on average constitute at least 20-25% ofthe total perpetrators of DV.Table 6.2 provides some insight into the proceedings and the effectiveness of themechanism of dealing with DV. In particular it seems that out of the 16,169 cases of DVreported by the police as a misdemeanour or criminal offence only 40% of those arebrought before a judge. In the other 41% the perpetrator is only detained by the policeauthority. Figure 6.10 shows that according to SA data, the quality of police reporting onDV has improved in recent years as the number of reports has started stagnating whilstthe number of perpetrators accused has been increasing for the same period. Table 6.3indicates the number of protective measures given to perpetrators of DV in the year 2008.The number of guilty verdicts, prison sentences and the total number of verdicts reachedon DV is shown in table 6.4.107 DZS. 2007. Nasilje u obitelji 2001.-2006. [Domestic Violence 2001-2006]http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv/publication/nasilje.htm, pp. 38, 4846

Figure 6.1 – Criminal and Misdemeanour DV Perpetrators 2003-2009Source: Information request to MoIA regarding gender based violence 21.01.2010.Figure 6.2 – Criminal vs. Misdemeanour DV Offence 2003-2009Source: Information request to MoIA regarding gender based violence 21.01.2010.47

Figure 6.3 – Cases of DV Criminal Offence (Art. 215.a) 2003-2009Source: Information request to MoIA regarding gender based violence 21.01.2010.Figure 6.4 – Perpetrators of DV Criminal Offence (Art. 215a) by Age 2003-2009Source: Information request to MoIA regarding gender based violence 21.01.2010.48

Figure 6.5 – Percentage of People Reported for DV Misdemeanour Offence thatWere Taken to Judge 2003-2009Source: Information request to MoIA regarding gender based violence 21.01.2010.Figure 6.6 – Number of Victims of DV Misdemeanour Offence 2003-2009Source: Information request to MoIA regarding gender based violence 21.01.2010.49

Figure 6.7 – Number of Victims of DV Criminal Offence (Art. 215.a) 2004-2008Source: SA yearly work reports 2004-2008Figure 6.8 – Ratio of Total Male to Female Victims of DV Misdemeanour 2000-2009Source: Information request to MoIA regarding gender based violence 21.01.2010.Figure 6.9 – Ratio of Minor to Non-Minor Victims of DV criminal offence 2000-200950

Source: Information request to MoIA regarding gender based violence 21.01.2010.Figure 6.10 – Number of Reported, Accused and Convicted Perpetrators of DV asa Criminal Offence (Art. 215.a) 2003-2008Source: SA yearly work reports 2004-2008Table 6.1 - Perpetrator – victim relationship – Crime committed by & onBy husbandon wifeTotal 5845(28.42%)By father onchildren4092 (19.90%)By son onfather2650(12.89%)By extra-maritalhusband on wifeBy wife onhusband1173 (5.70%) 1026 (4.99%)Table 6.2 – Number of Reported Perpetrators for DV Misdemeanour OffenceTaken to Judge and Detained in 200851

Reported perpetrators by policefor DV misdemeanourComplaints by police authorityregarding judge’s decisionYear Total Taken to judge2008 16 16920082007 12094(+27.66%)1086610 (40.88%)Detained bypolice authority6706 (41.47%)Table 6.3 – Protective Measures given out for the Offence of DV in 2008Total DV misdemeanouroffence rulings in givencategoryImplementedby police (% oftotal category)Protective measuresCompulsory psychosocial treatment 4607Restraining order 788 265 (33.62%)Prohibition of upsetting or following233 72 (30.90%)the victim of DVAbsence from residential address 377 109 (28.91%)Protection of the victim of DV 27Compulsory addiction rehab 3517Confiscation of item intended or284used in the act of the offenceTotal 9833 466 (4.73%)Source of 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3: Pravobraniteljica za ravnopravnost spolova[Ombudsperson for Gender Equality]. 2009. Izvještaj o radu za 2008. godinu[Work Report for 2008].Table 6.4 – Percentage of Guilty Verdicts and Prison Sentences from Total Verdicts 2006-2008VerdictsreachedGuilty verdicts (% from totalverdicts)Prison sentences given out (%from guilty verdicts)2006 733 649(85.6%) 91(14.0%)2007 762 643(84.4%) 101(15.7%)2008 876 762 (87.0%) 116(15.2%)Source: SA yearly work reports 2004-2008A report written by Radojka Kraljević in 2009 on the findings of an empirical analysis of 27female victims of DV showed that almost half of them had experienced violence for thefirst time before marriage, one in three experienced violence while married and almost allof them experienced it again. Alcohol abuse by the abuser amongst times of abuse wascommonly stated. 109 Eighteen of the victims stated their children witnessed the abuse, aworrying result as many studies show a strong link of self-identification with parents alonggender lines in formative years. Thus, they are more likely to become abusers or abused inadulthood. 110108 Compared to 2007109 Kraljević, R. 2009. Report - Victims of Domestic Violence, pp. 7-9110 Ibid, p. 1252

Nineteen women turned to a friend or family member for help, 17 turned to a NGO thatdeals with DV, 13 to a social worker and 7 to a doctor; a finding that highlights theimportance of education of experts who come into contact with victims of DV and of interinstitutionalcooperation. Police were said to have intervened in 19 cases and a majority ofthe respondents experienced the police protecting the perpetrator more than them, andnot giving them any kind of proper protection (not detaining the perpetrator even afterseveral call outs). Most abusers were punished, but 3 of victims had nothing happen totheir abusers (possibly due to their unwillingness to give testimony in court or aborting theprocedure), and in 15 cases no protective measures were provided. 111 Of the help theywould find most useful but that was lacking, more help from the Centre for Social Welfareand the Centre notifying the police, unbiased police, improved status and support(financial, accommodation, legal) were mentioned.A recent report (2009) written by Darja Maslić Seršić in partnership of the AutonomousWomen’s House Zagreb and MoFVAIS investigated the economic aspects of violenceagainst women and the effects on them and their children. 112 The research utilisedqualitative and quantitative research methods on a sample of 240 current and ex-users ofthe Autonomous Women’s House Zagreb counselling centre. Findings show that eventhough DV happens irrespective of demographic characteristics, more educated womenare less tolerant to DV and quicker to ask for help from NGOs. It also notes that thevictims of DV are usually exposed to several different types of violence simultaneously.Moreover, children, who are considered to be almost always witnesses of the DV, alsosuffer consequences of this behaviour and reflect them in their own behaviour andacademic (under) achievements.When considering the resources available to women confronting the DV they areexperiencing, the report finds no difference in psychological and social resources ofemployed and unemployed women. Thus employment is taken to have a manifest andeconomic function but not a psychological one, pointing to the need of counselling servicesfor victims of DV. Women who stood up to violence were found to have a better handlingof psychological and material resources than those currently suffering from DV,highlighting that psychosocial rehabilitation begins as soon as the violent partner has beenleft. Victims of DV were also shown to be a heterogeneous group and thus did not allrequire the same rehabilitation and help.Examining the experience and self-assessed knowledge on violence against women,Lazarić Zec and Pavleković in 2006 found on a sample of 425 experts that police and NGOworkers come into contact with violence against women often, social workers, doctors andlawyers sometimes and nurses and dentists very rarely. 113 Their findings also show that onaverage the experts estimate 25 non-reported to every reported case. Most experts ratedtheir knowledge as average, and NGO workers, police and social workers are mostinterested in additional education on this matter.A doctoral study by Aleksandar Racz in 2010 researched the opinions and beliefs of 600Zagreb nurses regarding DV against women and their willingness to cooperate with theCentre for Social Services. Some of the most relevant findings are that two thirds of nurseshad no formal education on DV and more than 80% of them had never had any contactwith the social services.111 Ibid, pp. 13-24112 Maslić Seršić, D. 2009. Ekonomski aspekti nasilja nad ženama i njihovom djecom: Žene izapošljavanje – Utjecaj nasilja na djecu [Economic Aspects of Violence against Women andTheir Children: Women and Employment – The Effect of Violence on Children]113Lazarić Zec, D. 2006. Iskustvo i samoprocjena znanja stručnjaka u lokalnoj zajednici oproblemu nasilja nad ženom u obitelji [Experience and Self-Assessed Knowledge on Violenceagainst Women among Professionals in the Local Community].53

