Maro Matosian
The death of Zaruhi Petrosyan — beaten to death in 2010 by her
husband and mother-in-law — has sparked a stronger public discussion
about violence against women in Armenia. Before 2010, domestic violence
was not discussed publicly, nor even acknowledged as a matter of social
concern; rather, it was seen as a private, family matter. Since 2010,
through the efforts of women’s rights organizations and civil society,
this human rights violation has become visible, to the point where
survivors are able to voice their own stories.
After many years of advocacy, a new domestic violence law has been
drafted in Armenia by the Ministry of Justice, and is based on the
recommendations from different organizations with experience in handling
violence against women.
This draft law aims to protect women and children from violence,
thereby making Armenian families more peaceful. But it has met with
virulent resistance. Why?
After a major setback three years ago, the EU once again is seeking
various agreements that will lead to exchange programs, cooperation, as
well as increased foreign assistance for Armenia. In doing so, the EU
has also signaled basic standards, including those for human rights,
which it expects from all partner countries. This has generated a
culture clash, as pro-Russian elements seek to impede this
rapprochement, ostensibly ‘protecting’ Armenia from the invasion of
‘alien’ values and norms.
Such ‘protection’ is accomplished in various ways. One is for
pro-Russian sources to financially support groups who will oppose
progressive reforms. Such groups often attempt to stir fear,
misinformation, and panic towards initiatives – such as the Domestic
Violence law — in order to confuse the public into opposing them. The
accusations of these groups are outrageous, claiming that a DV law will
- counter our traditional Armenian values
- destroy the Armenian family
- take children away from families and place them in orphanages
- That children, as a result of family disruption, will become gay
… and many other absurdities.
The draft law has been posted on the Ministry of Justice website, in
order to gather commentary from the public. Women’s rights organizations
point out mainly three gaps in the text, which contradict international
best practices. They are as follows:
- Mediation mechanism: According to the draft, the police will serve as the primary mediator between the victim and the perpetrator. Based on international experience, this mediation proposition is inefficient and can be dangerous in domestic violence cases. And, based on local experience in Armenia, police may well use this tool as a way to “victim blame” and to pressure women into reconciling. Moreover, this mediation is proposed after protective orders are put in place, which means that threats and violence have already occurred.
- Case management: The draft also proposes that a council, headed by the Prime Minister, will be used to manage the issues of domestic violence cases. How this will occur, and how the mechanisms for it will function, are unclear. There are only 2 shelters in Armenia currently, and they are run completely by NGOs; and yet, the draft also recommends state-run shelters. In principle, this is laudable; but in practice, this is cause for concern, since state social workers have no experience in this field, and usually their practice has not been victim-centered. Another contentious point concerns references to “immoral” or “insulting” behavior on the part of the victim, which would justify the perpetrator’s abuse. This argument was often used by abusers and authorities, as they accused the victim of betrayal and infidelity.
- Lastly, we are pleased that the draft introduces protective orders in Armenia; however, it doesn’t contain any punitive measures, and instead refers to Armenia’s current penal code, which is inadequate for cases of domestic violence. (On the other hand, we acknowledge that there are provisions in the law to train service providers, such as social workers, police, and judges. Until now, this was solely done by women’s organizations.)
We also hope that the government will initiate awareness-raising
campaigns to send a strong message that such behavior is unacceptable
and punishable as 1 in 4 women are victims of abuse. Hopefully this
will counter the present state of impunity towards domestic violence,
and the public-at-large will come to an understanding that there is no
excuse for domestic violence.
Survivor Testimony: WSC former beneficiary Hasmik Khachatryan
Hasmik Khachatryan is a domestic violence survivor and has publicly
spoken about her story. Hasmik stated that when she would go to the
police for help and protection from her husband, they would instead call
her husband to come to the station and have them reconcile. This type
of mentality that attempts to fix the situation for the children’s sake
puts the victim in an even more dangerous and vulnerable situation. It
is the responsibility of the law enforcement to protect victims of
abuse. Authorities do so when violence occurs publicly between
strangers in the street. However when a woman seeks protection from
abuse at the hands of her partner, it’s seen as a private issue that
should be resolved at home.
When Hasmik would attempt to leave the home, family and friends would
ask her how she was planning on living, with no income and children to
take care of. They would encourage her to go back to her abusive
husband. Society believes that for a woman, it’s better to live at home
with her family, even if she’s being abused. Her safety and her right
to live a life free of abuse is not important; only the preservation of
the family is important, not even considering the psychological scars on
her and the children.
“My husband broke my nose, my eardrum, left me with many
concussions. One day I left the house heavily bleeding, and decided to
go to a hospital outside of my town in Gavar, where everybody knew him.
There, the hospital referred me to the Women’s Support Center, who saved
me and changed my life. I didn’t know that there were shelters
available to stay in, and I was afraid of the unknown. After many months
at the shelter I regained my strength, and healed both physically and
psychologically. Now I have a small business and sell pastries to stores
and I am able to support my family.
I am sad, that the court pardoned my ex-husband, because he never
understood that he is responsible for his crimes, and he continued his
violent behavior towards others. Many batterers think that violence
against a woman is not punishable. That is why having a law is so
important”-said Hasmik.
To learn more about Hasmik’s story, click here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=201&v=qRkKlu_S8Ls
"Asbarez," October 23, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment