The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New Trends and Challenges

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New Trends and Challenges

Belgrade, 2018 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New Trends And Challenges

Publisher:

For publisher:

Authors: Nevena Petrušić, Natalija Žunić, Vida Vilić

Reviewers: Prof. Vesna Nikolić-Ristanović, PhD Prof. Zorica Mršević, PhD Sanja Ćopić, PhD

Technical editing and cover design by:

Printed by:

Print run:

ISBN

CIP Disclaimer: The printing of this publication was supported by the OSCE Mission to Serbia. The views herein expressed are solely those of the author and contributors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the OSCE Mission to Serbia. Content Foreword ......................................................................................................................... 5 PART ONE The criminal offence of domestic violence - theoretical and legal framework .7 1. Domestic violence as gender-based violence.....................................................................7 2. History of the development of the national system of legal protection against domestic violence .......................................................................................................................13 3. Current criminal legislation....................................................................................................19

PART TWO Research Of Judicial Practice In Cases Of Domestic Violence .......................... 27 1. Subject, Goal and Methodology of Research................................................................... 27 2. Judicial practice in Belgrade................................................................................................. 30 2.1. General information about court cases ................................................................. 30 2.2. Phenomenology of the criminal offence of domestic violence.......................... 30 2.3. Profile of perpetrators ...................................................................................................40 2.4. Profile of victims ..............................................................................................................51 2.5. Criminal proceedings - substance, course and duration...................................... 56 2.5.1. Detention ............................................................................................................... 57 2.5.2. Evidence.................................................................................................................. 58 2.5.3. Outcome of procedure....................................................................................... 58 2.5.4. Appeal...................................................................................................................... 59 2.5.5. Duration of procedure......................................................................................... 59 2.6. Type and level of pronounced criminal sanctions...................................................61 3. Judicial practice in Niš........................................................................................................... 65 3.1. General information about court cases..................................................................... 65 3.2. Phenomenology of the criminal offence of domestic violence.......................... 65 3.3. Profile of perpetrators ....................................................................................................74 3.4 Profile of victims .............................................................................................................. 83 3.5. Criminal proceedings - substance, course and duration ..................................... 89 3.5.1. Detention ............................................................................................................... 89 3.5.2. Evidence.................................................................................................................. 89 3.5.3. Outcome of procedure ...................................................................................... 89 3.5.4. Appeal......................................................................................................................90 3.5.5. Duration of procedure ........................................................................................90 3.6. Type and level of pronounced criminal sanctions ................................................. 92

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 3  4. Judicial practice in Novi Sad................................................................................................. 96 4.1. General information about court cases..................................................................... 96 4.2. Phenomenology of the criminal offence of domestic violence.......................... 96 4.3. Profile of perpetrators...................................................................................................101 4.4. Profile of victims ........................................................................................................... 110 4.5. Criminal proceedings - substance, course and duration.....................................114 4.5.1. Detention ..............................................................................................................114 4.5.2. Evidence ................................................................................................................115 4.5.3. Outcome of procedure......................................................................................115 4.5.4. Appeal.....................................................................................................................115 4.5.5. Duration of procedure........................................................................................115 4.6. Type and level of pronounced criminal sanctions ................................................117 5. Summarised findings from the entire sample .................................................................119 5.1. Forms of criminal offence perpetration....................................................................119 5.2. Joinder of offences, complicity, place of perpetration........................................ 120 5.3. Profile of perpetrators.................................................................................................. 120 5.4. Profile of victims............................................................................................................ 126 5.5. Criminal proceedings - substance, course and duration.................................... 130 5.5.1. Detention.............................................................................................................. 130 5.5.2. Evidence................................................................................................................ 130 5.5.3. Outcome of procedure.......................................................................................131 5.5.4. Appeal.....................................................................................................................131 5.5.5. Duration of procedure........................................................................................131 5.6. Type and level of pronounced criminal sanctions................................................ 133 5.6.1. Types of criminal sanctions ............................................................................. 133 5.6.2. Level of criminal sanctions............................................................................... 134 5.6.3. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances................................................... 135 PART THREE Conclusions.................................................................................................................138 Appendix...................................................................................................................... 145 Questionnaire for collecting data from court cases:.......................................... 145 Bibliography................................................................................................................. 157 Biographies of authors.............................................................................................. 163

4 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Foreword The publication The Criminal Offence of Domestic Violence in Judicial Practice - New Trends and Challenges is a result of scientific research conducted with the aim of understanding changes in the phenomenology of the criminal offence of domestic violence, recording the key challenges in the functioning of the mechanism of criminal justice protection against domestic violence, establishing the degree of its effectiveness and efficiency, and identifying changes and current trends based on the comparison with the results of previous research.

The latest research on judicial practice in cases of the criminal offence of domestic vio- lence was conducted nine years ago; since a new practice has been established in the meantime, its analysis would provide a critical insight into the functioning of the exist- ing mechanism of criminal justice protection against domestic violence and the changes that occurred in the meantime in interpreting regulations, conducting procedures and punishing perpetrators. Although there were no significant legal changes in the crim- inalisation of domestic violence over the past nine years, the National Strategy for the Prevention and Elimination of Violence against Women in Family and in Intimate Part- ner Relationship was adopted in 2011, and on 31 October 2013 Serbia ratified the Coun- cil of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention). In addition, a number of educational pro- grammes have been implemented and expert conferences have been held for judicial office holders, and it should be possible to examine whether education influenced their work. These were the main reasons for carrying out this new research.

The research results presented in this monograph provide an overview of the situa- tion and allow for the monitoring of future changes in the work of judicial authorities in the context of the new Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence, which was adopted in late 2016. The findings and knowledge gained through this research can be the basis for a new scientific generalisation and expert discussion on disputable issues in the

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 5  interpretation and application of the Law, but also for a wider social debate on how to overcome the identified problems and for the critical review of practice with a view of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of criminal justice protection provided in cases of domestic violence.

During our research, distinguished professor Slobodanka Konstantinović Vilić, PhD, who had led the earlier research, provided us with her expert suggestions, friendly encour- agement and support, for which we are wholeheartedly grateful.

AUTHORS

6 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Part One

The criminal offence of domestic violence - theoretical and legal framework 1. Domestic violence as gender-based violence

Domestic violence is a social phenomenon that affects both the lives of individuals and the whole of society. Domestic violence is considered a “phenomenon of long duration” and has almost become part of our everyday lives as a social pathological phenomenon. Models and patterns of its existence and perpetuation are part of patriarchal or tradi- tional understanding of sexes, gender patterns and family relationships. The family is the place where the patterns of behaviour are formed, but also the models of cultural pat- terns, necessary for the functioning of society and relations among people, primarily in traditional societies. Traditional models of family relationships and induced social aware- ness of gender and gender relations are still part of the prevailing family schemes, in which the family life takes place in our community, and of the positions and roles of men and women in such relations.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 7  One of the main reasons for not having considered domestic violence as a serious form of violence in society for a long time, but as a common and socially acceptable behaviour, lies in the way of public presentation and definition of the main social and cultural char- acteristics of domestic violence. Looking at the family in Serbia from the 1990s onward, from a gender perspective, we will see that it is characterised by a fall in the individ- ual and social material standard, as well as the overall level of living of both men and women. The process of pauperisation, especially among the urban population, as well as a high degree of economic and overall social uncertainty, among other things, resulted in a drastically high rate and dynamics of domestic violence in Serbia (Nikolić-Ristanović, 2002: 13). The long-term economic crisis, the general pauperisation of the population, the enormous increase in unemployment rates, the arrival of a large number of refugees, etc. have produced a “fertile soil” for the spread of domestic violence and its alarming rates.

Sociological research shows that the past events and living conditions in our region have “left a profound impact on the field of bio-social reproduction of families, which is unlikely to be mitigated in the near future. The society is left to deal with the numer- ous and severe consequences of the negative demographic balance in the situation of extreme social and individual poverty, which in any case does not give any brighter pros- pects for a durable solution to the problem” (Milić, 2002: 260). The countries in transi- tion, including Serbia, have undergone the long, complex and interconnected processes of retraditionalisation and repatriarchalisation, causing that the female power manifests primarily in the private sphere, that the masculine values are strengthened, that women are instrumentalised and their interests are subordinated to the interests of the nation, which is especially evident in the demographic discourse, when it comes to population and fertility, that is, in insisting on the “return of women” to the family or in anti-abortion campaigns (Blagojević, 2002: 294).

Research on domestic violence in the field of criminology, sociology and psychology1 has shown: that the rise in violence in society is directly linked to the increase in domes- tic violence; that persons can be exposed to domestic violence throughout their life; that the most frequent victims of domestic violence are women, children and elderly peo- ple; that domestic violence is a behaviour aimed at establishing power and/or control or satisfying some of the perpetrator’s needs at the expense of the victim; that the conse- quences of exposure to violence are numerous and significantly affect the mental health of both direct victims and witnesses of violence; that domestic violence is a result of the interaction of a number of factors, both individual and social, and that the violence

1 In recent decades, research into the causes of domestic violence has been intensified and encouraged by the strong demands of social movements, especially women’s, for introducing significant changes in the procedure and finding an effective social response to domestic violence. Such research has also been used in the feminist discourse in theoretical research in the field of criminology, sociology and psychol- ogy. See more: (Lukić, Jovanović, 2001:13); (Walsh,1997).

8 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges experienced in childhood contributes to resorting to violence as a way of resolving interpersonal conflicts in adulthood (Ajduković, 2000: 11). Accordingly, domestic vio- lence is defined as a continued use of physical and psychological force towards family members, while endangering and violating the domain of safety and the relationship of trust, and exercising control and power over family members, regardless of whether such behaviour is defined as a criminal offence in the applicable legislation or whether the perpetrator of violence has been reported to the prosecuting authorities (Konstanti- nović Vilić, Nikolić-Ristanović, 2003:128; Lukić, 2003:14).

Article 3(a) of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence2 defines violence against women as “as a viola- tion of human rights and a form of discrimination against women and shall mean all acts of gender-based violence that result in, or are likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychologi- cal or economic harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbi- trary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life”. Article 3(b) defines domestic violence as “all acts of physical, sexual, psychological or economic violence that occur within the family or domestic unit or between former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victim”. According to the Convention, there are two types of domestic violence3: partner violence between current or former spouses or partners and intergenerational violence, usually between parents and children. Violence in a partner relationship is recognised as a type of gender-specific violence, while intergenerational domestic violence is determined as gender-neutral and includes victims and perpetrators of both sexes (Ignjatović, Pavlović Babić, Lukić, 2015: 17).

Domestic violence occurs in several forms: violence in marriage, violence against house- hold members and violence against children. Each of these forms constitutes the endan- gering and violation of safety domain and trust relationship between family members, and manifests power and control over the victim. Violence against family members is usually a well-hidden secret and family members do not speak publicly about it, which is why we refer to the phenomenon of “dark figures” of domestic violence. It is very important for family members to maintain the appearance of family stability and secu- rity of family life in contact with the outside world. Abusers often behave differently in public and in their family or private environment, expressing their aggressive nature in their own home. For a long time, it was a common attitude that family relationships were strictly the private sphere of life and that the protection of privacy was much more

2 Official Gazette of RS - International Treaties, no. 12/13. 3 The use of the terms “domestic violence” and “intimate partner violence”, but also the more recent term “gender-based violence” conceals, however, their gender dimension, that is, the fact that women are much more often victims of this type of violence, in a specific way and with serious consequences. (Ignja- tović, 2011:14).

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 9  important than the protection of the physical and mental integrity of a family member who was the victim of violence. There are still many stereotypes and prejudices about domestic violence, especially violence in marriage (Konstantinović Vilić, 2004: 76; Stošić, 2012: 32; Petrušić, Konstantinović Vilić, 2012:9). Nevertheless, the perception of domes- tic violence has changed - it is today a social problem and a form of crime, because it has become evident that, because of the consequences it causes, it should not be socially tolerated, and that active opposition to violence is one of the basic obligations of every democratic state that respects and protects human rights.

There is no reliable statistics on the extent of domestic violence, as victims very rarely report violence to the prosecuting authorities for fear of abuser’s revenge, and because of the patriarchal attitude that the woman who suffers violence is always guilty for it, that she should keep “silent” and be “loyal” to the family and the like. Men, if they are victims, almost never report violence because under the enormous burden of tradition and its cultural values they want to keep the myth of their undisputed power and “main” role in the family. Victims are mainly afraid that they will not receive proper protection and that the reporting of violence will only infuriate the abuser and aggravate violence. Their fear is often justified, especially if the response of state institutions is not efficient and effective.

Research has shown that in many countries domestic violence is widespread and has seri- ous consequences. In the USA, 25% of women victims of domestic violence were physi- cally mistreated during pregnancy; children of abused mothers are six times more likely to commit suicide and five times more likely to use alcohol than children of non-abused mothers; in Great Britain, there are at least half a million cases of domestic violence every year and women are victims in 80% of these cases (Inter-Balkan Conference on Legal Strat- egies to Combat Domestic Violence, 1997). An EU-wide survey conducted in 2014 shows that violence against women is a widespread, but often unreported, violation of human rights across the European Union. Approximately 8% of women experienced physical and/ or sexual violence in the period prior to the interviews conducted in the 2014 survey, and one in three women experienced some form of sexual and/or physical abuse before the age of 15 (Violence against women: an EU-wide survey. Main results report, 2014: 9). The results of Eurobarometer on gender-based violence (2017) and domestic violence reveal that 22% of women over 15 years of age experienced physical and/or sexual violence by their partners; one in three women experienced physical and/or sexual violence; and one in twenty women was a victim of rape; 74% of respondents think that domestic violence is a common phenomenon in society; 23% of respondents know women from their com- munity who were victims of domestic violence. Asked why people avoid speaking about domestic violence, 26% of respondents say “they do not care”, 18% think that there is no sufficient evidence for domestic violence, 16% believe “that the situation is not clear” and

10 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 16% “do not want to cause problems”. Only 12% of respondents state that they reported to the police the suspected violence in the family of one of their acquaintances. As regards the institutional assistance to victims of domestic violence, 74% of respondents think that such assistance is available to victims, while 15% consider that domestic violence is a pri- vate matter that should be solved within the family. The conclusion is that EU citizens rec- ognise family violence, but many of them do not speak about it.

The surveys conducted in our country show that the extent of violence is relatively large, that its consequences are increasingly serious and that its victims are much more often women and children than adult men. The most common victims of domestic violence are women of all age groups, although men, primarily male children, can also be victims of domestic violence. According to the results of a survey conducted in 1993 (Nikolić-Rista- nović, 1994), more than half of surveyed women (112 or 58.3%) were victims of some form of violence in marriage; 94 or 49% of women reported that they had been psychologically abused in marriage (serious insults, doing deliberately something that seriously hurts, threats of beating and murder); 36 or 18.7% of women were physically mistreated, that is, beaten by their husbands; 36 or 18.7% of women were victims of rape or attempted rape by their husbands. Physical abuse is usually accompanied by other forms of violence. Women who were beaten by their husbands were at the same time the victims of psycho- logical violence (38.9%), sexual violence (25%) or both (52.8%). However, women are not the victims of violence committed only by their husbands. They are also the victims of vio- lence committed by their adult sons, fathers-in-law, mothers-in-law, etc. According to the statements of women victims, the most common triggers of violence are: quarrels about money (14.3%), disagreement with the parents of one partner (10.4%), quarrels about chil- dren and husbands’ alcoholism and jealousy. The violent behaviour of husband usually begins before marriage (13.4%), at the very beginning of marriage (8.9%) or after the birth of the second child (4.5%) (Nikolić-Ristanović, 1994: 41-42).

The survey of domestic violence in Vojvodina has shown that this is a region with a high rate of psychological and physical violence. More than half of the women surveyed (the sample included 516 women from seven towns in Vojvodina) responded that they had been the victims of some form of domestic violence after the age of 18. Nearly every second woman was a victim of psychological violence; nearly every third woman was threatened with physical violence, and about one third of them were victims of physical violence. Nearly every fifth woman was a victim of stalking, and somewhat fewer than a dozen of women answered that they had been the victims of sexual violence. The pre- vailing form is partner violence, but there is also violence committed by children against parents, parents against adult children, as well as violence among in-law relatives (Niko- lić-Ristanović, 2010: 127).

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 11  In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of domestic violence cases resulting in death.4 The victims of femicide are most often the women who have previ- ously suffered the violent behaviour of their husbands or other male relatives and who have not received adequate protection from the police, social welfare centres and other state bodies or from the people in their immediate surroundings. Women are particu- larly vulnerable when they decide to leave their violent husbands. A woman who suffers violence in marriage, and who is usually asked why she has not left the abuser if she does not feel good being with him and if she is really abused, is most often a woman trapped by fear of being murdered in case of leaving the abuser. The cases reported through SOS hotlines for women and children victims of violence show that the abuser rarely wants the marriage to end. He is dependent on his relationship with the victim, because he exercises his power in that relationship.

A relatively satisfactory system of legal protection against domestic violence has recently been established in Serbia. However, well-defined legal provisions and inter-in- stitutional cooperation do not yield a quick and positive result, given that the negative trends in mass culture, culturally accepted pattern of violence, difficult economic situ- ation, global and local increase in violence and crime, inconsistent social policies and practices, etc. contribute to the general increase in violence including violence against women and children. This is confirmed by the findings contained in the official reports of state bodies and in the independent reports of women’s non-governmental organisa- tions (Jovanović, Višnjić, Ignjatović, Macanović, 2009: 25-26; Jovanović, Simeunović-Pa- tić, Macanović, 2012), but also in the Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which, among other things, urge the state to further strengthen its efforts to overcome stereotypical attitudes regarding the roles and responsibilities of women and men in the family and in society and con- tinue implementing measures to eliminate gender stereotypes by promoting positive images and substantive equality of women.5

Previous research on the legal practice of prosecuting the criminal offence of domes- tic violence in Serbia has shown that institutions do not respond properly and timely

4 According to the monitoring of femicide by the Women against Violence Network in 2017, at least 26 women were killed in Serbia in the family/partnership. All the killed women knew the perpetrator: twen- ty-three women were killed by partners (former/current, spouse/cohabitation partner) and three by their family members. Most women (12) were killed with a knife, ten were killed with firearms, one woman was drowned, while three were killed in another way. Nine women were killed in the house/apartment where they lived with the abuser, five in their own house/apartment, one in the abuser’s house/ apart- ment and 11 in other places. There is a steady increase in the number of women killed without an ade- quate social response (www.zeneprotivnasilja.net/femicid-u-srbiji). Femicide is monitored on the basis of media reports, which are certainly not complete statistics or a true indicator of the prevalence of this most severe form of violence against women including domestic violence. 5 See: Concluding observations on the combined 2nd and 3rd periodic reports of Serbia, UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), /C/SRB/CO/2-3, of 22 July 2013.

12 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges to domestic violence, which often leads to secondary victimisation (Lukić, Jovanović, 2001; Konstantinović Vilić, Petrušić, 2007; Jovanović, Simeunović-Patić, Macanović, 2012). Most often, there is no timely police intervention in cases of less severe forms of vio- lence (insults, threats, disparagement, insolent and ruthless behaviour and similar forms of psychological violence), and after reporting violence, the victim gives up seeking fur- ther protection. In addition, victims of domestic violence very often do not receive sup- port and assistance from social welfare centres, which should act in coordination with the police, but are sometimes advised to keep and maintain a partner relationship. As regards the criminal prosecution of domestic violence, the data indicate that men are more often arrested, detained and sentenced than women perpetrators of this type of violence. Courts more often pronounce a sentence of imprisonment in cases where the criminal offence of domestic violence is treated as part of a wider context of long-lasting violence, while detention and punishment depend on the gravity of violence and the abuse of other family members. On the other hand, alcoholism has a significant impact on the police decision to arrest and the court decision to order detention, but not on the decision about punishment or suspended sentence. (Nikolić-Ristanović, 2013: 44).

The experience shows that the sexist attitudes of professionals who handle the cases of domestic violence are the key causes of institutional discriminatory practices that are manifested in the treatment of women victims of domestic violence (Petrušić, Konstan- tinović Vilić, Žunić, 2015, 31-45; Mršević, 2014). Hence, there is no doubt that in addition to improving the legislative and institutional framework, there must be a wider social support for the prevention of domestic violence as part of the cultural system of values, creating an atmosphere where it is not socially acceptable, that is - society with zero tol- erance for violence. The achievement of this goal is not possible without the elimination of the underlying causes of violence against women, which implies combating discrim- ination against women, eliminating the existing gender hierarchy, marginalisation of women and structural gender inequalities, overcoming the ideology of sexism, stereo- typical social and cultural attitudes towards gender and establishing genuine equality between women and men (Petrušić, Konstantinović Vilić, Žunić, 2015, 44).