Overall, no research on male victims or perpetrators exists. While this may be justified toan extent due to male victims of DV being less likely to be long term unemployed andfinancially dependent, and more likely to be property owners, it does not fully account forpossible situations where this is not the case. As mentioned in the data and researchanalysis section below (section 6.1), according to the MoIA and SA data, the overall ratio isone male to two female victims of DV as a misdemeanour offence, the ratio among adultsis one male to every five female adult victims of DV criminal offence. Moreover, seeing asmen account for an overwhelming majority of reported perpetrators of DV, any DVpreventative and suppression measures would benefit from greater insight into maleperpetrators of DV. Thus, further research regarding male victims of domestic violenceand perpetrators could investigate whether there is a need for male-specific victim andperpetrator policies based on findings regarding male masculinity issues in Croatia.Moreover, no data exists approximating the total cost of DV, the funding required to tacklethe estimated level of the problem of DV in Croatia or regarding the cost-effectiveness ofprevention and current policies being implemented. Such information could enable betterchannelling of resources, and determine how much focus and resources should be placedon prevention compared to dealing with the problem of DV.54

6.2 Regional DifferencesRegional differences are essential to analysing the requisite level of regional capacities fordealing with the problem of DV. As already mentioned above there is a total of 18 sheltersin Croatia situated in 15 counties. Zagreb County and the City of Zagreb have fourshelters, Primorje – Gorski Kotar has two, whereas Vukovar-Srijem, Istra, Sisak-Moslavina,Bjelovar-Bilogora, Split-Dalmatia, Zadar, Brod-Posavina, Karlovac, Šibenik-Knin, Osijek –Baranja, Varaždin and Meñimurje counties all have one shelter. The 6 counties lacking anyshelter for victims of DV are thus Krapina-Zagorje, Varaždin, 114 Koprivnica-Križevci, Lika-Senj, Virovitica-Podravina, Požega-Slavonia and Dubrovnik-Neretva counties. Demands toenter the shelter can be up to 50% higher than the capacity of the shelter (e.g. shelter inBjelovar-Bilogora County) but it is questionable how many of the people refused shelterare unable to find accommodation.The number of perpetrators per county echoes the above mentioned up and down trendwith a peak in 2006 in the number of reports on DV filed as a criminal offence in the 2003-2009 period (Figure 6.11).The total shares of each county in the problem of DV indicate the proportional investmentat the national perspective by county required to implement prevention and protectionfrom DV. The research performed by the CBS for the 2001-2006 period shows that theproportion of total reported perpetrators of DV as a criminal offence (Article 215a) ishighest in the City of Zagreb (10.9%), Vukovar-Srijem (10.4%) and Split-Dalmatiacounties (10.2%) followed by Primorje-Gorski Kotar (9.6%), Sisak-Moslavina (7.5%) andOsijek-Baranja counties (6.3%). 115 In the 2003-2009 period data this order is slightlydifferent, keeping in mind that the City of Zagreb and Zagreb counties are merged in thedata of the MoIA (Figure 6.12). The City of Zagreb and Zagreb counties have the largesttotal number of reported perpetrators of DV as a criminal offence (17%) followed byPrimorje-Gorski Kotar (12%) and Split-Dalmatia counties (11%). Vukovar-Srijem Countycontains the fourth largest proportion of perpetrators of the crime of DV with almost atenth of the total share according to our analysis using the data from the MoIA. The totalshare of indicted perpetrators of DV misdemeanour offences per county according to theCBS data for the 2001-2006 period is as follows: City of Zagreb (15.2%), Varaždin (9.1%),Zagreb County (8.5%) and Sisak-Moslavina County (7.9%). This ranking is the same forthe total shares in perpetrators found guilty of DV misdemeanour. Counties such asVukovar-Srijem and Primorje-Gorski Kotar that are quite highly ranked in the reported DVcriminal offence perpetrators total share are not amongst the top five share of indicted orfound guilty perpetrators of the DV misdemeanour violation.Examining the number of people indicted and found guilty of the criminal offence of DVaccording to the CBS study between 2001 and 2006, we see that the highest percentageof the total is in Vukovar-Srijem (16.1% and 8.9%), Osijek-Baranja (9.5% and 9.1%) andPrimorje-Gorski Kotar counties (8.9% and 7.5%). Interestingly, adding together thecriminal and misdemeanour DV perpetrators found guilty in the period between 2004-2006according to the CBS study produces a somewhat different ordering to that in thedisaggregated ranking (misdemeanour and criminal DV separate) (figure 6.14). City ofZagreb County cumulatively has the largest number of overall perpetrators of DV (3,422).It is followed with a sizeable gap by the Zagreb (2,098) and Varaždin counties (2,074). Itis important to bear in mind that this ranking is significantly different from the top 3ranking of the criminally convicted DV perpetrators according to the CBS 2001-2006 studyabove (Vukovar-Srijem, Osijek-Baranja and Primorje-Gorski Kotar) and somewhat differentfrom the misdemeanour convicted DV perpetrators (City of Zagreb, Zagreb and Varaždin).114 It is important to note that there is a shelter in Varaždin Dom za žrtve nasilja u obitelji“Utočište Sveti Nikola” but that it only has the ability to accommodate victims for 21 days.115 DZS. 2007. Nasilje u obitelji 2001.-2006. [Domestic Violence 2001-2006]http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv/publication/nasilje.htm, pp. 53-6455