2. History of the development of the national system of legal protection against domestic violence

Domestic violence is a social pathological phenomenon that has been marginalised and ignored by our society for decades. Patriarchal attitudes towards gender and parent- ing, which are still prevailing in our society, are among the main reasons why domes- tic violence has not been considered, for a long time, a serious form of violence, but a usual and socially acceptable behaviour. Despite the fact that during the past twenty

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 13  years of the social crisis in Serbia the scope and dynamics of domestic violence have taken on dramatic proportions (Nikolić-Ristanović 2002: 13), influenced particularly by the long-term economic crisis, the general pauperisation of the population, the enor- mous increase in unemployment rates, the arrival of a large number of refugees, etc., there were no adequate legal mechanisms for the prevention and elimination of domes- tic violence until 2002.6

As a result of the years of efforts, primarily of women’s NGOs, to make domestic violence socially visible and their systematic advocacy and lobbying for the adoption of appropri- ate legal provisions in Serbia, a valid legal framework for the prevention and elimination of domestic violence and protection of its victims has been established.

The first step in the building of a coherent system of protection against domestic vio- lence7 was made by passing the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Repub- lic of Serbia.8 These Amendments to the Code criminalised domestic violence, which was introduced as a separate criminal offence (Article 118a), thus establishing a repressive, criminal justice protection against domestic violence. Qualifying domestic violence as a criminal offence under Article 118a of the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia in 2002, the psychological and physical integrity of family mem- bers was better protected. In addition, in this way the legislator clearly showed that violence in marital and family relations is no longer a private matter of the patriarchal and traditional family, but rather the reason for the justified repressive response of law enforcement authorities.

Article 118A provided four forms of the criminal offence of domestic violence, from the least severe (injuries or violation of the physical or psychological integrity of a family member by using force or serious threat) to the most severe one (death of a family mem- ber). The envisaged penalties for individual forms of this criminal offence ranged from a fine to the prison sentence of minimum ten years. The Law did not precisely define the term “family member” and in practice it remained open for interpretation. Most often, the term “family member” was interpreted restrictively, which led to the narrowing of the scope of criminal justice protection against domestic violence, and in practice cohab- iting partners, divorced and separated spouses, persons in intimate relationships and persons in factual cohabitation were excluded from the system of legal protection. In addition, there was no legal basis for pronouncing protective or security measures, due to which it was deemed that, despite the undoubted importance of new criminalisation

6 For more information about the problems related to the response to violence by the institutions of the system in this period, see (Ćopić, 2002: 63-73). 7 For more details about the need to establish a system of protection against domestic violence based on the combination of preventive and repressive measures, see (Petrušić, 2003: 195-216). 8 Official Gazette of RS, no. 10/02. The Law became effective on 9 March 2002.

14 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges provisions, we can hardly “talk about the existence of the basis for achieving adequate legal protection for victims of domestic violence” (Nikolić-Ristanović, 2003: 10).

As a result of the reform of criminal legislation and its harmonisation with international and European standards, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia was passed in 2005. Article 194 in Chapter Nineteenth “Criminal Offences related to Marriage and Family” dealt with the criminal offence of domestic violence.9 Compared to the previous Code, the new one reduced the duration of imprisonment for all forms of domestic violence and added the fifth form of criminal offence - violation of the imposed protection mea- sure against domestic violence (Article 194, paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code).

The next amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia10 brought sev- eral novelties: “insolent” behaviour was removed from Article 194, paragraph 1; “family member” was defined; the severity of penalties was increased for all forms of domes- tic violence; and the security measure of no approaching or communicating with the injured party was introduced. The currently applicable Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia11 has re-introduced in paragraph 1 the “insolent” behaviour that endangers the tranquillity, physical integrity or mental condition of a family member. Other provisions related to other forms of domestic violence, the type and severity of punishment, secu- rity measures and definition of family member have not been changed12.

In the process of establishing a system of legal protection against domestic violence, the adoption of the Law on Family of the Republic of Serbia13, which became effective on 1 July 2005, is of particular importance. This Law made the system of protection against violence complete, since the legislator explicitly prohibited domestic violence and acknowledged the right to protection against domestic violence to family members (Article 10 of the Law on Family of the Republic of Serbia), regulated preventive, fami- ly-law measures of protection and conditions for pronouncing them (Articles 197 - 200 of the Law on Family) as well as a special procedure and rules for conducting civil proceed- ings for protection against domestic violence (Article 283 - 289 of the Law on Family).

In the meantime, the criminalisation of domestic violence has undergone several changes through the adoption of the 2005 Criminal Code and the 2009 Law on Amend- ments to the Criminal Code. In an effort to establish a coordinated functioning of the institutions of the system in preventing and protecting against domestic violence, the Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence was adopted in 2016. This Law regulates the

9 Official Gazette of RS, nos. 85/05, 88/05 - corrigendum, 107/05 - corrigendum. 10 Official Gazette of RS, no. 72/09, 11 Official Gazette of RS, nos. 85/05, 88/05 – corrigendum, 107/05 corrigendum, 72/09, 111/09, 121/12, 104/13, 108/14, 94/2016. 12 See more under point 3. 13 Official Gazette of RS, no. 18/05

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 15  actions of public authorities and institutions in preventing domestic violence and pro- viding protection and support to victims of domestic violence.

The state has ratified almost all international agreements in the field of human rights and gender equality. A number of strategic documents and protocols have been adopted since 2008. The 2011 Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating vio- lence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention), ratified by Serbia in 2013, 14established the legally binding standards for the protection of women against domestic violence, indicating that gender prejudices and the lack of necessary knowl- edge on gender (non)-equality and gender-based violence are a serious obstacle to the establishment of an effective system of protection against domestic violence. Accord- ingly, the member States are expected to work towards the eradication of sexism and establishment of de jure and de facto gender equality in accordance with the due dili- gence standard15. Among other things, this means taking the necessary measures to pro- mote changes in the social and cultural patterns of behaviour of women and men with

14 Law on the Ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, Official Gazette of RS - International Treaties, no. 012/2013. 15 The term “due diligence” is used in the Istanbul Convention. This concept appears in human rights doc- uments and expresses the state’s obligation to prevent human rights violations by private individuals through preventive action, preventing violations, punishing perpetrators (detection, prosecution and punishment) and providing victims with adequate compensation. The implementation of this concept is very complex in the practice of international institutions because it is necessary to prove that the state has not acted in accordance with the due diligence standard, that its institutions did not take all neces- sary preventive measures, and that in a particular case they could have taken measures for preventing and punishing the perpetrator of a violent act (Branković, 2013: 38-39). This standard was first used by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 1988 in the case Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras. In this case, the Court found the state responsible, pointing out that an illegal act which violated human rights and which was initially not directly imputable to a State could lead to responsibility of the State, not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due diligence to prevent the violation (Hasellbacher, (2010). The due diligence standard is a key criterion used by the CEDAW in monitoring the application of the Convention, i.e. in the process of considering the reports of Member States, but also in handling indi- vidual cases and conducting investigations of serious or systematic violation of law, on the basis of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. One of the important indicators taken into account by the CEDAW is the action of authorities in breaking gender stereotypes and traditional patterns on the roles and responsibilities of women and men in the family and in society, as well as the action in the field of education and training of judges, police offi- cers and representatives of public authorities in order for them to understand the gender dimension of domestic violence, its causes and consequences. Thus, for example, in the case of A.T. v. Hungary, (CEDAW Communication No. 2/2003, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/32/D/2/2003 (2005), http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/ cedaw/decisions/2-2003.html), handling the complaint of Mrs. A.T. who, being a victim of partner vio- lence for many years, lodged a complaint against the violation of the right to effective protection against domestic violence, the Committee established that “legal and institutional system in Hungary is not ready yet to ensure the internationally expected, coordinated, comprehensive and effective protection and support for the victims of domestic violence”, finding that part of the cause for such a situation are “entrenched traditional stereotypes regarding the role and responsibilities of women and men in the family[...], and attitudes towards women that the Committee recognized vis-à-vis the country as a whole”. The due diligence standard is used also by the European Court of Human Rights. See more details in: (Petrušić, Konstantinović Vilić, Žunić, 2015).

16 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges a view to eradicating prejudices, customs, traditions and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority of women or on stereotyped roles for women and men.16 By ratifying the Istanbul Convention, Serbia committed to preventing any form of discrimination against women by taking appropriate measures, including the preven- tion and protection against gender-based violence. This includes the state’s duty to take all necessary measures to change the social and cultural patterns of behaviour and elim- inate gender stereotypes in the society.17

One of the specific goals of the first National Strategy for Improving the Position of Women and Promoting Gender Equality (2009 - 2015)18 is the prevention and elimination of all forms of violence against women and the provision of a comprehensive system of pro- tection for women victims of violence. One of the specific goals of the second National Gender Equality Strategy 2016-202019 is an enhanced safety of women with respect to gen- der-based violence in the family and intimate partner relationships.

The way of acting and the cooperation of institutions in preventing and protecting vic- tims of domestic violence are defined in the 2011 General Protocol for Action and Coop- eration of Institutions, Bodies and Organisations in the Situations of Violence against Women within the Family and in Intimate Partner Relationship of the Government of the Republic of Serbia as well as these special protocols: Special Protocol of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Policy of the Government of the Republic of Serbia for Action of Social Welfare Centres – Guardianship Authorities in Cases of Domestic and Intimate Part- ner Violence against Women (2013); Special Protocol of the Ministry of Interior of the Gov- ernment of the Republic of Serbia for Action of Police Officers in Cases of Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence against Women (2013); Special Protocol of the Ministry of Health of the Government of the Republic of Serbia for Action in Cases of Domestic and Intimate Part- ner Violence against Women (2010); and Special Protocol for Judiciary in Cases of Domes- tic and Intimate Partner Violence against Women (2014). For AP Vojvodina, the Strategy for the Protection of Women against Domestic and Other Forms of Gender-based Violence in AP Vojvodina for the period 2008-2012 was adopted in 2008, while the Programme for the Pro- tection of Women against Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence and Other Forms of Gen- der-based Violence in AP Vojvodina for the period 2015-2020 was adopted in 2014.

16 Article 12 of the Istanbul Convention. Besides, Article 6 provides that Parties shall have gender-sensitive policies, that is, to include a gender perspective in the implementation and evaluation of the impact of the provisions of the Convention and to promote and effectively implement policies of equality between women and men and the empowerment of women. (Branković, 2013). 17 Article 5 of CEDAW states that Parties shall take the necessary measures to promote changes in the social and cultural patterns of behaviour of women and men with a view to eradicating prejudices, customs, traditions and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or superiority of either sex or the traditional roles for men and women. 18 Official Gazette of RS, no. 15/2009. 19 Official Gazette of RS, no. 4/2016.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 17  Although there is still no national centralised system for collecting data on domestic vio- lence, which would provide a reliable insight into the prevalence of domestic violence, the data collected by institutions and women’s NGOs show that domestic violence is still widespread and increasingly brutal. The victims are usually women, children and infirm persons, which confirms that domestic violence is gender-based and possible because of gender discrimination and a lack of social responsibility for violence against those who have neither power nor ability to resist it. 79.6% of the victims of domestic violence recorded in the social welfare system are women. Women make up 75% of the injured parties in the criminal proceedings for domestic violence with final court decisions. As many as 54% of women have experienced some form of domestic violence during their lives (Babović, Ginić, Vuković, 2010: 89).

One of the key elements of the successful fight against domestic violence is criminal jus- tice protection. This form of protection is achieved in the criminal proceeding conducted against the persons accused of committing the criminal offence of domestic violence. The level of effectiveness and efficiency of criminal justice protection against domestic violence is not satisfactory. This was pointed out also by the CEDAW in its Concluding observations on the combined 2nd and 3rd periodic reports of Serbia.

Developing legal instruments for the protection against domestic violence is the fulfil- ment of the state’s international obligation to protect the right to life, freedom and per- sonal safety of its citizens, to prevent violence, regardless of where it is happening, and to provide the survivors of violence with comprehensive legal protection, social assis- tance and support in order to exit the situation of violence and mitigate its harmful consequences. On the other hand, the creation of appropriate mechanisms for the pro- tection against domestic violence is the fulfilment of the state’s international obligations concerning the elimination of domestic violence as gender-based violence that keeps women in a subordinate position compared with men and seriously diminishes their ability to enjoy human rights and freedoms equally with men.20

20 “...violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men”. (Declaration on the Elimina- tion of Domestic Violence against Women, 1993). See also: Recommendation no. 19 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women - CEDAW (1992), Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995), Recommendation of the CoE Committee of Ministers to Member States on the protection of women against violence (Rec2002/5). See more about the international standards for the protection of women against violence: (Mršević, 2000; Konstantinović Vilić, Petrušić, Žunić, 1999; Ignjatović, 2005; Konstantinović Vilić, Petrušić, 2010:93-120).

18 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 3. Current criminal legislation

In the existing legislation of the Republic of Serbia, the criminal offence of domestic vio- lence is criminalised in the Criminal Code where this offence is defined in Article 194, Chapter Nineteenth “Criminal Offences related to Marriage and Family”.

Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia provides five forms of the crim- inal offence of domestic violence. Each of the forms implies physical and psychologi- cal violence, but not economic or sexual violence21 (regulated by other provisions of the Criminal Code in Chapter Eighteen - Criminal Offences against Sexual Freedom) and indi- cates the endangerment of the tranquillity, physical integrity or mental state of a family member.

The first, basic form of the criminal offence consists of several alternative actions: the use of violence, the threat of attacks against life or body, insolent or ruthless behaviour (Article 192, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia). The conse- quence of this offence manifests in the form of concrete danger, which consists in endangering the tranquillity, physical integrity or mental state of a family member, and in the infliction of visible injuries on the body of victims that can be qualified as light bodily injuries, which are proved by medical certificates and can be subject to evaluation by court-appointed experts.

Violence can take the form of: physical, sexual, psychological, emotional and economic abuse. Article 189 of the Criminal Code criminalises physical, psychological and emo- tional violence, while economic violence is not specified, but can be interpreted as psy- chological violence in a wider context; sexual violence is criminalised in Chapter XVIII as part of criminal offences against sexual freedom.

Physical violence defined in Article 194, paragraph 1 consists of the use of physical force, by which a light bodily injury of the victim is inflicted or attempted to inflict or by which the integrity of body is violated without inflicting any injury. It can be done in dif- ferent ways and using different means including: beating up, punching on the head and body, hair pulling, burning, kicking, choking, throwing on the floor, pouring hot water or gasoline, burning with a cigarette, breaking the arm, nose or jaw, hitting with a belt, wooden, metal or other object, etc. The signs of physical abuse are usually visible and manifest as: injuries to the face, chest, arms, legs, stomach, in the form of haematoma, scratches, cuts, burns, bone fractures, broken teeth, choking marks on the neck, eardrum injury, etc. The indication of physical violence does not have to imply visible changes on

21 Law on Protection from Domestic Violence of the Republic of Croatia, adopted on 14 July 2003 (Official Gazette, no. 116/03), Article 4 introduces “sexual harassment” as a form of domestic violence.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 19  the victim’s body, which are usually proven by medical certificates and can be subject to evaluation by court-appointed experts. If there are no visible changes on the victim’s body, physical violence is proved by all other available means of evidence.

Although in practice physical violence, as a rule, is used continuously over a longer period of time, an individual act of physical violence, in itself, constitutes a sufficient legal basis for instigating criminal proceedings for the protection against domestic violence. If in such cases the public prosecutor does not initiate criminal proceedings, the abuser, empowered by the idea that the use of violence is legal and legitimate, can repeat vio- lence in a more dangerous form and cause more serious consequences.

Psychological violence consists of insulting, defamation, threats of the use of force, threats to take away children, isolation and control of the victim, intimidation, belittling, mocking, provoking feelings of personal insecurity, constant malicious criticism, abuse of trust, emotional distance, emotional blackmail, etc. (Konstantinović Vilić, Petrušić, 2007:29).

Emotional violence includes the failure to express love and attention, rejection, neglect of the emotional needs of a family member, etc. Emotional violence can also be spiritual, consisting of the systematic deriding or destruction of religious or cultural beliefs (Jova- nović, 2010: 174).

Economic violence involves the deprivation of financial resources, the conditioning of the provision of financial resources, the prevention of access to common sources of income, etc. Economic violence is not specifically mentioned in the description of the basic form of criminal offence. However, given that different forms of economic violence (taking money and valuable things by force, control of earnings and income, spending money solely for the satisfaction of one’s own needs, forbidding a family member to get a job and earn own income, destroying or damaging property, etc.) can lead to endan- gering the tranquillity and mental state of a family member, there is no doubt that eco- nomic violence should be considered a form domestic violence within the meaning of Article 194 of the Criminal Code.

These forms of violence rarely happen independently, but there is usually a combination or concurrent manifestation of two or more forms.

The threat of attacking life or body is a form of psychological violence. It should be objectively serious and create the subjective feeling of compromised safety. The sub- jective feeling of compromised safety depends on the psychological traits of the threat- ened person, which means that the same threat will not cause the same feeling of compromised safety in persons with different psychological traits.

20 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Ruthless behaviour is any behaviour that deviates considerably from the usual behaviour in the family and is expressed as intolerance, hatred, humiliation, contempt, manifestation of power and control over the victim. This is a legal standard that the court will take into account in considering each particular case. In doing so, it has to take into consideration “zero tolerance” for violence, which means that the victim’s personal high tolerance level should not be a decisive criterion at the time of establishing domes- tic violence.

Endangering consists of causing danger to the protected goods and creating the possibility of harming the protected goods. This means that endangering in a way precedes the imme- diate manifestation of violence and poses a real danger of violence actually occurring.

Stalking may occur as a form of psychological violence. This form of psychological vio- lence is not part of the provisions on domestic violence in Article 194 of the Criminal Code, but it is envisaged as a separate criminal offence in the latest amendments to the Criminal Code, Chapter XIV dealing with criminal offences against the freedoms and rights of persons and citizens (Article 138a).22 In most cases, stalking occurs between per- sons who are in an intimate relationship or have previously been in such a relationship, which means that it begins to manifest during intimate relationship or after its termina- tion. Similar to domestic violence, the perpetrator of stalking uses various means and forms (phone calls, sending letters and gifts, sending SMS and e-mail messages, etc.) to exercise and maintain control over the victim. (Nikolić-Ristanović, Kovačević-Lepojević, 2007: 6). Unlike the Serbian Criminal Code, the Croatian Law on Protection from Domes- tic Violence23 defines “stalking and all other ways of harassment” as a form of domestic violence (Article 4). The Law on Protection from Domestic Violence of the Federation of B&H24 also includes “stalking and other similar forms of harassment of another family member” in domestic violence (Article 6).

The criminal offence of domestic violence referred to in Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia exists if the action is taken towards a particular victim - a mem- ber of one’s family. The previous Criminal Code did not specify who was considered a member of the family, but its Article 112, paragraph 28 provided that family members were also former spouses and their children, as well as parents of former spouses. This general provision was included in Chapter XII of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia, under the marginal title “Definition of Terms”. Thus, the legislator recognised the status of a family member only to current or former spouses, their children and parents. The lack of clear rules on who is entitled to criminal justice protection against domestic

22 Official Gazette of RS, nos. 85/05, 88/05 - corrigendum, 107/05 - corrigendum, 72/09, 111/09, 121/12, 104/13, 108/14 i 94/16 23 Official Gazette, no. 116/03. 24 Official Gazette of the Federation of B&H, no. 2205

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 21  violence was one of the key problems in legal practice, which was left unsolved by the legislator, despite the fact that both theory and legal practice pointed out this problem (Konstantinović Vilić, Petrušić, 2004: 164; 2007:109).

The applicable Criminal Code eliminates the dilemma regarding the interpretation of who is considered a family member. Its Article 112, point 28, under the marginal title “Definition of Terms in this Code”, determines that family members are spouses, their children, spouse’s lineal ancestors, cohabiting partners and their children, adopting par- ents and adopted children, foster parents and foster children. Family members are also siblings, their spouses and children, former spouses and their children and parents of former spouses, if they live in the same household, as well as persons who have or will have a common child although they have never lived in the same household. By defin- ing “family members” in this way, the Criminal Code excludes from the criminal jus- tice protection against domestic violence former spouses who do not live in the same household and do not have a common child, former cohabiting partners who may live in the same household but are not considered family members, and parents of cohab- iting partners. By accepting these provisions, the requirements set out in international documents that insist on providing special protection to former spouses and cohabiting partners, regardless of whether they live in the same household or not, remain unmet. Moreover, this definition ignores the fact, confirmed by research, that domestic violence does not cease as soon as the marriage or cohabitation is terminated.

The question arises whether for the existence of the criminal offence of domestic vio- lence referred to in Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia, both its basic and other forms, it is necessary to have continuity of violence. According to the criminological understanding (Walker, 1979:46; Konstantinović Vilić, Nikolić-Ristanović, 2003:128), a woman is considered abused if she is subjected to the abuse cycle at least twice, and domestic violence is defined as the continuous use of physical and psycho- logical force towards family members. In practice, this attitude was dominant in the ini- tial period of the implementation of the criminal norms for domestic violence in Serbia, but under the influence of argued criticism that requesting the continuity of violence prevented the provision of timely criminal justice protection for victims of domestic vio- lence (Konstantinović Vilić, Petrušić, 2004:30, 2007:24), it was mainly abandoned. We consider that duration and continuity of violence are not relevant for qualifying violence against a family member as a criminal offence of domestic violence under Article 194 of the Criminal Code. This position is now based on the Criminal Code, which, in Article 112, paragraph 30, provides that, when an imperfect verb is used to express an act of criminal offence (“who, by using violence, threat... insolent or ruthless behaviour endangers the tranquillity...”), it shall mean that the offence is committed if the act is done once or several times. Accordingly, the criminal offence of domestic violence referred to in Article 194,

22 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code is committed also when the act of “endangerment” is performed only once. We also consider that in order to qualify the criminal offence of domestic violence, it is completely irrelevant whether the competent authorities inter- vened on the occasion of its perpetration and whether this intervention was recorded in the official protocol records (Konstantinović Vilić, Petrušić, 2007: 24-25).

For the first form of the criminal offence of domestic violence, which can be commit- ted by a member of victim’s family, in terms of guilt, it is necessary to have premeditation and it is punishable with three months to three years of imprisonment.

The second form of the criminal offence of domestic violence exists if, in the perpetra- tion of the offence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, weap- ons, dangerous implements or other means suitable to inflict serious injury to body or seriously impair health are used (Article 194, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code). The qualifying circumstance for this form of criminal offence is the use of weapons, dan- gerous implements or other means suitable to inflict serious injury to body or seriously impair health, which means that it is irrelevant whether there has been an injury. The term “weapons” refers to various types of firearms or cold weapons. The term “dan- gerous implements” refers to devices intended for performing certain jobs and which, by their nature, are suitable to inflict serious injury to body or seriously impair health. “Other means” can be a product of nature: stone, wood or a product of human labour (bottle, ashtray, etc.). The judicial practice is uneven in the understanding of whether the foot with a shoe on it, as well as different parts of the perpetrator’s body, are considered dangerous implements (Lukić, Jovanović, 2003: 18). We consider that only “endanger- ment” without visible bodily injury is sufficient for the qualification of this form of crimi- nal offence. The consequence of this act is a concrete danger to the physical integrity or mental state of a family member, and it can also be a light bodily injury. In case of injury and inflicting a light bodily injury, this injury gets qualified as “dangerous light bodily injuries” because weapons, dangerous implements or other means suitable to inflict serious injury to body or seriously impair health were used.

This form of domestic violence is punishable with six months to five years of imprisonment.

The third form of the criminal offence of domestic violence exists in case where the committed violence results in grievous bodily harm or serious health impairment or if committed against a minor (Article 194, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code).

The act of committing this form of criminal offence is the same as in the first two forms, but the consequences are different. The qualifying circumstance is a more serious con- sequence, which means that the consequence of the act is not only the creation of dan- ger to physical integrity or mental state, but actually inflicted grievous bodily harm

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 23  or serious health impairment of a family member. This form of the criminal offence of domestic violence is punishable with two to ten years of imprisonment.

The type of domestic violence defined in in Article 194, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code exists also in cases where the victim is a minor member of the family - child (under 14) and minor (14-18 years). The subject of protection against all forms of physical and psy- chological violence in the family is a child. The act of perpetration, i.e. using violence in this form of the criminal offence of domestic violence, is similar to the act of perpetration in the criminal offence of “neglecting and abusing a minor” (Article 193 of the RS Crimi- nal Code). Due to the vague legal formulation of the term “abuse”25 and different penal- ties provided for these forms of criminal offences, in practice it is very difficult to make a distinction and delineate whether it is a defined form of domestic violence or neglect and abuse of a minor. The envisaged punishment is two to ten years of imprisonment.

The fourth and the most severe form of the criminal offence of domestic violence is when violence results in death of a family member (Article 194, paragraph 4 of the Crim- inal Code). The penalty for this most severe form of domestic violence is three to fifteen years of imprisonment. In recent years, the number of domestic violence cases resulting in death has increased in Serbia. In most cases, the victims are women who, for many years, have suffered violent behaviour of their husbands or other male relatives, and have not received adequate protection from public authorities and institutions or other services they addressed seeking protection against violence. According to the NGO Women against Violence Network, in the first seven months of 2010, 24 women, includ- ing two minors, were killed in Serbia. In nearly 80% of cases, the killers were the victims’ current or former partners, spouses, fathers or sons. Seven perpetrators committed sui- cide after the murder; ten women were killed with a gun, and twelve with sharp objects (knife, axe, hey-fork); one woman was burned with gasoline. In Serbia, from 1 January to 30 June 2017, 15 women were killed by a partner or family member. In the same period of 2016, 18 women were killed and as many as 33 women in the whole year of 2016.26

The fifth form of the criminal offence of domestic violence exists when the perpetra- tor of violence to whom the court imposed a measure of protection against domes- tic violence violates this measure (Article 194, paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code). The measures of protection against domestic violence are envisaged in the Law on Family (Article 198, paragraph 2) and they are basically limiting or temporary prohibiting the

25 Abuse is usually interpreted as undertaking certain actions that cause certain low-intensity physical and mental sufferings of the victim, which do not constitute a light bodily injury; an activity that causes to another person physical or mental pain, anxiety, discomfort or fear of high intensity. The actions referred to in Article 194 of the Criminal Code can certainly be considered abuse, although the legislator does not use that term. See: (Jovanović, 2010:187) 26 www.zeneprotivnasilja.net/vesti/89 femicid-u-srbiji, (accessed on 23 December 2017); www.zeneprotiv- nasilja.net/femicid-u-srbiji (accessed on 23 December 2017).

24 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges maintenance of personal relations between the perpetrator of violence and the victim of violence, which includes the limitation of certain rights and freedoms of the perpetrator of violence (Petrušić, Konstantinović Vilić, 2007:15). Pursuant to Article 194, paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia, whoever violates a measure of protection against domestic violence shall be punished with three months to three years of impris- onment and a fine.

A new provision in the Criminal Code is the measure of no approaching or communi- cating with the injured party (Article 89a). This security measure can be imposed in case where the perpetrator has been punished with a fine, community service, confiscation of driver’s licence, suspended sentence and judicial admonition. The court may prohibit the perpetrator to approach the injured party at a certain distance, prohibit access to the area around the place of residence or the workplace of the injured party and prohibit further harassment of the injured party or further communication with the injured party, if it can reasonably be considered that such actions by the perpetrator could be danger- ous for the injured party. The measure may last for a maximum of three years and may be terminated before the expiration of determined period if the reasons for its determi- nation cease to exist.

The criminal offence of domestic violence is prosecuted ex officio, which means that the public prosecutor initiates criminal proceedings. This provision is in line with the impor- tance of the values (family) protected by the criminal justice system and is in line with the recommendations and legal standards contained in international human rights doc- uments. The prosecution and criminal proceedings in cases of domestic violence are two criminal procedural provisions that, if applied contrary to their intended purpose (including the efficiency and acceleration of criminal proceedings, achieving the prompt pronouncement of judgment, avoiding secondary victimisation, etc.) can weaken the criminal justice protection of the victims of domestic violence. These are plea agreement and hearing for the imposition of a criminal sanction (Articles 313-319 and Articles 512-516 of the Criminal Procedure Code). 27As regards the plea agreement, it is a simplified pro- cedural form when an agreement is concluded between the public prosecutor and the defendant from the moment of issuing an order to conduct an investigation until the completion of main hearing. The agreement is concluded when the public prosecutor and the defendant agree that the defendant fully admits the commission of the crimi- nal offence charged against him/her, and that the prosecutor, in return, makes certain privileges and concessions to the defendant, primarily with regard to a more lenient punishment. An agreement between the parties is decisive for a court decision on the substance because it determines the type and level of the sanction to be pronounced

27 Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, nos. 72/11, 101/11, 121/12, 32/13, 45/13 i 55/14.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 25  and the court makes a decision to accept the agreement or to reject it if the legal require- ments are not met. Hearing for the imposition of a criminal sanction may be held only if the following conditions are met: if the criminal offence is punishable by a fine or a term of imprisonment of up to five years as the principal penalty, and if the public prosecutor in his/her motion to indict may request the holding of a hearing for the imposition of a criminal sanction. The public prosecutor can make this request if he deems the holding of a trial unnecessary because of the complexity of the case and the evidence collected, and especially because the defendant was arrested during the commission of the crim- inal offence or has confessed the criminal offence. The law stipulates which penalties may be proposed by the public prosecutor to the court to impose on the defendant; the defendant should agree with the public prosecutor’s allegations and declare that he/she will not file an objection or appeal against the first-instance decision.

26 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Part Two

Research Of Judicial Practice In Cases Of Domestic Violence 1. Subject, Goal and Methodology of Research

The research of judicial practice in prosecuting the cases of domestic violence, the results of which are presented in this publication, relies on the results of two previous research studies of the legal practice in the Republic of Serbia in prosecuting the cases of violence. These are: Criminal Offence of Domestic Violence - Legal Practice in the Republic of Serbia (March 2002 - December 2003) (Konstantinović Vilić, Petrušić: 2004) and Criminal Offence of Domestic Violence - Current Judicial Practice in Belgrade and Niš (Konstantinović Vilić, Petrušić: 2007).

The research study Criminal Offence of Domestic Violence - Legal Practice in the Republic of Serbia (March 2002 - December 2003) is the first critical review of the police, public prose- cutorial and judicial practice in five cities in Serbia (Belgrade, Novi Sad, Niš, Leskovac and Subotica), which, based on the examined and analysed sample of 620 cases, identified negative phenomena and problems in detecting and reporting domestic violence, in con- ducting criminal proceedings and punishing perpetrators. This research has determined the attitudes of professionals on certain issues related to the perpetrators and victims of

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 27  violence against family members, the way they perceived this type of crime, the possibili- ties of preventive and repressive action of the institutions of the system, and the direction of improving the existing model of legal protection against domestic violence.

The second research, Criminal Offence of Domestic Violence - Legal Practice in the Repub- lic of Serbia, was aimed at analysing the public prosecution and court cases of domes- tic violence in Belgrade and Niš and comparing them with the previous research. This research was conducted in the period January 2006 - May 2007 on the sample of 529 cases. One of the goals of this research was to examine the practical effects of the new legal provisions introduced in 2005 by criminalising domestic violence.

There are more reasons and justifications for conducting a new research of judicial practice in prosecuting the criminal offence of domestic violence. First of all, the latest research was conducted nine years ago, and in the meantime a new practice has been established; its analysis has allowed a critical insight into the functioning of the exist- ing mechanism of criminal justice protection against domestic violence and the changes that occurred in the meantime in interpreting regulations, conducting procedures and punishing perpetrators. Although there were no recent legal changes in the criminali- sation of domestic violence, the National Strategy for the Prevention and Elimination of Violence against Women in Family and in Intimate Partner Relationship was adopted in 2011, and on 31 October 2013 Serbia ratified the Council of Europe Convention on pre- venting and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention). In addition, a number of educational programmes have been implemented and expert conferences have been held for professionals, and it is important to examine whether education influenced their actions in practical work. The results of this research will provide an overview of the current situation and a baseline for monitoring future changes in the work of judicial authorities regarding the implementation of the new Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence, adopted in 2016,28 which regulates the actions of public authorities and institutions in preventing domestic violence and providing pro- tection and support to victims of domestic violence.

The direct subject of the new research is the analysis of the current practice of courts in prosecuting the criminal offence of domestic violence in three largest cities in Serbia - Belgrade, Niš and Novi Sad, at all stages of the criminal procedure. The analysis covers the court cases with final court decisions where the charging documents (indictment, motion to indict) were submitted in 2014 and 2015. In total, 100 court cases selected on a random sample basis were examined and analysed: 50 cases of the First, Second and Third Basic Courts in Belgrade, 25 cases of the Basic Court in Niš, and 25 cases of the Basic

28 Official Gazette of RS, no. 94/2016. Pursuant to Article 39, the Law became effective on 1 June 2017.

28 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Court in Novi Sad. The number of court cases in the sample is 100; the number of crimes committed is 109; the number of perpetrators is 101 and the number of victims is 122.

According to the information obtained from the courts29 covered by research, in 2014 and 2015, they received a total of 762 charging documents, as follows:

Table 1 Court First Basic Second Third Basic Basic Total Court in Basic Basic Court in Court in Belgrade Court in Court in Novi Sad Niš Belgrade Belgrade

2014 46 215 18 65 47 391

2015 124 81 31 90 45 371

The aim of the research is to collect and analyse relevant data on the work of judicial bodies in conducting criminal proceedings initiated in cases of all forms of domes- tic violence referred to in Article 194 of the Criminal Code, to identify changes in the phenomenology of the criminal offence of domestic violence and critically analyse the effectiveness and efficiency of judicial procedure in cases of domestic violence, assess its effectiveness and efficiency, and compare it with the results of previous research.

A special questionnaire, based on the instruments used in the previous research studies, was used to collect data from the court case files, to obtain comparable data. The data collected were statistically processed by using SPSS 14.0.

The collection and processing of relevant data were carried out in three phases. In the preparatory phase of the research, the coordination and preparation of the research was done (the sample, methodology and plan of research were determined; the question- naire was created; and the permissions for carrying out the research were obtained from

29 The information was provided upon the freedom of information requests submitted to courts by the authors in October 2017. The following information related to the period 2014-2015 was asked: 1) Num- ber of criminal complaints for the criminal offence of domestic violence submitted in 2014 and 2015 (Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia, specified by paragraphs); 2) Number of con- victions and number of acquittals for this criminal offence, by year, and number of cases with rejecting judgments; 3) Number of appeals against first-instance decisions, filed by the basic public prosecutor’s office; 4) Number of appeals against first-instance decisions, filed by the convicted persons through their attorneys; 5) Number of concluded plea agreements; 6) Number of upheld judgments, number of abolished judgments and number of reversed judgments. Although all courts provided data, they are not complete. If we assume that the reason for not providing the requested data is that they were not entered in the official records, which was indicated in some responses, it is worrying that the courts do not possess the data about concluded criminal cases, and it remains unknown how they monitor the implementation of the penal policy and its effectiveness in prosecuting the crimes of violence, which is one of their permanent tasks.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 29  the presidents of the courts). In the second phase, data from court cases were collected and statistically processed. In the third phase of the research, a scientific analysis of the collected data was conducted and the text of the monograph was prepared.

2. Judicial practice in Belgrade

2.1. General information about court cases A total of 50 court cases were examined, including the court cases of First Municipal Court in Belgrade (covering the city municipalities of Vračar, Zvezdara, Palilula, Savski Venac and Stari grad), Second Municipal Court in Belgrade (covering the city municipal- ities of Voždovac, Čukarica, Rakovica and Grocka), and Third Municipal Court in Belgrade (covering the city municipalities of Zemun, Novi Beograd and Surčin).

2.2. Phenomenology of the criminal offence of domestic violence Form of perpetration The examined sample included 50 criminal offences of domestic violence. The highest percentage of criminal offences (64%) have the characteristics of the first form of domes- tic violence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 1. All other forms of this criminal offence are less frequent: 22% of committed criminal offences of domestic violence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 2; 12% of committed criminal offences of domestic violence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia).

As regards the criminal offences of domestic violence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia (violation of protection measure against domestic violence), only in one case (2%) the perpetrator was convicted for this criminal offence, which indicates that such cases are rarely prosecuted in practice (Chart 1).

Chart 1

194/3 194/5 12% 2%

194/2 22% 194/1 64%

30 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Joinder of offences Most criminal offences are not perpetrated in joinder - 82%. 16% of criminal offences are perpetrated in joinder, while this information is unknown for 2% of cases. In several cases where there was a joinder of offences, it was noted that the offence was continued.

Complicity

There was not any form of complicity in the examined sample. The perpetrators com- mitted the criminal offence of domestic violence alone.

At the time of perpetration, in 48% cases there were witnesses, mainly children or other family members, but also neighbours, who were heard as witnesses in criminal proceedings.

Place of perpetration According to the data from the sample, in 98% of cases, the criminal offence of domestic violence was committed in cities. A village is the place of perpetration only in one case, which is in line with the previous research of this phenomenon, when it was also found that a city was more frequently the place of perpetration of domestic violence than a vil- lage (62.10%:18.60%). In most cases (98%), the place of perpetration is the place of resi- dence of both perpetrator and victim (Chart 2).

Chart 2

Village 2%

City 98%

The location of event is usually the joint apartment of the perpetrator and the victim - 74%, victim’ apartment – 14% and perpetrator’s apartment – 8%. Similar data were obtained in the previous research, when it was found that in 78% of cases the place of the event was the joint apartment of the perpetrator and the victim, which shows that the common place of residence (apartment, house, yard) where family members should feel most safe, in actually the least safe place.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 31  Time of perpetration In analysing the phenomenological characteristics of the criminal offence, the time of perpetration is also important for monitoring the distribution of crime in different peri- ods (seasons, time of the day). The data from the sample do not show any specific regu- larity regarding seasons or the time of the day. The majority of the criminal offences of domestic violence in the sample were perpetrated in summer - 15 (30%), slightly fewer in autumn - 14 (28%), much fewer in winter - 6 (12%) and spring - 5 (10%), while in the lon- ger period of time (for example from winter to autumn or from summer to winter), 10 criminal offences were committed (20%). This finding is in line with the criminological research according to which criminal offences related to property are most often com- mitted in autumn and winter months, while criminal offences against persons (domes- tic violence could belong to this category considering the target of attack) are most often committed in summer and autumn months. Observed in relation to the time when domestic violence was committed, in most cases where the time of the crime was noted (33), the crime was committed in the afternoon or evening - 22 (66%).

Means of perpetration The means of perpetration of the criminal offence of domestic violence in the examined sample are various objects, including the body parts (hands, fingers, fists, legs, teeth - bites), various items (electrical cables, tying instruments, shopping bag handle, wooden armchair leg, broom stick, wooden guitar, tennis shoe, drilling machine, stone) and cold weapons (knife, axe). As in previous research, physical violence was the most common form of violence - in 78% of cases: in 22 cases (44%) it was physical violence without the use of implements or weapons, while implements/weapons were used in 17 cases (34%). The combination of physical and psychological violence was perpetrated in 8 cases (16%), while in other 3 cases (6%) only psychological violence was perpetrated. Differ- ent methods of perpetration were combined in using physical, psychological and sexual violence.

Methods of perpetration The methods of perpetration depended on the type of violence (physical, psychologi- cal), but also on the means of perpetration.

Physical violence was perpetrated in different ways including: punching on the head and face, pulling hair, kicking, slapping, putting a knife to the throat, choking, biting the hand and the like.

Psychological violence was perpetrated by cursing, insulting by name-calling (“whore”, “slut”, “peasant”, “you’re nobody”, etc.), spitting, harassing with text messages, threats of murder, etc.