Whilst the total share of each county in the overall problem of DV at the national level canhighlight proportional capacity, and hence also resource needs, it obscures thecomparative degree of the problem between the counties due to differences in inhabitantnumbers. In order to be able to ascertain the level of response required for each countyirrespective of population size we thus need to hold the inhabitant numbers of each countyconstant. For the 2001-2006 period the CBS study shows that the highest number ofpeople convicted for the criminal offence of DV per 100 000 is in the Vukovar-SrijemCounty (142). Koprivnica-Križevci (86) and Virovitica-Podravina counties follow them (82).The analysis of the MoIA data for the 2003-2009 period shows that the highest numbersof people reported by the police for the criminal offence of DV per 100 000 (Table 6.5 andFigure 6.13) are in Vukovar-Srijem County (181 – 10%), Lika-Senj (171 – 9%) andPrimorje-Gorski Kotar counties (159 – 8%). Examining the per 100 000 number of peoplewho were found guilty of the misdemeanour violation of DV in the 2001-2006 period in theCBS study the county order is as follows: Koprivnica-Križevci, Varaždin and BjelovarBilogora County.Aggregating the misdemeanour and criminal offenders per county and per 100 000provides a county ranking based on the total size of the problem of DV during the 2004-2006 period (figure 6.15). This is done using the CBS data on convicted perpetrators ofmisdemeanour and criminal DV for the 2004-2006 period. 116 From this it is evident that theranking of counties according to this statistic yields the following ranking: 1. Varaždin(1123), 2. Koprivnica-Križevci (1084), 3. Virovitica-Podravina (1046), 4. Sisak-Moslavina(1030) and 5. Bjelovar-Bilogora (981) counties. It is important to bear in mind that thisranking is different from the top 3 ranking of the criminally convicted DV perpetrators per100 000 according to the CBS 2001-2006 study above only in terms of the top rankingcounty (Vukovar-Srijem, Koprivnica-Križevci and Virovitica-Podravina) and significantlydifferent from the misdemeanour convicted DV perpetrators (Koprivnica-Križevci, Varaždinand Bjelovar-Bilogora).When looking at the ratio of people tried and convicted for DV as a misdemeanour asopposed to a criminal offence between 2004 and 2006 there appear to be substantialdiscrepancies between counties (figure 6.16). 117 Vukovar-Srijem and Šibenik-Knin countiesappear to have significantly higher ratios of misdemeanour DV as opposed to criminal withapproximately a fifth of its total DV perpetrators are found guilty of the criminal offence ofDV. These counties are followed, in order, by the Dubrovnik-Neretva, Primorje-GorskiKotar and Osijek-Baranja counties whose ratios range from one in seven to one in tenperpetrators being found guilty of the DV criminal offence.Thus, on the regional level, it appears that the City of Zagreb has the highest proportion ofoverall reported DV criminal offence perpetrators and accused misdemeanour DVperpetrators. Primorje-Gorski Kotar and Split-Dalmatia counties are ranked closely insecond and third place respectively in terms of reported DV criminal perpetrators, whilstPrimorje-Gorski Kotar also has the third highest share of indicted and convicted of the DVcriminal offence. Osijek-Baranja County has the second highest indicted and convictedshare of perpetrators of DV as a criminal offence, and fifth highest for those reported forthe same crime. Vukovar-Srijem County has the highest number of DV criminal offenceperpetrators convicted and reported per 100 000. It is followed by (not in order)Koprivnica-Križevci, Virovitica-Podravina and Lika-Senj, none of which have a shelter forvictims of DV. Varaždin County, which has the second largest overall share in convictedmisdemeanour DV perpetrators and conviction rate per 100 000 for DV as amisdemeanour offence also does not have a proper shelter (i.e. shelter has maximumallowed stay of 21 days). Due to their high-ranking share in the overall DV offence, all of116 The period 2001-2003 was not used because there was missing data for some counties, whichintroduces significant validity problems.117 Ibid.56

the aforementioned counties hence can be said to require more focused attention in orderto deal with the problem of DV in Croatia fully, that is, cross-regionally.57