32 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges The analysis of the description of committed crimes shows that violence is sometimes very brutal, as illustrated by the following examples:

ii The defendant insulted the injured party, saying that she was irresponsible with respect to their nine-month-old child, pushed her away and twisted her left arm, causing her light bodily injuries in the form of a fracture of the third finger of her left hand.

ii In the course of 2013, 2014 and 2015, the defendant insulted the injured party, telling her that she was nobody, that she was a Bosnian peasant, that all his girlfriends were better than her, and then he physically attacked her, punching her head, dragging her on the floor by the hair, kicking her, hitting her with chairs, threatening to slaughter her, kill her, bury her, demanding from the injured party to provide the money for heroin.

ii The defendant hit the injured party’s face first with the open hand and then with a 1.90 m pole first on the head and body, and then continued punching her face and body with his fist, inflicting light bodily injuries in the form of head trauma and contusion.

ii The injured party sustained light bodily injuries in the form of head and right knee contusion as a result of being repeatedly punched on the head and kicked on the body and leg by the defendant.

ii In the course of 2013, 2014 and 2015, the defendant controlled the injured party’s going to and returning from work on a daily basis, requesting from her to come at a precise time, and if she failed to do so he would hit, threaten and shout at her. When she moved with her daughter and grandson to a rented apartment, he visited and threatened her: “You have to die before me; I will kill you and then myself because I’ve completed my mission, my children are married and I have lived to see my grandchildren.” When the injured party returned with her daughter to the house addition, he threatened and insulted her every day, saying that she was “a whore, a slut, that she had advisers at work”; he disparaged her by saying that she was nobody, that she would have been a peasant if it hadn’t been for him who brought her to Belgrade; he accused her of being in love with her employer and threatened that he had acquired a rifle to kill her and sharpened the knife to finish with her, demanding from her to bring him a photo of the two of them together and put it on the table, and that he would put that photo on a monument when he killed her because he did not want to burden the children with expenses. The next time he phoned the injured party when she was returning from work and threatened her: “Get out wherever you are so that I can rip out your heart and soul, cut off your head and finish with you.” On the same day, he physically attacked the injured party by squeezing her neck with one hand and twisting her left arm with another, and thus inflicted upon her light bodily injuries in the form of bruised back of the neck, and contusion with haematoma on ​​the back of her left hand.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 33  ii The defendant verbally attacked his mother requesting money, after which he was breaking things in the house with his fist and physically attacked his father by repeatedly punching him on the body. Then he took the armrest of the wooden armchair and hit his father several times on the body, on which occasion the injured party sustained light bodily injuries in the form of left sub-clavicle contusion, several bruises on the forehead and cheekbone, bruised root of nose, several lacerations of the left ear lobe and forehead abrasion.

ii The defendant insulted the injured party by saying that he would like her not to be his mother, that he would like her to be dead; he asked for money, pulled her hair and then hit her with a wrench “twelve”, first on the hand and forearm and then on the head “because she was checking on him”.

ii After a brief discussion, the defendant began to insult his wife, and when she did not want to allow him to take their seven-month-old daughter, he entered the kitchen where he took a kitchen knife, put it in his pocket, took the baby, went to the bathroom, sat on the toilet bowl and began feeding the child while refusing to give it to the injured party. He went out of the bathroom several times, holding the child in one hand and the knife in the other hand, insulting the injured party with the words “Cry you whore, maybe your fat melts away, how much does your womb cost so that I pay you for giving birth”, and threatening to kill the child because “he created it and he will also kill it”.

ii Due to his mental illness (paranoid psychosis), the defendant swung a knife towards his father in a state of mental incompetence, and then stabbed him in the back, causing him a light bodily injury - an open wound of the back of the chest.

ii Under the influence of alcohol, the defendant abused his mother by threatening to kill her, grabbing her neck and choking her, dragging her on the floor, breaking things in the house, sharpening the knives and hitting them in the cupboard, the door, the floor. He threatened his mother that he would slaughter her with a knife and meat chopper and that nobody would gather her pieces if she told the medical doctor from the Special Hospital for Addiction Diseases that he was drinking again.

ii The defendant abused her mother on a daily basis by requesting from her to go and buy her cigarettes, breakfast and coffee without thinking about whether her mother had any money; she demanded that her mother gave her money by saying “create it out of nothing” and when her mother did not give her money, she physically attacked and insulted her with the words “my dad was a good man and you are the worst of all women”, breaking glasses and other things in the house. On one occasion, after a verbal confrontation over the “Christmas cake”, the defendant knocked down her mother, punched her on the head, and when the injured party raised her hand to protect herself, she bit her hand inflicting a light bodily injury on her.

34 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  ii By using violence, threatening to attack life and body and behaving ruthlessly, he endangered the tranquillity, physical integrity and mental state of a family member - his father. On several occasions he threatened to kill and slaughter him, pierce the tyres of the car; he defecated in the bathtub of the house bathroom; he banged on the locked gate of the house; after a brief discussion, he punched his father on the head and body, causing him light bodily injuries.

ii The defendant, in the state of acute intoxication and under the influence of opiates and sedatives, psychologically and physically abused his bed-ridden mother suffering from cancer and his father, by insulting them, banging around the house, falling to the floor, threatening his father that he would kick him out of the apartment, hitting him on the cheek with a glass ashtray, pushing his chest, taking two knives from the kitchen and hitting him on the face with a metal knife handle and threatening to kill him, while his mother was screaming helplessly frightened for the safety of her husband.

ii The defendant under the influence of alcohol threatened and insulted his mother, wife and daughters, telling them that they were whores and “all he can do is to kill them”. When he was taken to the police, he said “when I leave the police station, I will kill all of you”.

ii The defendant used to send to his former cohabiting partner threatening text message: “You are dead, believe me, I swear to you, you are dead, you will be spitting blood, you’re a disgusting animal, if I get you, I will kill you, I will take your child.”

ii Dissatisfied with the food prepared by his cohabiting partner, with whom he lived in the same household, the defendant first insulted her with the words “whore, slut”, and then, he pushed towards the cupboard the shoulder of the injured party, who was carrying the child in her arms, and when she ran to the yard, he took a bread knife and chased her in the yard saying “I’ll kill you”. The following day, after a discussion, he struck the injured party on the back twice with an electric cord, causing her light bodily injuries in the form of several haematoma.

ii The defendant hit his wife with his head causing her light bodily injuries in the form of haematoma on the forehead. On another occasion, he entered the room where the injured party was sleeping and started banging, shouting, cursing, insulting, saying that he would break her arms and legs, kill her, then he hit her several times on the face, pulled her hair, knocked her to the floor, kicked her on the back, stomach and legs, causing haematoma on her body.

ii The defendant pushed his wife with both open hands towards her chest, which caused her to fall, and when she got up, the defendant hit her jaw with his right hand open, resulting in an injury in the form of cut.

ii The defendant physically attacked his mother grabbing her stomach, lifted her in the air, threw himself on the bed, hit her several times on the top of her head, insulting and

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 35  threatening her; when the police came, he hit a police officer causing him a severe bodily injury in the form of a fracture of the right hand metacarpal bone.

ii After insults, the defendant punched his mother on the head and caused a light injury of her eyelid. On another occasion, he physically attacked her and hit her on the right temple.

ii After the quarrel, the defendant repeatedly punched the injured party/his wife on the left side of her face and shoulder; trying to defend herself, the injured party scratched the defendant’s hand pushing him away from her, while he was squeezing her left upper arm, which caused her light bodily injuries.

ii The defendant slapped his ex-wife repeatedly with the palm of the hand both on the face and other parts of the body, which caused her injuries in the form of haematoma on the body, neck, back and head; he insulted, cursed and threatened to kill her.

ii The defendant approached his wife while she was sitting in the driver’s seat, opened the door of the car, gave her a health card for the child and threatened that, when the divorce trial ended and when the minor child was “given to her”, she would regret the day she was born, that it would be the last day she laughed, that “he would cut her into pieces”.

ii Under the influence of alcohol, the defendant came to the apartment and started yelling at his wife that she had made a high phone bill, then pulled her hair and spat at her, pushed his finger into her eye, hit her on the ribs, causing her light bodily injury in the form of contusion in the left chest area, and then punched her on the chin, causing her a light bodily injury in the form of face contusion. When a few hours after escaping the victim returned to the apartment where they lived together, the defendant did not want to unlock the door and let her in their joint apartment, but left her in the hallway. When the police arrived and arrested the defendant, he threatened the victim in the presence of the police saying that he would “judge her”, that “she will not exist any more” and that she would bear the consequences “because she was selling drugs”.

ii The dependent repeatedly punched his cohabiting partner on the body and head, pulled her hair, knocked her on the bed, chocked her with his hands and pillow, put the pillow in her mouth, bit her hands while she was trying to defend herself, and saying that he would strangle her.

ii The defendant came to the house where the victim/his wife lived with her parents and sister, banged on the front door, then pushed from the front door the victim who opened the door to him, as a result of which she fell to the floor; then he pulled her hair, dragged her on the floor to the living room, insulted and threatened, kicked her on the body, holding in his hand a metal rod that he had brought and was swinging to hit the victim; their underage child was watching the event, crying, screaming, begging the father to stop, after

36 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  which the defendant unlawfully took his minor daughter from the victim, thus preventing the execution of the decision of the competent authority - Second Basic Court in Belgrade, which determined the manner of maintaining personal relations between the defendant and his minor children. He took his daughter, who lived with her mother according to that decision, and brought her in her pyjama out of the apartment at around midnight.

ii The defendant first prohibited her granddaughter/victim, with whom he lived in the same household, to wash her clothes in the washing machine and took her stuff out of it, then took a metal rod (plastic-coated floor mop stick) and hit the victim several times on the hands, thus causing her light bodily injuries in the form of a cut on the right upper arm, an abrasion on the ​​ right forearm and an abrasion on the ​​ left-hand thumb, whereas the stick used for hitting broke into two due to the impact force.

ii The defendant inflicted a serious bodily injury on his cohabiting partner while forcing her into an unwanted sexual intercourse; he fractured her thigh bone by punching her all over the body. After she had been discharged from hospital, he continued to beat her every day, and since she was not able to walk, he would leave her without food, did not take her to toilet, and raped her several times. Due to the complications of injuries, the victim ended up in a wheelchair.

ii After a brief verbal conflict, the defendant hit his mother on the back, grabbed her hair with both hands and dragged her across the room, then took the axe from the garage and threatened to kill her if she called the police.

ii The defendant, under the influence of alcohol, insulted his wife, then slapped her and hit her on the body, used a wooden chair leg to hit her on the back, legs and body, causing her a large number of bodily injuries, assessed together by the court as serious bodily injury.

ii Upon leaving the day hospital where he was treated for alcoholism, the defendant consumed alcohol, came to the apartment, began cursing his mother, threw a chair at her, knocked her on the bed, grabbed her neck and began squeezing it, and at one point the victim started to run out of the apartment calling for help.

ii In their joint family home, the defendant under the influence of alcohol harassed his wife, daughter and son-in-law: he threatened to his wife and cursed, pushed their daughter and slapped her, and then he approached the son-in-law while holding a knife and threatened to slaughter him because he was meddling in their conflict.

ii After a discussion between the defendant and the mother of underage victim, who, out of fear for his own and his mother’s safety, took the mobile phone to call the police, the defendant took a broom handle, used for stirring boiling laundry, began to chase the underage victim and hit him once.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 37  ii The defendant sent to his former wife text messages threatening to kill and crush her and insulting her.

ii The defendant repeatedly punched and smacked his underage son on the head and body, then hit him several times with a wooden guitar on the legs after which the guitar broke, and the defendant continued hitting him with his hands on his body, and then threatened him saying that he would become a bum, a thief, and then resumed slapping him.

ii When the defendant, upon having sent text messages to the former cohabiting partner, came to the apartment of his former cohabiting partner’s mother, he entered the bathroom where the victim was, approached and slapped her, after which the victim lost balance and her head hit the door of the shower booth. Then he hit the victim’s mother in the neck, which was witnessed by the underage daughter of the defendant and the victim, who fell on the couch due to the stress. The defendant continued to punch the victim on the head and arms and injured her right-hand thumb.

ii The defendant asked the mother to give him money for transportation and since he was not satisfied with the money he got, he pushed her on the chest with both hands, pulled her fingers and hit her with a wet towel. Sometime later, he again asked for money, and since the victim rejected again to give him any money, he spat in her face, swearing and insulting her and the father who was calming him down.

ii During a long period of time (from 2012 to 16 October 2014), he physically and psychologically abused his parents with whom he lived in the same household by cursing, insulting them, threatening to kill them and throw them out of the house. On one occasion, when his mother asked him what he would like her to prepare for his meal, he yelled at her: “Why would you give me anything, you’re nothing to me, I’m going to kill you now”, then he pulled her hair and pushed her away so that the victim’s back and head hit the wall. Under the influence of alcohol and antidepressants, he uncontrollably yelled at his mother and swore, then he grabbed and clutched her jaw with his right hand due to which the victim suffered great pain and fear.

ii After the divorce and eviction from the apartment, during the period of one year the defendant repeatedly harassed his ex-wife by going to the apartment where she lived, harassing her, banging on the door, calling her on the doorphone, painting the door, spraying the door, spraying the lock so that the victim could not unlock, breaking into her mailbox, cutting television cables, calling her by phone at night, threatening and insulting her.

ii In a long period of time, the defendant cursed and insulted his wife calling her names and hit her on the head and body.

38 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  ii In the period from July 2012 to July 2014, he physically and psychologically abused his wife by insulting words, swearing and threatening with the words “I will end your life; I’ll do to you what no one has ever done to anyone; I will hit you on the head to make you stunned; I’ll tie you and cut you, so that the newspapers will write and the TV will record”, “nobody can protect you, I will judge you”, “I’ll get you”, after which he attacked the victim by punching and hitting her with an open hand all over the body.

ii The defendant has been a heroin addict for many years and has abused his parents physically and psychologically. He has insulted and cursed them, and on one occasion, after a quarrel, he grabbed his mother’s hair, pulled it and punched her on the top of the head.

ii The defendant quarrelled with his mother, threatened to kill her, then waved his hand and hit her on the head.

ii Under the influence of alcohol, the defendant began a discussion with his wife, pushed her away and hit her several times on the head, causing her light bodily injuries in the form of bruises on the top of her head.

ii The defendant woke up his underage son because of a grade in English language he had received, reproached him, said that he could not sleep if he was getting poor grades, that he did not need him as such and that he could leave home. The underage victim left home in his pyjamas; the defendant followed him and reached the apartment of his mother-in- law where the victim was and hit him several times with his hand on the head and body. He dragged him barefoot out of the apartment, grabbed his shoulder with both hands, threw him down in the corridor so that the victim’s nose began to bleed. The victim sustained light bodily injuries in the form of crush injury of the inside upper lip, a haematoma on the left side of the neck, an external nose haematoma and a left-cheek haematoma.

ii The defendant came to the apartment in which his ex-wife and underage children lived, and began to drill the door lock damaging it, after which the victims called the police and the defendant left before the police arrived. In this way he endangered the tranquillity and mental state of his family members, his former wife and underage children. The judgment states that the court did not pronounce the security measure of no approaching or communicating with the victim because it considered that pronouncing this measure was not justified in that particular case: the civil procedure initiated upon the defendant’s lawsuit against the injured party for eviction from the apartment was terminated; the injured party with the children moved out of the apartment, which was the basis for the defendant’s insolent behaviour and his “exertion of pressure” on the injured party to leave the apartment; in addition, the defendant and the injured party have not been in contact for more than four years.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 39  ii The defendant came in front of the house of the injured party’s parents, where she now lives with her parents and children, and by throwing stones, smashed the double-glazed window of the room in which his underage son was sleeping, thus violating the measure of protection against domestic violence.

ii In the presence of two underage children, the defendant physically attacked the victim/his wife, punched her on the head, insulted her and threatened to kill her and dig out her eyes.

ii In his family house, the defendant threatened his wife with the words: “Do you want me to slaughter you now”, then grabbed her clothes and her right hand and began slapping her, causing her light bodily injuries in the form of contusion with an abrasion on the forehead.

ii In the courtyard of the family house, the defendant intercepted the injured party/his wife, grabbed her hair, put a knife to her throat and threatened to cut her son, make him a cripple and disabled, and if she did not leave the house, she and her son would suffer a great disaster.

2.3. Profile of perpetrators Structure of perpetrators by sex In most cases, the procedure was conducted against men - 96%, only 4% of perpetra- tors in the sample were women (Chart 3). This coincides with the findings of previous research according to which a large majority of perpetrators were men (91.5%) and a much smaller percentage of offenders were women (8.5%).

Chart 3

Female 4%

Male 96%

40 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Age of perpetrators As regards the age of perpetrators, the largest age group is 33-40 years (42%), followed by the age group 41-48 years (18%). Interestingly, the age group 65+ makes up 12%, which is a significant increase compared to previous research where this age group made up 6.41%. The age group 25-32 years makes up only 2% of the examined sample, which is less than in the previous research where this age group made up 7.9%. If we take into consideration the share of perpetrators in the age groups 49-56 (20%), 41-48 (18%) and 57-65 years (18%), we can conclude that the age of perpetrators of the criminal offence of domestic violence has slightly increased (Chart 4).

Chart 4

65+ 25-32 12% 2% 57-65 6% 33-40 42%

49-56 20%

41-48 18%

Marital status of perpetrators The marital status of perpetrators in the examined sample at the time of perpetration of domestic violence was taken into consideration. This should be noted because the mar- ital status of most perpetrators and victims changed after the perpetration of criminal offence, and conducting and terminating criminal proceedings. At the time of criminal offence perpetration the majority of perpetrators were married - 38% or living in cohab- itation - 20%. 20% of perpetrators were single, 16% were divorced, 2% were separated and 2% were widowed (Chart 5). Compared to previous research, there are no signifi- cant changes in the marital status of perpetrators since a higher percentage of perpetra- tors were also married at the time of perpetration.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 41  Chart 5

Unknown Single 2% 20% Married Widowed 38% 2% Separated 2%

Divorced 16% Living in cohabitation 20%

Number of children Most perpetrators (46%) have two or more children, 25% of them have one child, while 26 of them have no children. The results of the previous research also show that the majority of perpetrators had two or more children, but a significantly smaller percent- age of perpetrators were without children (14.22%) compared to the present research (Table 2).

Table 2

Number Percentage

No children 13 26

One child 14 28

Two or more 23 46

Total 50 100.0

It is evident that the fact of perpetrator’s parenthood is not relevant to the perpetration of domestic violence. On the other hand, the fact that 74% of domestic violence per- petrators have child(ren) confirms that the risk of transgenerational transmission of vio- lence is extremely high and that it is one of the reasons for the need to make combating domestic violence one of the government’s important political priorities. It should be borne in mind that in a large number of cases of domestic violence, children either wit- nessed or were direct victims of violence.

42 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Education of perpetrators Compared to previous research findings, there are no substantial changes with respect to the education of perpetrators. Most perpetrators have secondary education - 66%, followed by those with junior college or faculty - 14% and primary education - 12%. 4% of perpetrators have incomplete primary school education and one perpetrator (2%) has a master’s degree (Table 3). Based on this finding, we can conclude that domestic violence perpetrators are not individuals without education and that education did not have a preventive effect with respect to violence.

Table 3

Number Percentage

Incomplete primary school 2 4

Primary school 6 12

Secondary or high school 33 66

Junior college or faculty 7 14

Master or doctoral studies 1 2

Unknown 1 2

Total 50 100.0

Occupation of perpetrators The perpetrators of the criminal offence of domestic violence from the examined sample have different occupations, which is understandable given that most of them have sec- ondary and tertiary education. These are the occupations from the sample: army mem- ber, engine fitter, graduate mechanical engineer, car mechanic, waiter, customs officer, sales specialist, worker, electrician, driving instructor, car electrician, wall painter, police officer, mechanic, programmer, priest, driver, precision mechanic, law student, flight attendant, installer, tourism technician, salesperson, graduate musician (violinist), med- ical technician, shoemaker, playwright, senior medical technician, construction techni- cian, electrical technician, rubber worker, communal worker, leather technician.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 43  The findings related to education and occupation of domestic violence perpetrators coincide with the generally accepted view that domestic violence perpetrators come from all social strata and that their educational profiles and occupations are various.

Employment status of perpetrators Regarding the employment status of domestic violence perpetrators, it can be con- cluded that the examined sample contains mainly unemployed persons and job seekers - 40%, somewhat fewer employed persons - 30%, in contrast to previous research where the largest percentage of perpetrators were employed (56.40%). A smaller percentage of perpetrators are retired (18%) and students - 2% (Chart 2).

Chart 6

Unknown Company owner 8% 2% Employed Student 30% 2%

Retired 18%

Unemployed 40%

Perpetrators’ place of birth and residence

Analysing the places of birth and residence of perpetrators, we have established the fol- lowing: 76% of perpetrators were born in cities and 84% of perpetrators reside in cities. 24% of perpetrators were born in villages, 2% of perpetrators reside in villages and 14% in reside in suburban settlements (Table 4 and 5).