Figure 6.11 - Perpetrators of the Criminal Offence of DV (Art. 215a) by County 2003-2009Source: Information request to MoIA regarding gender based violence 21.01.2010.Figure 6.12 - Perpetrators of the Criminal Offence of DV (Art. 215a) by CountyPercentage (for the 2003-2009 Period)Source: Information request to MoIA regarding gender based violence 21.01.2010.58

Figure 6.13 - Perpetrators of the Criminal Offence of DV (Art. 215a) by County Percentageper 100 000 (for the 2003-2009 Period)Source: Information request to MoIA regarding gender based violence 21.01.2010.Figure 6.14 - Total (misdemeanour and criminal) perpetrators of DV found guilty percounty in the 2004-2006 periodFigure 6.15 – Total (misdemeanour and criminal) perpetrators of DV found guilty percounty per 100 000 in the 2004-2006 period59

Source: DZS [Central Bureau for Statistics]. 2007. Nasilje u obitelji 2001.-2006. [DomesticViolence 2001-2006] http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv/publication/nasilje.htmFigure 6.16 - Convicted DV Misdemeanour and Criminal Perpetrators for the 2004-2006 periodSource: DZS [Central Bureau for Statistics]. 2007. Nasilje u obitelji 2001.-2006. [DomesticViolence 2001-2006] http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv/publication/nasilje.htm60

Table 6.5 - Perpetrators of the criminal offence of domestic violence (Art. 215a) per 100 000 forthe 2003-2009 PeriodPoliceAvg200200 200200 200TotDepartme R 2004 R R R 2007 R R R ran35 68 9alntkZagreb 6.7 13 8.71412.711.9111311.819.013 9.0156.218107.2 17 14 62Split-13.14.0 4 14.7 96 13.8 9Dalmatia49.5 13 9 96Primorje-20. 30.25. 11.Gorski 27.5 1 18.3 3 3 2 25.2 3 39 15 5Kotar10 4 159Osijek-1 2 12.14. 13.3.6 18 8.2 8.812 16.9 6 7Baranja5 0 45 39 12 77Istra 9.2 7 5.81 12. 1 13.1 12. 1 11.10 9.27 1 2 14 6 1 111 12 73Dubrovnik13. 16.1 1 14.9.7 6 15.9 5 8 7 10.6 7.1-Neretva3 82 7 26 9 87Karlovac 9.2 8 9.91 16. 15.1 15. 14.6 8 10.661 9 53 5 17 8 91Sisak-39. 22.13.7.6 10 15.6 7 1 4 14.6 7Moslavina4 159 7.0 18 8 119Šibenik-10. 1 14.1 14. 16.7.1 11 15.9 69 12.48Knin6 6 21 2 84 9 91Vukovar-25. 34.21. 16.17.6 3 25.4 2 2 1 40.0 1 5Srijem9 75 15 3 181Zadar 4.9 17 4.31 19. 11.22. 20.4 14 22.8 4 49 1 12 43 9 104Bjelovar-1 10.1 25.3 16 17.3 4 9.815 6.0 4.5Bilogora9 58 04.5 19 16 58Slavonski1 11. 11Brod- 3.4 19 5.16.2 19 14.1 8 8.58 3 54Posavina7.4 16 16 56Koprivnica12. 12.1 12. 1 13.20.1 2 26.5 1 9 11 8.8-Križevci9 96 1 2 78 8 107Krapina-1 19.1 18.4 9 9.85 9.8 16 8.4 7.7Zagorje2 07 68.4 14 13 71Lika-Senj 13.0 5 14.9 816. 27.37. 33.7 3 27.9 2 18 93 52 4 171Meñimurj1 10. 12 1 11.5.9 15 9.32.5 20 1.7 5.9e3 1 80 9 012 17 44Požega-1 11. 11 11. 17.0 12 5.88.2 17 12.8Slavonija6 7 40 7 38.2 15 14 65Varaždin 6.0 14 3.22 10. 11 16.5 18 4.9 8.10 3 79 53.2 20 18 42Virovitica-1 12. 1 21.35. 34.3.2 20 12.85 19.3 5 2Podravina0 8 0 43 31 8 139TOTAL 189 247 306 306 289 297 26561