Table 4 Place of birth

Number Percentage

Village 12 24

City 38 76

Total 50 100.0

44 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  Table 5 Residence

Number Percentage

Village 1 2

City 42 84

Suburban settlement 7 14

Total 50 100.0

Previous convictions of perpetrators Data on the previous convictions of domestic violence perpetrators show a higher per- centage of those previously convicted (50%) than those without previous convictions (44%). These data differ from the previous research where the percentage of perpetra- tors without previous convictions was higher (55%). The perpetrators were convicted for various criminal offences, mainly related to property, and 11 perpetrators were previ- ously convicted for domestic violence. In one case there were as many as three convic- tions for domestic violence (the suspended sentence was pronounced each time) and in two cases the perpetrators had two previous convictions for domestic violence (Chart 7).

Chart 7

Unknown 6%

Yes No 50% 44%

Based on the court files, it is not possible to establish with certainty whether persons with refugee status or returnees from the war are among domestic violence perpetra- tors. During the examination of the defendants, the court did not determine these cir- cumstances, due to which it is not possible to establish the extent to which they may have influenced the perpetration of domestic violence.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 45  Family and personal history of perpetrators The court files contain scarce information about family circumstances, personality traits and behaviour of domestic violence perpetrators until the moment of perpetration. This shows that the facts relating to perpetrators’ family life and behaviour before the perpe- tration of criminal offence and their personality traits are very rarely established in the court procedure, unless a psychological or psychiatric evaluation is requested.

A large part of the sample lacks information on the completeness of the perpetrator’s primary family (64%) and family relations in the primary family (86%). Only in a small number of cases - 13 (26%), it was established that the perpetrator’s primary family was complete, that the family relations were poor - in 4 cases (8%) or good - in 3 cases (6%). There is neither sufficient information on suicide attempts - in 41 cases (82%), self-injury - in 45 cases (90%), early abuse - in 6 cases (92%), running away from home - in 48 cases (96%), school absenteeism - in 48 cases (96%), juvenile offences - in 45 cases (90%). We believe that it is necessary to collected this information during the procedure, because only then will it be possible to fully understand the influence of various external factors on the perpetration of domestic violence.

Alcohol and drug abuse The excessive use of alcohol by the perpetrators before committing the crime was recorded in a large number of cases - 42%. In only 18% of cases, the perpetrators did not consume alcohol before the criminal offence. However, it should be noted that in 40% of cases there was no data about the previous use of alcohol. Some perpetrators stated in the process of psychological and psychiatric evaluation that they had been drinking since early childhood and for many years. The use of drugs before the perpetration and drug addiction were not examined in all cases either; more precisely, this information remained unknown in 42% of cases.

At the time of domestic violence perpetration, 46% of perpetrators were under the influ- ence of alcohol (light, medium and heavy intoxication). This circumstance is very signif- icant given that a number of perpetrators find justification for committing the criminal offence of domestic violence in the fact that they were under the influence of alco- hol and that in such a state they were not able to understand the significance of their actions or do not remember what they did. Even a certain number of victims state that the defendants are completely different persons when they are sober and that they are not at all aggressive. However, the excessive use of alcohol must be seen as a crimino- genic factor that significantly contributes to the perpetration of the criminal offence of domestic violence. 6% of perpetrators were under the influence of drugs at the time of criminal offence perpetration, while 68% of them were not. However, these data should

46 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges be interpreted carefully because in 26% of cases it remains unknown whether the perpe- trators were under the influence of drugs at the time of perpetration.

Psychopathic personality structure and mental illness in perpetrators The psychiatric and psychological evaluation was conducted in a number of cases to determine the degree of perpetrator’s guilt and mental competence. According to the reports of court-appointed experts, psychopathic personality structure was found in only 6% of cases, which certainly does not correspond to the actual percentage of violent crime perpetrators with psychopathic structure. In a large percentage of cases (54%), it was not determined by court-appointed experts or courts during the procedure whether the defendant’s personality structure was psychopathic, which shows that this circumstance was not the subject of court’s interest.

In the majority of cases, the domestic violence perpetrators from the examined sam- ple do not suffer from mental illness (psychosis), according to the findings of court-ap- pointed experts/ neuropsychiatrists. Some form of mental illness was established only in a few cases, as follows: temporary mental illness - stage of psychotic decompensa- tion, paranoid personality disorder, delusional disorder - paranoid psychosis, epilepsy, paranoid psychosis (persistent delusional disorder). Other personality disorders, such as emotional instability, tendency to aggressive behaviour and outbursts, delusional jeal- ousy, prolonged stress response, are the consequence of prolonged alcohol or drug abuse (cocaine, heroin).

Perpetrator’s attitude towards the criminal offence The perpetrator’s attitude towards the committed criminal offence is extremely import- ant because the court takes it into account in sentencing. Pursuant to Article 54 of the Criminal Code (general rules on sentencing), one of the circumstances influencing the sentencing is the perpetrator’s behaviour after the committed crime, and in particular his or her attitude towards the victim.

In the previous research, the case files did not contain sufficient information on the per- petrator’s attitude towards the committed offence (19.23% of cases did not contain such information) or whether the perpetrator admitted the committed offence and expresses repentance. The present research had access to this kind of information. As in the pre- vious research studies, the highest percentage of perpetrators (46%) do not admit the perpetration of offence, 22% of them do not repent and consider their action to be appropriate, 10% are undefined, while 18% express repentance only verbally and only 4% truly repent Table 6).

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 47  Table 6

Number Percentage

Yes, genuine remorse and 2 4 repentance

Undefined 5 10

Repentance expressed only 9 18 verbally

No repentance/consider their action to be 11 22 appropriate

Denial of offence 23 46

Total 50 100.0

Most perpetrators (40%) do not feel responsible for the event and even deny any connection with the event; 26% of perpetrators have or give no explanation; 18% of perpetrators think that the victim is guilty for what happened; 4% of them do not blame either themselves or victim, but believe the event to be a result of unfortunate circumstances; 2% of perpetrators justify their behaviour with the hopelessness of the situation; and only 10% generally accept their responsibility (Table 7). It is interesting to mention that the attitude of a certain number of perpetrators towards the committed criminal offences and their acceptance of responsibility for the event are conditioned by the procedural possibility to conclude a plea agreement with the public prosecutor (Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code) or to hold a hearing for the imposition of a criminal sanction so that it is not necessary to hold a main hearing (Article 512 of the Criminal Procedure Code).

48 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  Table 7

Number Percentage

Mainly blame the victim 9 18.0

Do not blame either victim 2 4.0 or themselves

Justify their behaviour with the hopelessness of the 1 2.0 situation (“there was no choice”)

Do not give or have any 13 26.0 explanation

Mainly accept their own 5 10.0 responsibility

Do not admit the criminal offence and deny any 20 40.0 connection with it

Total 50 100.0

Relations between the perpetrator and the victim prior to the perpetration of criminal offence In all cases from the examined sample, the relations between the perpetrator and the victim prior to the perpetration of criminal offence were poor. These poor and disturbed relations manifested in various ways through physical and psychological violence. In cases of partner violence, disturbed relations often started immediately after the begin- ning of living together and lasted over a longer period of time:

ii The injured party and the defendant were married for 40 years; violence has existed since the beginning of marriage, but in recent years it has culminated and “life turned to hell”;

ii The defendant has an extremely difficult character, especially when drinking, constantly causes troubles and threatens to kill the injured party that he considers his property;

ii Always when the defendant drinks, he becomes aggressive, insults, threatens, hits;

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 49  ii Physical and psychological violence existed throughout the marriage and continued after the divorce;

ii Violence lasted fifteen years;

ii Throughout the marriage, the injured party suffered physical violence; the defendant broke her arm and was convicted for the criminal offence of serious bodily injury;

ii Persistent quarrels and physical injuries lasted throughout the cohabitation, that is - for six years;

ii The intensity of the son’s violence against his parents was increasing due to excessive consumption of alcohol and drugs;

ii Psychological violence has continued on a daily basis between the son, who has been a heroin addict for fifteen years, and his parents;

ii Psychological violence existed since the beginning of their relationship, and later turned into physical violence due to which the injured party left the marriage;

ii Despite a long period of physical and psychological violence, the injured party wants to reconcile with the defendant.

Degree of perpetrator’s mental competence Data on the perpetrator’s mental competence at the time of criminal offence perpetra- tion show that the highest percentage of perpetrators were of sound mind at the time of the commission of the criminal offence - 54%. Diminished mental competence, although not substantially, was established in 22% of perpetrators; 12% of perpetrators had a substantially diminished mental competence, while 4% of perpetrators were mentally incompetent.

Motives for criminal offence perpetration The direct motive for committing the criminal offence of domestic violence in the exam- ined sample cannot be established with certainty because this circumstance is not con- sidered in court proceedings. We can make conclusions about the motives for criminal offence perpetration indirectly, based on the defendant’s defence and the hearing of the injured party as witness and other witnesses. According to the available data, the motives for domestic violence perpetration are the following: jealousy; needing money to buy drugs or alcohol; debt payment; vengeance for leaving the marriage; anger because of bad grades in school and so on.

50 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  2.4. Profile of victims Structure of victims by sex The total number of victims in the examined sample is higher than the number of perpe- trators, because in some cases the crime was committed against more than one person (Table 8). Thus, the total number of victims is 61. As in the previous research30, a higher number of victims are women. The total percentage of female victims is 78.7% (com- pared to 80.42% in the previous research), while the percentage of male victims is 21.3% (compared to 19.57% in the previous research) (Chart 8).

Table 8

Number of cases Percentage

One 41 67.2

Two 7 22.9

Three 2 9.8

Total 61 100.0

Chart 8

Male 21%

Female 79%

30 The term “victim” was used in the meaning of “injured party”, which is defined as a person whose certain personal or property right has been violated or endangered by the criminal offence (Article 2, paragraph 11 of the Criminal Code Procedure - “Definition of Terms”).

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 51  Place of residence and birth The largest part of the victims of domestic violence reside in cities - 86.9%, while 8.2% and 4.9% of victims reside in suburban settlements and villages, respectively. Most vic- tims were also born in cities - 67.2%. 16.4% of victims were born in villages and 6.6% in suburban settlements. There is no information about the place of birth for other victims.

Age of victims According to the information from the examined court files, victims are of different ages. 6.6% of victims are underage. Adult victims belong to the following age groups: 25-32 years - 11.5%; 33-40 years – 16.4%; 41-48 years – 9.8%; 49-56 years – 13.1%, 57-65 years - 19.7%, 65+ - 19.7% and there is no information for 2 victims (3.3%) (Chart 9). In the previ- ous research, the prevailing age groups of victims were 41-48 years (15.62%) and 49-56 years (15.67%), while in the present sample, the largest age group is from 57 to 65+ in the total percentage of 39.4%.

Chart 9

Unknown Underage 3% 7% 25-32 65 + 20% 11%

33-40 16% 57-65 20% 41-48 49-56 10% 13%

Marital status of victims Given that intimate partner violence makes up a large part of domestic violence, it is understandable that at the time of the commission of the criminal offence, the highest percentage of victims were married (50.8%) (Chart 10). This finding is similar to the results of earlier research where most victims were also married at the time of criminal offence commission (35.13%). 16.4% are divorced, which shows that partner violence continues even after the termination of marriage. A significantly lower percentage of victims were separated (1.6%) or widowed (1.6%) at the time of criminal offence commission.

52 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  Chart 10

Unknown Single 13% 6% Widowed 2%

Separated 2% Married 51% Divorced 16% Living in cohabitation 10%

Number of children Regarding the number of children, the smallest percentage of victims are without chil- dren - 11.5%, and the largest percentage of them have one child (42.6%) or two and more children (39.3%). (Table 9)

Table 9

Number Percentage

No children 7 11.5

One child 26 42.6

Two or more 24 39.3

Unknown 4 6.6

Total 61 100.0

Education of victims In a large number of court cases (57.4%), there is no information on the education of vic- tims. The same happened in the previous research where there was no information on education for 36.88% of victims. This finding shows that very little information about the injured party is gathered in court procedures, so that the information about educa- tion and other elements related to victims is deduced from the victim’s testimony in the capacity of witness, when the victim herself/himself communicates this information or

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 53  from the court-appointed expert’s findings, if the psychological evaluation of the injured party was conducted.

According to the available data, most victims, like perpetrators, have secondary educa- tion - 21.3%, followed by a smaller number of victims with junior college or faculty - 6.6% and primary school education - 4.9%.

Employment status of victims Information about the employment of victims is usually not included in the examined case files - 37.7%. Interestingly, a large percentage of victims are pensioners - 26.2%, 19.7% of them are employed, 4.9% are unemployed, 6.6% are housekeepers and 4.9% are pupils. These results differ from the previous research studies, where as many as 34.12% of victims were employed and 11.8% were pensioners.

Information about the employment of victims was also rarely included in the case files. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the economic dependence of victims from the examined sample had a decisive role in the aetiology of domestic violence.

Nature of relationship between perpetrators and victims The present research has confirmed the findings of the previous research where inti- mate partner violence was established to be the dominant form of domestic violence: violence against spouse happened in 48.90% of cases and against cohabiting partner in 18.20% of cases. (Chart 11). Partner violence happens in marriage - 26.2%, between for- mer spouses and cohabiting partners - 13.1% and between cohabiting partners - 11.5%, which is a total of 50.8% of cases. A high percentage of cases involve parents and chil- dren. Parents are victims and children are perpetrators in 29.5% of cases. Children are victims and parents are perpetrators in 14.8% of cases. A much smaller percentage of other family members are victims: grandchild - 1%, son/daughter-in-law - 1%, mother/ father-in-law - 1%.

Chart 11 Mother/father-in-law Son/daughter-in-law 2% Grandchild 2% Spouse 2% (marriage) 26% Children 15% Cohabitation 11%

Mother/ Former spouses/ father partners (marriage or 29% cohabitation) 13%

54 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Weapons held by victims and influence of alcohol at the time of perpetration Unlike the perpetrators, who in most cases held or used weapons in committing the crimi- nal offence of domestic violence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 2, victims neither had weapons - 96.7% of victims nor use them - 93.4% of victims. Also, unlike the perpetrators, who in most cases were under the influence of alcohol at the time of perpetration, victims were not under the influence of alcohol at the time of crime in 86.9% of cases.

Relations between the perpetrator and the victim prior to the criminal complaint and response to previous violence As already stated, according to the data from the analysed cases, violence against family members occurred over a longer period of time. The allegations in criminal complaints and the statements of the victims who did not refuse to testify and who were heard as witnesses at the main hearing reveal that the majority of victims had been abused before the critical event on a continuous or occasional basis over a longer period of time. In many cases, the victims testify that they were exposed to physical and psychological violence from the very beginning of marriage or cohabitation. Based on these data, it can be concluded that acts of domestic violence are not isolated incidents, but the indi- cators of the pattern of abuse that happened over a longer period of time. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in the course of procedure a number of victims, seeking to pro- tect the defendant, changed their statements denying the allegations from the criminal complaint and the statements given immediately after the critical event.

Like the previous research studies, this one has also shown that most victims did not seek help from institutions, although they had been exposed to violence over a long period of time. As many as 91.8% of victims did not seek help from the social welfare cen- tre or other institutions dealing with the protection of victims. Only 8.1% or only 5 vic- tims informed the social welfare centre, including one victim who was placed in a shelter where she spent four months with her child. In one case, the opinion of the Autonomous Women’s Center, which is included in the case files, was requested. The victims did not address the institutions even in the cases where the perpetrators were treated in psychi- atric institutions on several occasions. This means that despite numerous campaigns of zero tolerance of violence and better media coverage of violence, victims still lack cour- age and confidence to seek help.

The situation is similar when it comes to reporting violence to the police: in 78.6% of cases there was no previous reporting of violence to the police, in 21.4% of cases the victims have already reported previous violence, and in some cases a criminal or misde- meanour procedure was conducted. Compared to the data from the previous research, the number of domestic violence cases reported to the police decreased (previous research: 39.7% of reports), which means that the victims remain undecided and in fear

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 55  of the perpetrator’s reaction. In one case of violence, the police were informed twice and came at the invitation of the injured party, but in the further stage of the procedure, the injured party gave up criminal prosecution because the defendant promised that he would “not do it again”. One victim stated that she was ashamed to report, while another considered that the abuser would change and that violence would not be repeated. When violence is directed toward parents, they often do not want to report it because they have a special emotional attitude towards the perpetrator. However, one of the most common reasons why the victims remained to live with the perpetrator is fear of and threats from the perpetrator. Many victims justified the failure to report violence by fearing that the defendant would prevent them from seeing their children, and all of them considered the defendants capable of fulfilling such a threat. The examined court cases did not include detailed data on the police officers’ attitude towards the victim at the time of reporting domestic violence. The response of the police officers cannot be concluded either on the basis of the testimonies of the victims heard as witnesses. How- ever, there is no doubt that in cases of domestic violence, the professional attitude of the staff in the institutions addressed by the victims seeking assistance is extremely import- ant; if they do not encounter trust and support at the time of first reporting of violence, it is very unlikely that they will seek help again.

2.5. Criminal proceedings - substance, course and duration In most cases from the sample, criminal procedure was conducted against the perpetrators of the criminal offence of domestic violence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 1 - 64; then against the perpetrators of the criminal offence of domestic violence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 2 - 22%, Article 194, paragraph 3 - 12% and Article 194, paragraph 5 - 2%.

The data provided by the courts in Belgrade, responding to the freedom of information requests, show that the prosecuted cases of domestic violence were qualified mainly as basic forms of criminal offence - Article 194, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (Tables 10, 11 and 12).

Table 10 First Basic Court in Belgrade Type of Article Article Article Article Article Total offence 194 194 194 194 194 paragraph paragraph paragraph paragraph paragraph 1 of the 2 of the 3 of the 4 of the 5 of the Criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal Code Code Code Code Code

2014 32 7 5 / 2

2015 80 30 8 / 6

56 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  Table 11 Second Basic Court in Belgrade Type of Article 194 Article 194 Article 194 Article 194 Article 194 offence paragraph paragraph 2 paragraph paragraph paragraph 1 of the of the 3 of the 4 of the 5 of the Criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal Code Code Code Code Code

2014 140 36 33 1 6

2015 56 12 11 / 2

Table 12 Third Basic Court in Belgrade Type of Article 194 Article 194 Article 194 Article 194 Article 194 offence paragraph paragraph paragraph paragraph paragraph 1 of the 2 of the 3 of the 4 of the 5 of the Criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal Code Code Code Code Code

2014 13 2 3 / 1

2015 26 4 3 / 1

2.5.1. Detention In contrast to previous research whose results show that detention was ordered very rarely - only in 12.9% of cases, the present research indicates that detention of domestic violence perpetrators was ordered much more frequently, in as many as 46% of cases (Chart 12).

More frequent detention of perpetrators on legal grounds, including the risk that the defendant will repeat the criminal offence or carry out a threat, shows that the courts approach the problem of domestic violence in a more responsible manner.

Chart 12

Yes 46% No 54%

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 57  Ordering detention because of the possible influence on witnesses, which is one of the legal grounds for detention, was much less frequent. However, the research has shown that perpetrators of violence have a significant influence on witnesses, especially vic- tims, as evidenced by a large number of victims who later refuse to testify at the main hearing and state that they do not join the criminal prosecution.

2.5.2. Evidence In the examined sample, the most frequent evidence was: examination of medical doc- uments, forensic medical evaluation and evaluations of neuropsychiatrist and psychol- ogist, examination of defendants, hearing of witnesses, hearing of victims as witnesses, hearing of professionals from the social welfare centre.

2.5.3. Outcome of procedure In the cases with final court decisions, 92% of them were convictions. In one case, the acquittal was issued in the second-instance procedure due to the lack of evidence, and in one case the procedure was suspended due to the public prosecutor’s withdrawal (the injured party did not continue the criminal prosecution) (Chart 13).

Chart 13

4% 2%2%

Judgment of conviction Securuty measure

92%

Although in practice domestic violence, as a rule, happens continuously and regularly over a longer period of time, an individual act of violence against a family member constitutes per se a sufficient legal basis for punishing the abuser. Any failure by the court to punish the perpetrator of domestic violence, even when it is the mildest form of violence, is very dangerous because it can send a signal to the perpetrators that the use of violence is legal and legitimate, which can lead to a more drastic form of violence and cause more serious consequences. The explanations of court decisions in the examined sample lead to the conclusion that there have been some positive developments in understanding the phe- nomenon of domestic violence and the need to punish its perpetrators at “early stages”, which is confirmed also by the fact that continuity of violence is generally not considered an essential element of the offence.

58 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  2.5.4. Appeal As regards appeals, it should be noted that in a large number of cases from the exam- ined sample no appeals has been filed against the first-instance decision - in 76% of cases. The appeal was filed against the first-instance decision in 12 cases (24%). A plea agreement was concluded in one case.

According to the data from the court cases, an appeal was filed for all possible statu- tory reasons: substantial violation of the provisions of the criminal procedure; violation of the criminal code; erroneously or incompletely established factual situation and deci- sion on criminal sanctions. Erroneously or incompletely established factual situation is one of the most common grounds for appeals filed by the defendants or their defence lawyers, whereby the material inaccuracy of the judgment was explained by the fact that the judgment was based only on the testimony of the injured person, which, according to the allegations, was contradictory, illogical and incomplete. Also, the decision on pun- ishment was also challenged on the grounds that it was wrongly determined.

2.5.5. Duration of procedure One of the important factors of the effectiveness of criminal justice protection against domestic violence is the efficiency of acting in the prosecution of domestic violence cases. The requirement for promptness and effectiveness of procedure stems also from the right to a trial within a reasonable time, as one of the basic procedural human rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ratified by our country.31 The right to a trial within a reason- able time, based on the ideas of natural (fundamental) justice, is an integral part of the right to a fair trial, as a separate and autonomous human right32, the realisation of which

31 Law on the Ratification of the European Convention for the Protection of HumanRights and Fundamen- tal Freedoms, amended in accordance with Protocol No. 11, Protocol to the Convention for the Protec- tion of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, securing certain rights and freedoms other than those already included in the Convention and in the first Protocol thereto, Protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the Abolition of the Death Pen- alty, Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, Official Gazette of SaM - International Treaties, no. 9/2003 of 26 December 2003. 32 The expression “right to a fair trial” is translated in different ways in Serbian: “pravo na pravično suđenje”, “pravo na pošteno suđenje”, “pravo na pravično dodeljivanje pravde”, “pravo na pravedan prosec”, “pravo na pravično i zakonito suđenje”, etc. The right to a fair trial is also envisaged in the previously adopted UN human rights documents. See Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 14, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which reads: “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, inde- pendent and impartial tribunal established by law.”

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 59  is essential for the development of democracy and the rule of law. The establishment of the right to a fair trial in the national legal system, as well as its standardisation and internationalisation, are an expression of the need to ensure adequate protection of the integrity of the individual, as well as providing quality, effective and expeditious legal protection through appropriate procedural guarantees.33

In order to see the efficiency of court procedure, it has been observed in five phases: from submitting a criminal complaint to filing a charging document; from filing a charging document to rendering a first-instance decision; from submitting a criminal complaint to rendering a second-instance decision; from submitting a criminal complaint to the final- ity of judgment; from rendering a first-instance decision to rendering a second-instance decision (Table 13) Table 13 Criminal Charging Criminal Criminal First- complaint/ document/ complaint/ complaint/ instance charging first- second- finality of decision/ document instance instance judgment second- decision decision instance decision Up to 1 19 (38%) 7 (14%) 0 1 (2%) 0 month 1 - 3 months 1 (2%) 18 (36%) 0 6 (12%) 5 (10%)

3 - 5 months 6 (12%) 9 (18%) 3 (6%) 5 (10%) 3 (6%)

5 - 7 months 1 (2%) 6 (12%) 1 (2%) 4 (8%) 1 (2%)

7 - 10 7 (14%) 5 (10%) 0 7 (14%) 1 (2%) months 10 - 12 1 (2%) 0 2 (4%) 6 (12%) 1 (2%) months

1 - 2 years 10 (20%) 3 (6%) 1 (2%) 10 (20%) 1 (2%)

2 - 4 years 5 (10%) 1 (2%) 3 (6%) 7 (14%) 0

4 - 5 years 0 0 1 (2%) 2 (4%) 0

Over 5 years 0 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 2 (4%) 0

TOTAL 50 50 12 50 12

33 See more details about the right to a trial within a reasonable time and its protection before the Euro- pean Court of Human Rights: Van Dijk, Van Hoof, 1998; Mole, Harby, 2006: 26-27; Petrušić, 2005: 199-221).

60 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges According to the data presented in the table, a fairly long period of time has elapsed from the submission of criminal complaint to the finality. Compared to the data from the previous research, the efficiency of procedure has not been significantly improved.

If the procedure is observed by phase, it can be seen that the shortest phase is the first one: the period from submitting a criminal complaint to filing a charging document. The average time for checking the allegations contained in the criminal complaint and filing a charging document is up to a month (in 38% of cases), which is indeed a remarkable efficiency. However, in a certain number of cases (10 cases or 20%), this phase of the pro- cedure lasted for one to two years, while in others (5 cases or 10%) it took two to four years, which is indeed an unacceptably long period for determining the decisive facts for the initiation of criminal procedure in cases of domestic violence.

According to the data from the examined sample, the phase from filing a charging doc- ument to rendering a first-instance decision in most cases (18 cases or 36%) lasts from one to three months and in 9 cases (18%) from three to five months, which is a relatively short period given that this phase is the most significant part of the criminal proce- dure. In 3 (6%) out of 12 cases in which an appeal against the first-instance decision was filed and a second-instance decision was rendered, the period from submitting a crimi- nal complaint to rendering a second-instance decision was as long as two to four years. The efficiency of the procedure is best seen by monitoring the period from submitting a criminal complaint to the finality of the first-instance decision. In one case, this phase was extremely short, only 23 days. The maximum duration of the procedure from sub- mitting a criminal complaint to the finality was recorded in ten cases (20%) that lasted from one to two years and in seven cases (14%) whose duration was from two to four years. A smaller number of cases (2 cases or 4%) were completed in the period of four to five years or over five years. In one case, the father committed the criminal offence of domestic violence against his ten-year-old son and the criminal procedure was initiated for the criminal offence of domestic violence (Article 194, paragraph 3, when the vic- tim is a minor) committed in 2006, but it lasted for a very long time, so that the injured party/son became an adult in the meantime (the judgment was final in 2016). The period from rendering a first-instance decision to rendering a second-instance decision is much shorter. This part of the procedure usually lasts 1-3 months (in 10% of cases) and 3-5 months (in 6% of cases).

2.6. Type and level of pronounced criminal sanctions By examining the final court decisions from the examined sample, we have established that the following criminal sanctions were imposed on the perpetrators: prison sen- tence, prison sentence with electronic surveillance, prison sentence served in the prem- ises where the convicted person lives without the use of electronic surveillance, prison

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 61  sentence with the use of electronic surveillance and security measures, prison sentence with security measure, suspended sentence, suspended sentence with security measure, suspended sentence with protective surveillance, security measure, fine and suspended sentence. Suspended sentence was pronounced in most cases - 29 or 63.04%, which coincides with the previous research studies where suspended sentence was a domi- nant form of criminal sanction. Prison sentence (all forms) was pronounced in 36.95% of cases. In the smallest number of cases only security measures were pronounced (2 or 4% - security measures were pronounced mostly with prison sentence or suspended sen- tence). (Table 14, Chart 14).

Table 14

Number Percentage

Prison sentence 5 10.86

Prison sentence enforced in the premises where the accused person lives with electronic 4 8.69 surveillance Prison sentence enforced in the premises where the accused person lives without electronic 1 2.17 surveillance and security measures Prison sentence enforced in the premises where the accused person lives with electronic 1 2.17 surveillance and security measures

Prison sentence and security measure 6 13.04

Suspended sentence 15 32.60

Suspended sentence and security measure 12 26.08

Suspended sentence with protective surveillance 1 2.17

Suspended sentence and fine 1 2.17

Total number of convictions 46 92

Security measure 2 4

Suspended procedure 1 2

Judgment of acquittal 1 2

Total 50 100.0

62 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  Chart 14

Suspended snetence and seccurity measure Suspended sentence and security measure

Suspended sentence Suspended sentence

Prison sentence Prison sentence

Prison sentence enforced in the premises where the acused Prison sentence enforced in the premises personwhere lives with electronic the accused surveillance person lives with and security electronic measures surveillance…

Prison sentence Prison enforced sentence in in enforced the premises the premiseswhere the acused per- son lives the where without electronic accused surveillance person lives and security without electronic measures surveillance…

Prison sentence Prison sentenceenforced enforcedininthe the premises premises where the acused where the accusedperson personlives lives with electronicsurveillance with electronic surveillance

Prison sentence and security measures Prison sentence and security measure

0 5 10 15

The total number of security measures imposed as the only penalty and in combina- tion with prison sentence and suspended sentence is 22. The pronounced security mea- sures were compulsory drug addiction treatment in the Special Hospital for Addiction Diseases in Belgrade, compulsory alcohol addiction treatment in an institution, compul- sory alcohol addiction treatment at liberty, compulsory psychiatric treatment and con- finement in a medical institution. Given that a large number of criminal offences were committed due to excessive use of alcohol, and that a large number of perpetrators con- sumed alcohol excessively before committing the crime, the security measure of com- pulsory treatment of alcohol abusers was pronounced most frequently. The measure of no approaching or communicating was pronounced in four cases.

Regarding the duration of prison sentences, the minimum prison sentence of 48 days was pronounced in one case, while the maximum prison sentences of 6 months and 1 year were pronounced in 29.4% of cases. (Table 15).

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 63  Table 15

Number Percentage

48 days 1 5.9

6 months 5 29.4

8 months 2 11.8

1 year 5 29.4

1 year and 4 months 1 5.9

1 year and 6 months 1 5.9

2 years 1 5.9

3 years and 4 months 1 5.9

Total 17 100.0

The analysis of the type and level of sentences for committed criminal offences of domes- tic violence shows that the sentences are rather mild, bearing in mind the social risks, the method of perpetration and the fact that the majority of perpetrators had already behaved violently. The contribution to this kind of criminal policy certainly lies in the fact that in some cases the period from the commission of the criminal offence to the render- ing of judgment and decision on punishment was rather long and that during that time family relations changed significantly. In addition, in some cases where the defendant admitted the perpetration, legal requirements were met for concluding a plea agree- ment with the public prosecutor, which was accepted by the court, or a hearing for the imposition of a criminal sanction was held, which certainly influenced the court in pro- nouncing less severe sanctions.

In assessing the type and level of sentence, it is very important which circumstances are considered relevant by the court and how their impact is assessed. In almost all cases where the first-instance decisions were rendered and where the decisions were explained (there were no explanations in 28 decisions), it was possible to examine which circumstances were taken into account by the court in sentencing, what reasons were identified for mitigating the sentence, pronouncing the suspended sentence, and whether and which security measure should be pronounced, in line with the court’s duty stipulated in Article 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These are the mitigating circum- stances from the analysed first-instance decisions: the defendant partly or fully admitted the commission of criminal offence; he repented; he is the father of three children, two of

64 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges whom are in his custody; he was not convicted; he is a young man; he behaved properly in court; age; repentance for the crime committed; a strong self-initiative for treatment; the defendant was in a state of substantially diminished mental competence; university education - master’s degree; personal and family circumstances; elapsed time since the last criminal offence; the defendant has no property; the injured party did not join the prosecution; the injured party did not claim indemnification because the defendant has changed and treats her well; health status; the defendant’s awareness of wrongdoing.

Like in the previous research, we can conclude that while mitigating circumstances are usually mentioned in court decisions, aggravating circumstances are mentioned in a much smaller number of cases. In a relatively large number of cases, the court did not specify any aggravating circumstances. In cases where the court established aggravat- ing circumstances, the most common ones were: previous conviction for other criminal offences; previous conviction for the same criminal offence of domestic violence; convic- tion for violent criminal offences; the fact that the previously imposed sentences did not correct the defendant’s behaviour; previous misdemeanour punishment; the enhanced degree of guilt; the severity of risk or damage to the protected goods.

The data from the explanations of court decisions lead to a conclusion that in many cases the court has stated different circumstances in general terms without further anal- ysis of their actual effect. Moreover, we have noticed automatism in determining mit- igating and aggravating circumstances. In fact, legal provisions were quoted, without taking account of the fact that domestic violence brings a higher degree of danger than other forms of violent behaviour.

3. Judicial practice in Niš

3.1. General information about court cases A total of 25 court cases handled by the Basic Court in Niš were examined.

3.2. Phenomenology of the criminal offence of domestic violence Form of perpetration The examined sample included 25 court cases where 25 perpetrators committed 33 criminal offences of domestic violence (Chart 15). The highest percentage of criminal offences (63.6%) are serious forms of domestic violence as follows: 39.4% of them have characteristics of the second form of the criminal offence of domestic violence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 2, while the third form referred to in Article 194, paragraph 3 occurred in 24.2% of cases. There was a smaller percentage of the criminal offences

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 65  of domestic violence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 1 (33.3%), which differs sig- nificantly from the sample consisting of Belgrade and Novi Sad cases where less severe forms of domestic violence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 1 prevail (64% in Bel- grade and 96.6% in Novi Sad). The criminal offence of domestic violence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 5 was committed in one case (3.03%).

Chart 15

194/5 3% 194/3 194/1 24% 33%

194/2 40%

Joinder of offences Similarly to the sample of Belgrade and Novi Sad cases, the highest percentage of crim- inal offences was not committed in joinder - 60% (Chart 16). However, 40% of criminal offences were committed in joinder, which is a significantly higher percentage than in Belgrade (16%) and Novi Sad (7.7%).

Chart 16

Committed in joinder 40%

Not committed in joinder 60%

66 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Complicity There was not any form of complicity in the examined sample. The perpetrators commit- ted the criminal offence of domestic violence alone. The same results were obtained for Belgrade cases.

It is interesting that there were witnesses in 64% of domestic violence cases. These were mostly children and other family members, but also neighbours, who were heard as wit- nesses in criminal procedures (Chart 17).

Chart 17

Without witnesses 36%

Witnesses 64%

Place of perpetration In a higher percentage of cases (76%), the place of domestic violence perpetration is a city, while 24% of examined cases were perpetrated in a village. In all cases, the place of perpetration is also the place of residence of both perpetrator and victim (Chart 18).

Chart 18

Village 24%

City 76%

The location (space) of perpetration is usually the joint apartment/house/courtyard of the victim and the perpetrator - 40%, the apartment/ house/courtyard of the perpetrator - 32%

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 67  and the apartment/house/courtyard of the victim - 20%. The smallest number of criminal offences were committed in the open space or in the victim’s parental home - 4% (Chart 19).

Chart 19

Victim's parental home 4% Park/street/ open space Perpetrator’s 4% apartment/ house/ courtyard 32%

Joint apartment/ house/courtyard of the Victim’s apartment/ victim and the perpetrator house/courtyard 40% 20%

Time of perpetration The majority of domestic violence offences from the sample were perpetrated in autumn - 28%, equal percentage of offences were committed in spring and summer - 20%, while 16% of offences were committed in winter and in the longer period. These data do not differ much from those related to the offences of domestic violence committed in Bel- grade, where most of them were committed in summer (30%) and autumn (28%). There is a difference in relation to Novi Sad where most offences of domestic violence were committed in spring - 32%. Observed in relation to the time when domestic violence was committed, in most cases where the time of the crime was recorded (19), the crime was committed in the afternoon or evening - 14 (56%). We can conclude that the data on the time of domestic violence perpetration may have the value for the phenomenologi- cal analysis of this phenomenon, but they are not relevant to the aetiology of this crime.

Means of perpetration The means of domestic violence perpetration in the examined sample are various objects, including the body parts (hands, arms, fists, legs), various items (belt, log, pole, metal tube, baseball bat, wooden table leg) and cold weapons (knife, axe, meat chopper). In contrast to the cases from Belgrade and Novi Sad where physical violence without the use of implements or weapons was most frequent, the largest percentage of domestic violence cases from the examined sample in Niš involve the use of implements, weapons or other means suitable to inflict serious injury to body or seriously impair health - 48%, while physical violence without the use of implements or weapons happened in 40% of

68 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges cases. Psychological violence occurred only in one case (4%), while the combination of physical and psychological violence happened in two cases (8%).

Methods of perpetration The methods of perpetration depended on the type of violence (physical, psychologi- cal), but also on the means of perpetration.

Physical violence was perpetrated in different ways including: hitting with a wooden armchair backrest; grabbing and squeezing the neck with hands; hitting with an open hand on the face; punching on the head; hitting with the belt on the back; throwing a log; hitting with a wooden pole; kicking; hair pulling; hitting with a metal rod, etc.

Psychological violence consisted of cursing, insulting by name-calling (“whore”, “peas- ant”, “worthless”, etc.), threats of murder, etc.

The analysis of the description of committed criminal offences shows that violence is very brutal in terms of method of perpetration and consequences, that the perpetrators use a very wide range of violence and that the consequences of violence are very seri- ous, as illustrated by the following examples:

ii The defendant hit his wife with a wooden armchair backrest causing her an injury in the form of a cut, when she entered the room where he was with another woman and asked for a cigarette. The other woman lived with them for six months; after this event the injured party continued to live with them and stayed in another room with the children and the defendant’s mother. The defendant again attacked her and broke her arm. She was placed in a safe house, and the children were placed in a foster family by the decision of the social welfare centre. After the divorce, the children remained in the foster family and a procedure was initiated to deprive both parents of the parental rights.

ii Having arrived home, the defendant, under the influence of alcohol, hit his minor daughter with the back of his hand on her forehead, due to which she fainted and hit the table, which caused her injuries in the form of upper lip contusion (light bodily injury), and when his wife approached to help her daughter, he grabbed her neck and squeezed, causing her light bodily injuries in the form of skin contusion on both sides of her neck.

ii The defendant threatened his father to slaughter him and then punched him on the nose due to which the injured party fell to the floor and the defendant continued punching and kicking him on the head and body as a result of which the injured party sustained serious bodily injuries.

ii The defendant doubted the injured party’s faithfulness and wanted to take her mobile phone to see the messages. In an evidently drunken state, after a brief quarrel, he insulted the injured party by saying that she was “a whore from Svrljig”, that he would show her who

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 69  he was, that she was an irresponsible mother, pushed her with the hands, threatened to kill her, hit her with an open hand on the face, which resulted in a light bodily injury.

ii In a drunken state, the defendant demanded from the injured party (his grandfather) to bring him a drink, and when the injured party refused to do so, the defendant repeatedly insulted him and his mother, threw the mobile phone, broke the TV remote controller, turned over the chair, and when the injured party approached to prevent him from breaking more things, the defendant first hit him with the head on the nose and then repeatedly punched him on the face and head, causing him light bodily injuries in the form of bruising beneath the eyes.

ii The first event: The defendant kicked the injured party/his former wife in the right thigh, and when she started to run, he rushed after her and reached her in front of the house, punching and kicking her on the back and abdomen and several times on the shoulders and head, which caused her light bodily injuries. The second event: After the injured party refused to enter the defendant’s car, the defendant pulled her into the car, drove to Vrežina, and when the injured party got out of the car, he punched her on the head, due to which she fell down; then he insulted and punched her repeatedly on the ​​ head and shoulders. The third event: The defendant came to the front door of the house where his underage daughter lived with her mother and started kicking the door and when his daughter asked him why he was doing it and what he wanted, he swore, insulted and threatened to kill her when he saw her in the street.

ii The defendant hit with a table leg the injured party/his sister with whom he lived in the same household, having previously turned the table and chairs and broken two table legs. He hit the injured party in the right lower leg and then punched her with both fists on ​​the face, so that the injured party suffered light bodily injuries.

ii The defendant entered the house of the injured party’s (cohabiting partner’s) father with a kitchen knife and an axe, threatening the injured party to slaughter and pierce her through while waiving a knife about 15cm long. The injured party ran away with her child to another room; the defendant followed her and when her father entered the room, he threatened to kill him with the automatic rifle, which he had brought from the battlefield, saying that they did not deserve to live, that he would throw a bomb, break their legs, and when the injured party approached to help her father, he bit her hand thus causing her a light bodily injury.

ii The defendant demanded from his wife to enter his car to discuss the reasons for the divorce, opened the car door, slid the front seat and pushed her to the back seat. He drove to the excursion site Čegar, pulled her out of the car, threw her on the ground, repeatedly hit her on the head and body with his hands, due to which she sustained a serious bodily injury, in the form of a complete fracture of the right elbow bone, cutaneous and subcutaneous haematoma in the area of subscapularis muscle and bilateral contusions to the soft-tissue; then drove to the village of Jelašnica and repeatedly hit her on the abdomen.