Interviewed personsAnamarija Gospočić, Centre for Education, Counselling and Research (C.e.s.i.),28.01.2010.Branka Lučić and Daniela Čukelj, Vukovar Office for Victim and WitnessSupport, 12.02. 2010.Daniel Antunović, U.Z.O.R., 19.03.2010.Dragan Jusupović, Society for Psychological Assistance (SPA), 01.04.2010.Duška Car Drljača, U.Z.O.R. Shelter, 31.03.2010. and 07.04.2010.Gordana Lukač-Koritnik, Ombudsperson for Gender Equality, 16.02.2010Ivana Sučić and Katarina Martić, Women's Shelter in Vukovar, 12.2.2010.Jasna Lenuzzi, Korak, Karlovac, 23.03.2010.Neva Tolle, Valentina Andrašek and Jasenka Ražov, Autonomous Women’sHouse Zagreb, 23.02.2010.Tatjana Repalust, Be Educated, Be Emancipated (B.a.B.e), 26.4.2010Zdravka Sadžikov, Be Educated, Be Emancipated (B.a.B.e), 01.2.2010Željka Barić, Duga Home for Adult Victims of Domestic Violence Zagreb,16.02.2010.Željka Barić, Dubravka Vujnović Radaković and Danijela Brunović, Duga Homefor Adult Victims of Domestic Violence Zagreb, 16.03.2010.BibliographySwanson, I. 2009. Number of men on receiving end of domestic abuse soars.New Scotsman, 25 th of November 2009 – available athttp://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Number-of-men-onreceiving.5854938.jpAutonomous Women's House Zagreb - Structural Violence against WomenAZKZ [Autonomous Women's House Zagreb]. 2008. Yearly Report 2007.AZKZ [Autonomous Women's House Zagreb]. 2009. Yearly Report 2008.AZKZ [Autonomous Women's House Zagreb]. 2010. Yearly Report 2009Blueprint of the Council of Europe 2006 Campaign to Combat Violence againstWomen, including Domestic Violence, EG-TFV (2006) 8rev5, StrasbourgCEDAW recommendation 1582 (2002) 7 – available athttp://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta02/EREC1582.htmC.e.s.i. 2007: Nasilje: ne prolazi samo od sebe [Violence: Does not Go Away byItself] - http://www.cesi.hr/attach/_n/nasilje.pdfConvention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).1979 – available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/62

Council of Europe, Group of Specialists for Combating Violence againstWomen. 1997. Final Report of Activities of the EG-S-VL including a Plan ofAction for Combating Violence against Women, StrasbourgDG Human Rights – DG II.2003. Measures Dealing with Men Perpetrators ofDomestic Violence. Strasbourg, 25-26 June 2003, pp. 75-85DORH [State Attorney of the Republic of Croatia]. 2005. Godišnji izvještaj za2004. godinu [2004 Yearly Report]DORH [State Attorney of the Republic of Croatia]. 2006. Godišnji izvještaj za2005. godinu [2005 Yearly Report]DORH [State Attorney of the Republic of Croatia]. 2007. Godišnji izvještaj za2006. godinu [2006 Yearly Report]DORH [State Attorney of the Republic of Croatia]. 2008. Godišnji izvještaj za2007. godinu [2007 Yearly Report]DORH [State Attorney of the Republic of Croatia]. 2009. Godišnji izvještaj za2008. godinu [2008 Yearly Report]DZS [Central Bureau for Statistics]. 2007. Nasilje u obitelji 2001.-2006.[Domestic Violence 2001-2006]http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv/publication/nasilje.htmEU Conference on Violence Against Women, Cologne (1999) Expert ForumsRecommendationsEU European Parliament Resolution on Violence Against Women (1986) Doc.A2-44/86 Official Journal. C. 176European Roma Rights Center. 2005. CEDAW Shadow report on the Republicof Croatia’s combined second and third periodic reports -http://www.iwraw-ap.org/resources/croatia_ERRC(English).pdfGondolf, E. W. 2002. Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, andRecommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageHome Office. 2009. Tough New Powers to Help Victims Break Cycle ofDomestic Violence. 29 th of September 2009 available athttp://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/tough-new-powers.htmlKelly, L. – The Council of Europe. 2008. Combating Violence Against Women:Minimum Standards for Support ServicesKraljević, R. 2009. Report - Victims of Domestic Violence in Croatia. UNDPJustice and Human SecurityLazarić Zec, D. 2006. Iskustvo i samoprocjena znanja stručnjaka u lokalnojzajednici o problemu nasilja nad ženom u obitelji [Experience and Self-AssessedKnowledge on Violence against Women among Professionals in the LocalCommunity].Logar, R. 2003. Stopping the Perpetrator – The New Domestic Violence Billand the Work of the Intervention Centres in Asutria. In DG Human Rights –DG II.2003. Measures Dealing with Men Perpetrators of Domestic Violence.Strasbourg, 25-26 June 2003, pp. 75-8563