70 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  ii The first event: The defendant was drunk when he entered the kitchen where his mother was and started a discussion about documentation, threatened to kill, slaughter her and serve his prison sentence for that; then he repeated all that to his father, took a chair, raised it above his head and hit him on the head with the seat. He took another chair to hit his father again, but his mother grabbed the chair from his hand. He went to the room, began to break things around the room and then approached his father again, grabbed the lapel of his father’s shirt and repeatedly punched him with both fists on his chest and threatened to kill him, while pushing him out of the apartment. The second event: In the evening, he began to swear and shout, first at his mother, hitting her on the left shoulder, and when his father and sister entered, he continued to swear and threaten, he slapped his sister, took from the kitchen a meat chopper with the 20 cm long blade and holding it in his right hand waved in the direction of all injured parties.

ii The first event: Irritated by the fact that the underage injured party/the defendant’s child could not learn geography, the defendant hit the child with the hand on the back of his head and slapped him several times. He hit with a belt his other underage child (the second minor) on the leg, arm and shoulder several times, for no reason, while in bed, causing him more light bodily injuries in the form of haematoma. All that time he was shouting at the children, threw down and broke a mobile phone, and he also broke two cabinet drawers. The second event: When the defendant’s underage son told him that he received the grade three in physics, he repeatedly hit him with his hands, ordered him not to move, so that the underage injured party, being afraid, stood quietly in the corner of the room between 2 p.m. that day and 7 a.m. the next day. During that night, he forced him to tear up all his textbooks and notebooks, which the injured party did, then he hit him with a belt and punched him on different parts of his body, threw at him a remote controller and a yoghurt bottle, set the mathematics book on fire with a lighter and threw it in a garbage can. He threatened the underage injured party that he would take him to the woods and leave him there, that he would withdraw him from school, demanded from him to enter the car wash facility and ask for a job, threatening to hit him and stick him to the ground if he failed to do so. The third event: In the second semester of the school year, he was angry because the underage injured party received the grade 4/5 in geography and made him stand in the corner of his room without moving for 6 hours continuously. The fourth event: Annoyed by the fact that his other son/underage injured party was not able to understand mathematics, he ordered him to stretch out his arms and hit him several times with a belt, injuring the inside part of his arms, which were completely blue up to the forearms, and then, for no reason at all, he began to shout at his other son/underage injured party who was sitting in the same room studying chemistry and hit him on the back with a belt several times. The fifth event: He approached his underage son persuading him to change the statement, together with his brother, to prevent the defendant’s ending up in prison, although on the basis of the final and enforceable judgment of the Basic Court in Niš, it was prohibited to

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 71  him to approach his ex-wife and underage children/injured parties, at a distance of 100 meters, so that he violated the measure of protection against domestic violence.

ii The defendant insulted and cursed the injured party/his daughter who was pregnant, and then took an axe and threatened to kill her if she did not leave their home.

ii In the family house, the defendant cursed and insulted the injured party/his mother, and then punched her once on the face, causing her a light bodily injury.

ii For a long period of time (February - December 2016), the defendant physically and mentally abused his cohabiting partner by slapping her on the face and jaw, ordering her to pull down her trousers and poked the tip of the knife into her back; hitting her with his hands on the face and kidneys and with a metal rod on the head; at night, he locked the room door, punched her on the face and kidneys, threatened with a knife, ordered her to take off her underwear, stabbed her in the area of ovary, left groin and buttocks, cut her hair with scissors, took an axe and hit her head with the blunt part, after which she fainted and when she regained consciousness, he punched her again causing her light bodily injuries.

ii The defendant threw the injured party/his wife out of the house and then threw a log at her but did not hit her. In the evening, he returned to the house where the injured party lived with her parents, shouted and shook the gate, demanding from them to open it and threatening to kill and slaughter them, yelling “where have you hidden my children.” When the injured party/the defendant’s father-in-law came out, the defendant hit his head with his own head, and then also punched him, causing him a light bodily injury on the forehead and supraorbital artery.

ii The defendant waved a wooden pole 30-40cm long and 3cm thick to hit the injured party/ his wife on the head, she raised her right arm to protect herself, after which the defendant hit her causing her a serious bodily injury in the form of a fracture of the right elbow bone.

ii While the injured party/defendant’s wife was sitting on the quay, he kicked her on the left side of the body without any reason. She went to the flat where she lived with the defendant, and while she was sitting on the bed, he grabbed her hair with one hand and dragged her around the room, while repeatedly punching her with the other hand on the head and body, calling her a whore. The injured party sustained serious life-threatening injuries consisting of split spleen with massive bleeding in the abdominal cavity, skin contusion and superficial crush injury in the area of chest and spinal column. The injured party’s spleen was removed because it was halved, 1.2 l of blood was extracted from the abdominal cavity, while 1.5 l is a fatality limit. When the neighbours found her, she did not want to say that the defendant had injured her, but she said that she got injured in a traffic accident.

ii Under the influence of alcohol, without any reason, the defendant threatened the injured party with the words “you can leave with the children, but if you ever have another man,

72 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  I will hang you and him on a monument to be an example.” He threatened, via mobile phone, to kill anyone who supported her. The children went with the injured party to her parents’ apartment where he came and tried to get into the apartment.

ii The defendant hit his son with a pole on the back and arm, and then with a metal rod several times on the spine and right hand, causing him light bodily injuries consisting of the contusion of skin and subcutaneous tissues of the left frontal area, the back part of the chest and the right hand.

ii The defendant repeatedly hit the injured party/his father with a wooden bat (baseball bat) on the body and once on the head, and then left the house.

ii The defendant threatened his former cohabiting partner with whom he had a child to slaughter and pierce her through, while holding 15 cm long kitchen knives, one in each hand, while an axe with the 8 cm long blade was under his belt. He waved his left hand holding a knife in the direction of the injured party, but she managed to escape with the child to the courtyard. When he stayed in the room, he turned the wood stove and the TV set upside down and broke a small table.

ii The defendant insulted his wife with the words: “you are worthless; you don’t have a university education, which means you are not intelligent”, grabbed her right upper arm causing her an injury in the form of haematoma, then kicked her in the thigh causing her an injury in the form of right thigh haematoma. He threatened the injured party/his son to kill him with a knife. He held firearms (a rifle) in the house.

ii Under the influence of alcohol, the defendant first began to shout at the injured party/his mother, then he hit her on the head, which knocked her down, then punched her on the lip and while she was lying on the floor he kicked her on the back and abdomen. He went to the kitchen, took a kitchen knife, put the tip of the kitchen knife on the injured party’s neck, threatening to slaughter her. He pressed a knife on her neck, while the injured party was begging to let her go, and on that occasion she sustained a light bodily injury consisting of a contusion on the back of the neck, lower lip, chest and abdomen.

ii The defendant entered the room where the injured party/his wife was and hit her repeatedly on the head, causing her a light bodily injury.

ii In the house courtyard, the defendant slapped the injured party/her then husband, pushed him so that he fell down and threatened to kill him. When the injured party stood up and entered the room, she kicked him with both legs in the crotch and abdomen causing him light bodily injuries, then took a baseball bat with an intention to hit him, but the injured party’s father stopped her.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 73  3.3. Profile of perpetrators Structure of perpetrators by sex The review of court cases confirmed the findings from the previous research studies and from the Belgrade and Novi Sad components of the present research: significantly more perpetrators of domestic violence are men than women (Chart 20). In the examined sample, 24 perpetrators (96%) were men and only one was a woman (4%).

Chart 20

Female 4%

Male 96%

Age of perpetrators The age structure of domestic violence perpetrators is the following: Most perpetrators (32%) belong to the age group 33-40, 28% of them are 49-56 years old and 24% of per- petrators are in the age group 41-48 years. Two perpetrators (8%) were 18-25 and 25-32 years old. It is interesting that there were no perpetrators older than 56, in contrast to Belgrade, where 6% of perpetrators were in the age group 57-65 years and 12% of them were over 65 years old (Chart 21).

Chart 21

18-25 8% 25-32 49-56 8% 28%

33-40 32% 41-48 24%

74 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Marital status of perpetrators Most perpetrators of domestic violence in this sample were also married (56%), while the percentages of divorcees and those living in cohabitation were much smaller: 12% and 4% respectively. Seven (7) or 28% of perpetrators were single. Comparison with the data collected in the previous research shows that the percentage of domestic violence per- petrators in cohabitation with the victim of violence, which was 11.85%, has decreased significantly. The marital status of the perpetrators was observed at the time of criminal offence perpetration, since both the present and earlier research studies show that in many cases the marital status of perpetrators and victims has changed after the commis- sion of the criminal offence (Chart 22).

Chart 22

Single 28%

Married 56% Divorced 12% Living in cohabitation 4%

Number of children In the examined sample of 25 cases, most perpetrators are parents (78%), while 24% of them are without children. The highest percentage of perpetrators (56%) have two or more children, while 20% of perpetrators have one child. In contrast to previous research, where the information on the number of perpetrators’ children was missing in a large number of cases and therefore had to be deduced from the circumstances that influenced the sentencing, i.e. when parenthood was taken as a mitigating circum- stance, all cases covered by the present research contained data on the perpetrators’ parenthood (Chart 23).

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 75  Chart 23

No children 24%

One child Two or more 20% 56%

Education of perpetrators As regards education, as in previous research studies, most perpetrators completed secondary or high school (60%). Only 8% of perpetrators completed junior college or faculty, 32% of them have only primary education, which indicates the satisfactory edu- cational level of perpetrators (Chart 24).

Chart 24

Junior college/ faculty Primary school 8% 32%

Secondary or high school 60%

Occupation of perpetrators A small number of perpetrators from the sample (20%) have no occupation, while most of them (80%) have a certain occupation. Their occupations are various and include: worker, milling machine operator, welder, tourist guide, electrician, driver, engine fitter, traffic technician, baker, medical technician, sales specialist, lawyer, retired major, etc.

76 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Employment status of perpetrators The previous research studies, as well as the present research in Belgrade and Niš, con- firm the prevalence of unemployed persons among the perpetrators (40% in Belgrade and 56% in Niš). A high percentage of unemployed perpetrators confirms that the men’s unfavourable socio-economic situation and/or the instability of their social status, which is primarily related to their labour status, is one of the important factors that influence the occurrence of domestic violence (Chart 25).

Chart 25

No permanent job Farmer Employed 4% 4% 12%

Unknown 16%

Retired 8% Unemployed, looking for a job 56%

Perpetrators’ place of birth and residence The place of birth and residence of perpetrators is a city in most cases (city is the place of birth in 88% of cases and the place of residence in 68% cases). Only three perpetrators were born in a village (12%), seven reside in a village (28%), only one perpetrator (4%) resides in a suburban area (Charts 26 and 27).

Chart 26

Village 12%

City 88%

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 77  Chart 27

Suburban settlement Village 4% 28%

City 68%

Previous convictions of perpetrators Based on the data on the perpetrators’ previous convictions, it can be concluded that a large percentage of perpetrators from the sample have an inclination towards criminal behaviour. In fact, 18 or 72% perpetrators were previously convicted, all of them were convicted more than once, usually twice, for various criminal offences, including the fol- lowing: illegal production and sale of drugs, endangering with dangerous implements in fighting and quarrelling, theft, violent behaviour, defamation, domestic violence, destruction and damage of other person’s thing, aggravated larceny, attack on an offi- cial, etc. In these earlier proceedings, the court usually pronounced the prison sentence or suspended sentence; only one perpetrator was fined and punished with the security measure of confiscation for one of committed criminal offences. In addition, a number of perpetrators were previously punished for the misdemeanour of violating public peace and order. It should be noted that in one case the previous conviction of the perpetrator was not considered an aggravating circumstance because a long time had passed since the previous conviction, although it was also for domestic violence.

One of the pieces of information important for understanding the causes of domestic violence is related to specific life circumstances of perpetrators: their status of refugee or internally displaced person and their participation in the wars in the former SFRY. Most perpetrators from the sample do not have a refugee status (92%), while this information is unknown for two perpetrators (8%). Two perpetrators stated that they were returnees from the war.

Family and personal history of perpetrators The examined court cases contain very scarce data that allow the insight into the per- sonality of perpetrators and valid conclusions about their lifestyle. According to the scarce data found in the files (in 64% of cases there are no data on the primary family

78 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges completeness), 5 perpetrators (20%) lived in the complete family, 3 perpetrators (12%) grew up without a father and one grew up without a mother Chart 28). Also, there is a large percentage of unknown relations in the primary family (76%); only 2 perpetra- tors stated that the relations in their primary family were “good”, while 4 perpetrators described them as “bad”. There is no information that any of the perpetrators attempted suicide or self-injury. Also, the court files show that most perpetrators did not express deviant or criminal behaviour in their youth. However, based on this, it cannot be con- cluded that domestic violence perpetrators did not commit juvenile offences or behaved in a deviant manner because the court did not examine the circumstances that existed prior to the commission of the criminal offence, and which related to the personality of perpetrators. Besides, there are no data on the family history of the defendants and relations in their primary family. Only in the cases where psychiatric evaluation was con- ducted there is more information on the perpetrator’s family of origin, whether their par- ents were alcoholics, whether they committed criminal offences, what kind of relations they had with their parents, etc.

Chart 28

Complete 20%

Without the father 12%

Unknown Without the 64% mother 4%

Alcohol and drug abuse A large percentage of domestic violence perpetrators are chronic alcoholics - 44%. How- ever, it should be noted that the information on alcohol abuse is missing in 12 cases (48%) and therefore, it is possible that more perpetrators used alcohol excessively. The fact that 48% of perpetrators were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the com- mission of criminal offence is particularly disconcerting: light intoxication was recorded in two cases, medium intoxication in three cases and heavy intoxication in seven cases. Alcoholism at the time of the commission of criminal offence influenced the degree of the perpetrators’ mental competence and certainly contributed significantly to their aggressive and violent behaviour.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 79  Drug abuse cannot be established with certainty given that this information remained unknown in a large percentage of cases - 52%. Drug abuse was established only in two cases. The examined sample includes only two cases where it was found that the defen- dants used drugs. However, most perpetrators were not under the influence of opiates at the time of perpetration.

Psychopathic personality structure and mental illness in perpetrators The examined cases contain very little data on the psychopathic personality structure of perpetrators so that this information remained unknown in 56% of cases. The reason for scarce data on the mental state of the perpetrators certainly lies in the fact that only in a few cases the psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the perpetrators was con- ducted. Psychopathic personality structure was found in eight perpetrators, although most perpetrators excessively consumed alcohol for a long period of time and were chronic alcohol abusers. In one case it was noted that the abuse of alcohol had led to the personality disorder and emotional instability. Perpetrator’s attitude towards and responsibility for the criminal offence According to the data from the case files, the highest percentage of perpetrators express repentance for the committed criminal offence only verbally - 28%, 24% of perpetrators do not admit the criminal offence, 20% repents genuinely, 16% of perpetrators have an undefined attitude towards the committed criminal offence, while 8% of perpetrators do not repent and considers their action to be appropriate. Comparison of these data with the previous research shows that the number of perpetrators who do not admit the perpetration has increased (from 15.21% to 24%).

Regarding the perpetrator’s attitude towards responsibility for the event, the majority of perpetrators do not give or do not have an explanation - 20%, 16% of perpetrators do not admit the perpetration of criminal offence, denies their connection with the event, while 16% of perpetrators blame the victim. Only one perpetrator blames both him- self and the victim, and seven perpetrators or 28% mainly accept their own responsibil- ity. The attitude of other perpetrators could not be determined because there was no relevant information in the case files (Chart 29). Compared to the data from the previ- ous research studies, there is a relatively large increase in the percentage of those who blame the victim for the committed criminal offence (from 11.90% to 16%), while the percentage of those who blame both themselves and the victim has decreased (from 16.92% to 4%).

80 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  Chart 29

Unknown Yes, genuine 4% remorse and repentance Denial of offence 20% 24% Undefined 16%

No repentance/ considers his/her action to be Repentance appropriate expressed only 8% verbally 28%

Regarding the perpetrator’s attitude towards responsibility for the event, the majority of perpetrators do not give or do not have an explanation - 20%, 16% of perpetrators do not admit the perpetration of criminal offence and deny their connection with the event, while 16% of perpetrators blame the victim. Only one perpetrator blames both himself and the victim, and seven perpetrators or 28% mainly accept their own responsi- bility. The attitude of other perpetrators could not be determined because there was no relevant information in the case files. Compared to the data from the previous research, there is a relatively large increase in the percentage of those who blame the victim for the committed criminal offence (from 11.90% to 16%), while the percentage of those who blame both themselves and the victim has decreased (from 16.92% to 4%) (Table 16).

Table 16

Number Percentage

Mainly blame the victim 4 16

Blame both themselves and the victim 1 4

Do not blame either victim or themselves/consider the 2 8 event to be the result of unfortunate circumstances

Do not give or have any explanation 5 20

Mainly accept their own responsibility 7 28

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 81  Do not admit the criminal offence and deny any 4 16 connection with it

Unknown 2 8

Total 25 100.0

Relations between the perpetrator and the victim prior to the perpetration of criminal offence Bad and disturbed relations between the perpetrator and the victim existed before the commission of the criminal offence in almost all cases from the examined sample. The forms of previous violence are various, but its characteristic is continuity over a longer period of time. These are some typical cases:

The defendant insulted the injured person calling her names in the presence of the chil- dren, he lost his job, he began to consume alcohol, and quarrels happened every day.

When he gets drunk, the defendant psychologically and physically abuses all family members who live in the same household.

Due to constant psychological abuse, the defendant and the injured party went to fam- ily therapy.

The victim abandoned the cohabitation with the defendant on several occasions, but returned in hope that the defendant would change.

In order to get money for drugs and alcohol, the defendant physically and mentally abused his parents.

After the divorce, the children were given to the defendant for care and upbringing, but he abused them psychologically and physically over a long period of time.

Relations between the defendant and the injured party were so disturbed that they could not take proper care of the children due to which they were placed in the foster family.

The defendants and the injured party were married for fifteen years, while physical and psychological violence has lasted four years.

The defendants and the injured party were married for eighteen years. Psychologi- cal violence started immediately at the beginning of marriage, while physical violence started five years ago.

82 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Degree of perpetrator’s mental competence Regarding the degree of perpetrator’s mental competence, the court did not establish mental incompetence at the time of the commission of criminal offence in any of the cases, and in fact established the mental competence of 56% of perpetrators. The mental com- petence was diminished but not substantially in seven perpetrators (28%), while the men- tal competence of three perpetrators (12%) was substantially diminished. (Chart 30).

Chart 30

Substantially Unknown diminished 4% 12%

Mentally competent 56% Diminished, but not substantially 28%

Motives for criminal offence perpetration In the entire research sample, including the sample of court cases from Niš, it was not possible to establish with certainty and in all cases the motive for criminal offence per- petration, because this psychological factor is almost never considered by the court in determining the facts in a particular case. However, it can be deduced that the perpe- trators committed criminal offences usually because of jealousy, long-term intolerance towards the victim, belief that the use of physical force is the best way to educate chil- dren, revenge for being prevented from seeing the child, quarrels about money, discus- sions about the division of marital property, etc.

3.4 Profile of victims Structure of victims by sex According to the reviewed court cases, the number of victims (33) is greater than the number of perpetrators (25), which indicates that more family members were injured or endangered during the perpetration of domestic violence (Chart 31).

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 83  Chart 31

Three persons 4% Two persons 24%

One person 72%

The results of the present research confirm the fact that most victims of domestic vio- lence are women (Chart 32). In the examined sample, women were victims in 66.7% of cases, while men were victims in 33% of cases. It should be noted that a much bigger number of the victims of intimate partner violence are women than men. Only one man was a victim of partner violence in the examined sample.

Chart 32

Male 33%

Female 67%

Place of residence and birth Most victims reside in a city (75.80%), a fewer number of them live in a village (18.20%), while a suburban settlement is mentioned as the place of residence in only 6.10% of cases. A city is the place of birth of 78.80% of victims, 15.20% of them were born in a village and 3% in a suburban settlement. The place of birth of one victim is unknown (Chart 33). These data do not differ significantly from the previous research results.

84 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  Chart 33

Village Suburban 18% settlement 6%

City 76%

Age of victims Underage children are also among the victims - 4 (12.1%), while the number of adults is 29 (87.8%). Most adult victims belong to the age groups 25-32 - 18.2%, 33-40 - 18.2% and over 65 years - 18.2% (Chart 34).

Chart 34

65+ Minor 18% 12%

18-24 9% 57-65 6%

49-56 25-32 9% 19% 41-48 9% 33-40 18%

Marital status of victims At the time of the criminal offence perpetration, the largest number of victims, like the perpetrators, were married (51.5%); 21.2% of them were single, while one victim lived in cohabitation, one was divorced, one was separated and one was widowed. There is no data on marital status for 5 victims in the case files (Chart 35).