Macdonnell, H. 2009. Domestic violence against men in Scotland up by 167%.The Sunday Times, 4 th of Ocotber 2009 – available athttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6860217.eceMaslić Seršić, D. 2009. Ekonomski aspekti nasilja nad ženama i njihovom djecom:Žene i zapošljavanje – Utjecaj nasilja na djecu [Economic Aspects of Violenceagainst Women and Their Children: Women and Employment – The Effect ofViolence on Children]MOBMS [Ministry of Family, War Veterans and Intergenerational Solidarity].2004. Nacionalna strategija zaštite od nasilja u obitelji za razdoblje 2005.-2007. [National Strategy of Protection from Violence in the Family for the2004-2007 Period], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 182/04MOBMS. 2005. National Program of Psychosocial and Health Help to theParticipants and the Victims of Casualties from the Homeland War, ZagrebMOBMS. 2007. Nacionalna strategija zaštite od nasilja u obitelji za razdoblje2008.-2010. [National Strategy of Protection from Violence in the Family forthe 2008-2010 Period], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 126/07MOBMS. 2009. Izvješće o provedbi nacionalne strategije zaštite od nasilja uobitelji, za razdoblje 2008.-2010 za 2008. [Report on the implementation ofthe National Strategy of Protection from Violence in the Family for thePeriod 2005-2007 for 2008], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 126/07.Nikolić-Ristanović, V. and Dokmanović, M. 2006. International Standards onDomestic Violence and Their Implementation in the Western Balkans, Aimfor Human Rights - available athttp://www.aimforhumanrights.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Balkanreport.pdfOtročak, D. 2003. Interpretacija rezultata istraživanja nasilja nad ženama uRepublici Hrvatskoj [Interpretation of the Results of Research into Violenceagainst Women in the Republic of Croatia].Poredoš, Tošić & Grgić. Nasilje u obitelji nad osobama starije životne dobi[Domestic Violence against Elderly People]Pravobraniteljica za ravnopravnost spolova [Ombudsperson for GenderEquality]. 2009. Izvještaj o radu za 2008. godinu [Work Report for 2008].Recommendations of the EU-Expert Meeting on Violence Against Women –Jyväskylä (Finland) 8-10 November, 1999Roe, S. 2009. Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Homicides, Firearm Offences andIntimate Violence 2007/08 – Section 3, Intimate Violence. British CrimeSurvey: 55-86. Available at -http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0209.pdfStandards and Recommendations of the Conference of Experts on Policecombating Violence against Women – Baden, December 1998, point 37.The psychosocial treatment report from Society for Psychological Assistancefor the period between 1 st of July till the 31 st of December. 2009. InPravobraniteljica za ravnopravnost spolova [Ombudsperson for GenderEquality]. Izvještaj o radu za 2008. godinu [Work Report for 2008].64

Vesna K. 2010. CROATIA CASE STUDY: Gender Dimension of Violence, with thefocus on the prevention of DV programming through inclusion of boys andmenLaws & Mechanisms2000. Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Kaznenog Zakona [Act on Amendmentsto the Criminal Code], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 129/002003. Zakon o zaštiti od nasilja u obitelji [Law on the Protection fromDomestic Violence], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 116/03, 137/09,14/10.2005. Fakultativni protokol uz Konvenciju o uklanjanju svih oblikadiskriminacije žena [Optional Protocol for the Convention on theElimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) –available at www.ured-ravnopravnost.hr2003. Obiteljski zakon [Family Law], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 116/03,17/04, 136/04, 107/072003. Zakon o ravnopravnosti spolova [Law on Gender Equality], NarodneNovine [Official Gazette] 116/03Članak 14 i 23 Ustava Republike Hrvatske [Article 14 and 23 of theConstitution of the Republic of Croatia], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette]41/01. (cleaned up version)Članak 215a Kaznenog zakona Republike Hrvatske [Article 215a of theCriminal Code of the Republic of Croatia], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette]110/97, 27/98, 129/00, 51/01, 111/03, 105/04 i 84/05Članak 69 i 129 Zakona o policiji [Article 69 and 129 of the Law on police],Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 129/00.Javni poziv za podnošenje zahtjeva za odobrenje za provođenjepsihosocijalnog tretmana počinitelja nasilja u obitelji izvan zdravstvenihustanova [Public Call for Applications for Permission to ImplementPsychosocial Treatment of Perpetrators of Domestic Violence Outside ofHealth Facilities], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 59/07MOBMS. 2008. Protokol of postupanju u slučaju nasilja u obitelji [Rules ofProcedure in Cases of Family Violence].MUP [Ministry of Internal Affairs]. Pravilnik of načinu provedbe zaštitnihmjera koje su Zakonom o zaštiti od nasilja u obitelji stavljene u nadležnostpolicije [Regulations regarding the Means of Implementation of theProtective Measures that ave been put in the Jurisdiction of the Policeaccording to the Law on the Protection from Domestic Violence], NarodneNovine [Official Gazette] 27/04.Porodični zakon [Family Law], Službeni glasnik RS [Official Gazette of theRepublic of Serbia] 18/200565

Standardi za provedbu psihosocijalnog tretmana [Standards for theImplementation of Psychosocial Treatment], Narodne Novine [OfficialGazette] 28/06UN. 1979. Konvencija o uklanjanju svih oblika diskriminacije žena prihvaćenana općoj skupštini UN-a [The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination against Women (CEDAW) adopted by the UN GeneralAssembly]UN. 1993. Deklaracija UN-a o eliminaciji nasilja nad ženama prihvaćena naopćoj skupštini UN-a 20. prosinca 1993 [UN Declaration on the Eliminationof Violence against Women Accepted by the UN General Assembly on the20 th of December 1993].Zakon o besplatnoj pravnoj pomoći [Law on Free Legal Aid], Narodne Novine[Official Gazette] 62/08Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o izvršavanju kazne zatvora [The Lawon the Amendment of the Law of Serving a Prison Sentence], NarodneNovine [Official Gazette] 83/09Zakon o kaznenom postupku [Law on Criminal Proceedings], Narodne Novine[Official Gazette] 110/97, 112/99, 58/02, 62/03, 115/06, 152/08Zakon o naknadi štete žrtvama kaznenih djela nasilja [The Law on FinancialCompensation of Damage of the Victims of Violent Crimes], Narodne Novine[Official Gazette] 80/08Zakon o područjima posebne državne skrbi [Law on Areas of Special StateConcern], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 86/08Zakon o policiji [The Law on the Police], Narodne Novine [OfficialGazette]76/09Zakon o prekršajima [Law on Misdemeanors], Narodne Novine [OfficialGazette] 88/02, 122/02, 187/03, 15/04, 127/04Zakon o sudovima [Law on Courts], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 113/08Zakon o sudovima za mladež [Law on Juvenile Courts], Narodne Novine[Official Gazette] 111/97Zakon u suzbijanju diskriminacija [Law on the Suppression of Discrimination],Narodne Novine [Official Gazette] 85/08Zakon o zaštiti svjedoka [Law on Witness Protection], Narodne Novine [OfficialGazette] 163/03.Zakon of potvrđivanju Fakultativnog protokola uz Konvenciju o uklanjanjusvih oblika diskriminacije žena [Law on the confirmation of the OptionalProtocol for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination against Women (CEDAW)], Narodne Novine [Official Gazette]3/01. 14/03.WebsitesManscentrum webpage available at http://www.manscentrum.se/sid7.html66

Promundo webpage http://www.promundo.org.br/Sojourner Project website - http://www.sojournerproject.org/67