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 85  Chart 35

Unknown 15%

Single 21%

Married 52% Widowed 3% Separated 3% Divorced Living in cohabitation 3% 3%

Number of children In the examined sample, 30.30% of victims do not have children, 45.50% of them have two or more children, while 18.20% of victims have one child. There are no data on the number of children for other victims (Chart 36).

Chart 36 Unknown 6% No children 30%

Two or more 46%

One child 18%

Education, occupation and employment status of victims The case files contain very scarce data on education, occupation and employment of vic- tims. The court rarely determines and considers these circumstances at the main hear- ing. These data can be found only in criminal complaints or records of the hearing of the injured party. Data on the education of victims are missing in 51.5% of cases, data on the employment are missing in 30.3% of cases, while the occupation is not mentioned in any of the cases from the sample.

86 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges According to the available data, the victims have completed different levels of educa- tion: The same percentage of victims completed secondary and primary education - 21.2%. Only one victim has no education (Chart 37).

Chart 37

Pupil None 3% 3% Primary school 21%

Unknown 52% Secondary or high school 21%

For understanding the reasons why victims, especially in case of intimate partner vio- lence, continue living for a long time with the violent spouse/partner, it is very import- ant to take into account the victim’s economic and financial independence. Hence, it is important to find out whether the victims are employed and thus economically inde- pendent. Seven victims from the examined sample (21.2%) are employed, while 16 vic- tims are unemployed: unemployed - 5 (15.2%), housekeepers - 5 (15.2%), pensioners - 4 (12.1%), pupils - 2 (6.1%) (Chart 38).

Chart 38

Employed Unknown 21% 31%

Pupil Unemployed, 6% looking for a job 15% Retired Housekeeper 12% 15%

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 87  Nature of relationship between perpetrators and victims In most cases (48.5%) the perpetrator and the victim were married to each other - 33.30%. and in 6.10% of cases they were cohabiting partners or former spouses or ex-boyfriend and ex-girlfriend, which means that the prevailing form of domestic vio- lence continues to be intimate partner violence. Compared to previous research, the number of the criminal offences of domestic violence committed against other family members has increased: children (son, daughter) were victims in 27.3% of cases, parents (father, mother) were victims in 15.2% of cases, in 3.0% of cases the victims were siblings, in 3.0% of cases the victims were father/mother-in-law, while grandparents were victims in 3% of cases (Chart 39).

Chart 39

Father/mother-in-law Grandfather/grandmother 3% 3% Brother/sister 3% Spouse (marriage) 34% Son/daughter 27% Cohabitation 6%

Former Father/mother spouses/partne 15% rs (marriage or Ex-boyfriend/girlfriend cohabitation) 3% 6%

Weapons held by victims and influence of alcohol at the time of perpetration At the time of the commission of the criminal offence of domestic violence, the victims did not carry any weapons or implements. Unlike the perpetrators, who in 48% of cases were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the criminal offence commission, only one victim was under the influence of alcohol.

Relations between the perpetrator and the victim prior to the criminal complaint and response to previous violence In the case files from the examined sample, there are very little data that would allow a conclusion about the personal relationship between the perpetrator and the victim before the criminal offence of domestic violence. In addition, the court paid little atten- tion to the examination of the circumstances related to the so-called cycles of violence, and consequently the case files do not include data on whether the victim has experi- enced the cycles of violence and if yes, which ones and how long they lasted. However,

88 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges based on the available data, it can be concluded that almost all victims were exposed to physical and psychological violence for a long time before the criminal offence was committed. Relations between family members in most cases were seriously disturbed because the perpetrators abused alcohol. However, a small number of victims contacted other institutions to seek help before the commission of the criminal offence: only three victims were placed in a safe house, and only one addressed the social welfare centre. As many as 57.6% of victims did not request the police intervention for the previously suf- fered violence. In one case, the injured party/defendant’s wife stated that she had lived with the defendant first in cohabitation and then in marriage for fifteen years, that the defendant had repeatedly committed violence against her, that she had once submitted a criminal complaint, but later withdrew it because she felt sorry for the defendant who had been subjected to heart surgery. She further stated that the defendant was a good man when he did not drink, that he abused her only under the influence of alcohol and that she did not want to join the criminal prosecution, but she wanted to get divorced as soon as possible and never see him again.

3.5. Criminal proceedings - substance, course and duration Criminal procedures were conducted against the domestic violence perpetrators (25) who committed a total of 33 criminal offences, as follows: from Article 194, paragraph 2 - 39.4%, Article 194, paragraph 1 - 33.3%, Article 194, paragraph 3 - 24.2% and Article 194, paragraph 5 - 3.03%.

3.5.1. Detention Due to the gravity of the committed criminal offences and previous convictions, and in accordance with the legal grounds for detention, the defendants were kept in detention in 12 cases (48%), which is somewhat more than in the Belgrade sample (46%) and sig- nificantly more than in the Novi Sad sample (23.1%).

3.5.2. Evidence In the examined sample, the most frequent evidence was: examination of defendants, examination of witnesses, examination of injured parties as witnesses, review of med- ical documentation, forensic medical evaluation and evaluations of neuropsychiatrist and psychologist, analysis of the findings of mobile operators about the communication with a mobile phone, reading of the expert findings of the social welfare centre.

3.5.3. Outcome of procedure Most final court decisions, 24 out of 25 (96%), were convictions. In only one case, a judg- ment of conviction was pronounced for a criminal offence of domestic violence and a judgment of acquittal for another criminal offence referred to in Article 194, paragraph

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 89  2 due to the lack of evidence. This judgment is presented as conviction in the Chart. In another case, the charges were dismissed. (Chart 40).

The plea agreement was concluded in three cases and a hearing for the imposition of a criminal sanction was held.

Chart 40 Dismissal of charges 4%

Judgment of conviction 96%

3.5.4. Appeal An appeal against the first-instance decision was filed in 14 cases, while there was no appeal in 11 cases, including 2 cases where the plea agreement was concluded and 2 cases where a hearing for the imposition of a criminal sanction was held (Chart 41). In a number of cases, the parties stated at the main hearing that they would not appeal.

Chart 41

No 44%

Yes 56%

3.5.5. Duration of procedure In order to see the efficiency of the court procedure, it has been observed in five phases: from submitting a criminal complaint to filing a charging document; from filing a charging document to rendering a first-instance decision; from submitting a criminal

90 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges complaint to rendering a second-instance decision; from submitting a criminal com- plaint to the finality of judgment; from rendering a first-instance decision to rendering a second-instance decision (Table 17).

Table 17 Criminal Charging Criminal Criminal First-instance complaint/ document/ complaint/ complaint/ decision/ charging first- second- finality of second-instance document instance instance judgment decision decision decision Up to 1 8 (32%) 4 (16%) 0 0 0 month 1-3 1 (4%) 5 (20%) 0 3 (12%) 3 (21.4%) months 3-5 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 2 (14.2%) 4 (16%) 8 (57.1%) months 5-7 1 (4%) 2 (8%) 1 (7.1%) 1 (4%) 0 months 7 - 10 3 (12%) 0 0 0 %) months 10 - 12 5 (20%) 3 (12%) 1 (7.1%) 2 (8%) 1 (7.1%) months 1-2 4 (16%) 7 (28%) 2 (14.2%) 7 (28%) 1 (7.1%) years 2-4 1 (4%) 3 (12%) 7 (50%) 6 (24%) 1 (7.1%) years 4-5 0 0 1 (7.1%) 2 (8%) 0 years Over 5 0 0 0 0 0 years

TOTAL 25 25 14 25 14

According to the data from the table, the period from the submission of criminal com- plaint to the finality is very long, from one to two years in the highest percentage of cases (28%) and from two to four years in 24% of cases. If the procedure is observed by phase, it can be seen that the shortest phase is the first one: the period from submitting a criminal complaint to filing a charging document. The average time for checking the allegations contained in the criminal complaint and filing a charging document is up to a month (in 32% of cases), but there are also cases (5 cases or 20%) where this phase lasted 10-12 months, which is indeed a long period of time for this type of criminal offence.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 91  According to the data from the examined sample, the period from filing a charging doc- ument to rendering a first-instance decision in most cases (7 cases or 28%) lasts from one to two years, which is rather long. In 50% of cases out of 14 cases in which an appeal against the first-instance decision was filed and the second-instance decision was ren- dered, the period from submitting a criminal complaint to rendering a second-instance decision was two to four years. The duration of the procedure from rendering a first-in- stance decision to rendering a second-instance decision in the largest number of cases was from 3-5 months (in 8 cases) and 1-3 months (in 3 cases). The length of the pro- cedure, especially from filing a charging document to rendering a first-instance deci- sion, certainly depended on the meeting of procedural requirements for holding the main hearing. In a number of cases, the main hearings were often postponed due to the defendant’s or the injured party’s failure to appear, the impossibility to deliver the sum- mons because of the inaccurate address, the witnesses’ failure to appear, etc.

3.6. Type and level of pronounced criminal sanctions In 96% of cases, criminal sanctions were pronounced to domestic violence perpetra- tors. In only one case, the judgment on the dismissal of charges was rendered due to the withdrawal by the public prosecutor. A judgment of acquittal was rendered to one perpetrator for an offence in joinder, but he was convicted for another criminal offence in the same case. In contrast to previous research, suspended sentences were rare in the sample of Niš cases. Six (6) perpetrators were convicted and punished with suspended sentence (24%), but in one case this sentence was accompanied with the security mea- sure of compulsory alcohol addiction treatment at liberty (Table 18 and Chart 42). Con- sidering that the number of imposed suspended sentences is smaller than the number of prison sentences, it could be concluded that the penal policy in cases of domestic violence has been made harsher. However, it should be kept in mind that the examined cases are more serious forms of the criminal offence of domestic violence and that the perpetrators have been previously convicted for the same or other criminal offence.

Table 18

Number Percentage

Prison sentence 7 28

Prison sentence and security measure 7 28

Prison sentence enforced in the premises where the accused person lives without electronic 1 4 surveillance

92 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  Prison sentence, fine and security measure of no 1 4 approaching or communicating

Prison sentence and fine 1 4

Community service and security measure of compulsory 1 4 alcohol addiction treatment at liberty

Suspended sentence 5 20

Suspended sentence and security measure of 1 4 compulsory alcohol addiction treatment at liberty

Charges dismissed 1 4

Total 25 100.0

Duration of imprisonment pronounced along with security measures and fine is shown in Table 19.

Table 19

Number Percentage

6 months 4 23.5

7 months 1 5.9

8 months 2 47.0

10 months 2 47.0

1 year 3 17.6

2 years 3 17.6

2 years and 6 months 1 5.9

3 years and 8 months 1 5.9

Total 17 100.0

Security measures were pronounced along with prison sentences, fines and suspended sentences. The security measures pronounced in eight cases consisted of compulsory

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 93  alcohol addiction treatment at liberty or in a medical or specialised institution, while in one case the security measure of no approaching or communicating with the injured party, as referred to in Article 89a of the Criminal Code, was imposed.

On the basis of the allegations in the judgments with an explanation, it can be con- cluded that in sentencing, the court took into account the following circumstances as mitigating:

ii personal, family and financial circumstances

ii poor financial situation without the possession of immovable property

ii behaviour at the main hearing

ii married

ii single

ii father of two/three/six minor children

ii the injured party does not join the criminal prosecution and does not claim indemnification

ii absence of previous convictions

ii behaviour after the perpetration of offence

ii the defendant stopped using alcohol and attended family therapy

ii the defendant admitted the criminal offence in whole or in part

ii unemployment

ii the degree of guilt, since the defendant’s mental competence was almost substantially diminished due to his alcohol addiction

ii he committed the criminal offence in a state of diminished mental competence as a result of alcohol abuse

ii the defendant and the injured party do not live together and the defendant is not in a position to have another conflict with the injured party and repeat the criminal offence

ii the defendant is a young person

ii the defendant is a pensioner, an elderly person who has lived a non-problematic life

ii the defendant expresses repentance

94 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  ii the defendant promised not to repeat it

ii behaviour after the perpetration of offence

ii the defendant’s previous lifestyle

ii legal rehabilitation

ii after the critical event, for a long period of time he was not in contact with his ex-wife

ii a judgment was rendered after holding a hearing for the imposition of a criminal sanction where the defendant admitted the criminal offence, stated that she had repented and agreed that the court found her guilty.

The question arises as to whether all of these circumstances can be considered miti- gating, especially personal and property situation, the fact that the defendant and the injured party do not live together any more, the defendant’s promise not to repeat the offence (especially if we know that this type of violence has its cycles and escalation: the phase of apologising to the victim and asking for forgiveness is followed by even more brutal violence), the fact that the defendant is a young man or that he is retired, that the injured party refuses to join the criminal prosecution (the victim’s defensive behaviour should not have an impact on sentencing the defendant).

The fact that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the com- mission of the criminal offence should neither be considered as mitigating. Article 24, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code explicitly stipulates that the perpetrator of a criminal offence who by consumption of alcohol induced such a state of mind where he or she could not understand the significance of his or her act or control his or her actions (the so-called self-induced incompetence), may not receive mitigated punishment on these grounds. Considering this provision, which excludes the possibility of sentence mitiga- tion, it is clear that the degree of guilt based on the defendant’s mental competence, which was almost substantially diminished due to his alcohol addiction, cannot be con- sidered a mitigating circumstance.

These circumstances are considered to be aggravating:

ii previous convictions

ii previous convictions for the criminal offence of domestic violence

ii the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, although he knew that the use of alcohol made him aggressive

ii the offence was committed against an elderly person

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 95  ii bad relations even before this conflict

ii the severity of injury and endangering of the protected goods and the degree of guilt

ii persistence expressed in the perpetration of offence

ii the fact that he committed the offence against a member of his family - his wife with whom he has two children.

Interestingly, in one case, the first-instance court did not take the defendant’s previous conviction as an aggravating circumstance because a lot of time had passed since the conviction, while the second-instance court, deciding on appeal, took the defendant’s previous conviction as an aggravating circumstance. In one case, the court did not con- sider an earlier conviction to be an aggravating circumstance, bearing in mind the time that had passed since the conviction (10 years) and the ongoing process of legal reha- bilitation, while in the second case the previous conviction was not taken into account, since the previous conviction happened 15 years before, and therefore the conditions for the expunction of the conviction were met. Also, in one case, the court noted in the judgment that the earlier conviction was not taken into account as an aggravating cir- cumstance, since much time had elapsed since that conviction. However, the circum- stance that the defendant was previously convicted for domestic violence should be taken into account in sentencing, regardless of its expunction, but not as a previous con- viction, but as part of the examination of the defendant’s earlier behaviour and lifestyle.

4. Judicial practice in Novi Sad

4.1. General information about court cases We have examined a total of 25 court cases of the criminal offences qualified as domes- tic violence referred to in Article 194 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia and prosecuted before the Basic Court in Novi Sad.

4.2. Phenomenology of the criminal offence of domestic violence Form of perpetration The examined sample included 25 cases and 26 criminal offences of domestic violence. The highest percentage of criminal offences (96.2%) have the characteristics of the first form of domestic violence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 1; only one crimi- nal offence (3.8%) is defined in Article 194, paragraph 5 (Chart 42). No other forms of domestic violence are found in the sample, which makes it different from the cases examined in Belgrade and Niš.

96 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  Chart 42

194/5 4%

194/1 96%

Joinder of offences There was only one case, in the sample of 25, where the offence was committed in join- der of offences (Table 20).

Table 20

Number Percentage

There is joinder 1 4

There is no joinder 24 96

Total 25 100

Complicity Complicity was not recorded in 24 cases, while in one case the criminal offence was co-perpetrated (Table 21). In 40% of cases, there were observers, i.e. witnesses and eye- witnesses, mainly other family members (Table 22).

Table 21

Number Percentage

There is co-perpetration 1 4

There is no complicity 24 96

Total 25 100

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 97  Table 22

Number Percentage

There are witnesses 10 40

There are no witnesses 15 60

Total 25 100

Place of perpetration In all cases (25), the criminal offence of domestic violence was committed in a city; there were no cases of perpetration in a village. The place of perpetration is the same as the place of residence in all cases.

In the largest number of cases (76%), it was established that the criminal offence had been committed in the joint apartment/house of the victim and the perpetrator, 4% of criminal offences took place in the victim’s apartment/house, while 4% of them were committed in the perpetrator’s apartment/house, via SMS messages or harassment by phone (Table 23).

Table 23

Number Percentage

Perpetrator’s apartment/ 1 4.0 house/courtyard

Victim’s apartment/house/ 3 12.0 courtyard

Joint apartment/house/ courtyard of the victim and 19 76.0 the perpetrator Other - harassment by 1 4.0 phone

SMS messages 1 4.0

Total 25 100

98 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Time of perpetration Unlike in Belgrade and Niš, most criminal offences of domestic violence from the sample of Novi Sad cases were committed in spring - 34.6%, then in autumn - 26.9%, in the lon- ger period throughout the year – 19.2%, in summer – 11.5% and the smallest percentage of these criminal offences were committed in winter – 7.6%.

Means of perpetration The means of perpetration were various depending on the type of violence. Combined psychological and physical violence was recorded in the highest percentage of cases from the sample (38.46%) with the prevailing types of violence being verbal violence, threats and hitting with hands, punching and kicking. Physical violence without the use of weap- ons, dangerous implements or other means suitable to inflict serious injury to body or seri- ously impair health existed in 30.7% of cases, and the largest number of criminal offences were qualified as less severe forms of the criminal offence of domestic violence referred to in Article 192, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia. Interestingly, in one case a wooden stick about 40 cm long was used by the defendant to hit his cohab- iting partner repeatedly on the back and shoulders, resulting in the broken stick and the light bodily injury sustained by the victim, but the criminal offence was qualified as a less severe form of domestic violence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia. In this case there is no explanation of the judgment, but we can assume that the court did not consider the wooden stick about 40 cm long to be the means suitable to inflict serious injury to body or seriously impair health.

Methods of perpetration These are some of the methods of physical and psychological violence:

ii The defendant repeatedly punched his mother on the head and body using both fists and threatened to slaughter her.

ii The defendant threatened his son that he would break his arms and kill him.

ii The defendant entered the room where his father was sleeping and began threatening to kill him, slaughter him and serve his term afterwards, and cursed him; he punched him with the right fist on the face, pushed him to the bed, threatened by saying “you’ll see what will happen to you”; the police arrived and then the defendant said to the injured party: “get out of the house, you don’t have the right to be here, it’s not yours”.

ii By using violence and threats, the defendant asked his mother to give him money for gambling and when she refused he punched her on the back, grabbed her hands clutching them, insulted her, and when his mother stopped his rummaging through documents and looking for money and prevented him from taking the TV set out of the house to sell it, he

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 99  repeatedly punched her on the back of the head, twisted her arms, squeezed her hands, threatened to kill, strangle and stab her.

ii The defendant first threatened the injured party that he would beat her up and then slapped her face several times.

ii The defendant requested money from his parents and when they did not give it to him, he attacked them while threatening and cursing until the police arrived. Several days later, he attacked them first verbally, then he physically attacked his mother, grabbed his father’s neck and began choking him.

ii The defendant cursed the injured party, saying the insulting words, and threatened to slaughter her.

ii The defendant threatened his son to kill him and slaughter him with an axe, cursed his mother, and then destroyed with a hammer the drinking fountain and the well in the house courtyard.

ii The defendant insulted his wife, threatened her by saying “thank the child for staying alive”, grabbed her neck, began clutching her neck with his hands, raised her from the ground due to which she fell down, and continued hitting her with his hands and legs on the head and body.

ii During the verbal conflict, the defendant told the injured party that she was a “slut”, incapable of living, threw a slipper and a plate at her, twisted her arm, after which the injured person left the apartment where they had lived together.

ii The defendant insulted her daughter-in-law on a daily basis, belittled her, saying that she was a Gypsy, not worthy of her son who had a university degree; while the injured party was pregnant, she used to tell her that she was carrying a bastard, that it was not her son’s child, and when the child was born she would take the child while saying to the injured party that she did not know how to treat the child and that she was a whore.

ii On several occasions, the defendant threatened the injured party/his wife that he would kill them all, referring to her and her family.

ii After a short verbal conflict, the defendant threatened the injured party to slaughter her, throw her in the Danube; he twisted her arm and scratched her.

ii The defendant first started a discussion with the injured party, then grabbed her arms, began to pull, grabbed her jacket, tore the jacket, and hit her so that she sustained a light bodily injury consisting of upper lip contusion.

ii The defendant insulted his wife, calling her an “Ustasha whore” and idiot, approached her from the back and hit her with the hand so that she lost her balance, and then gave her another blow to the back of the head.

100 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  ii After a verbal conflict, insults and accusations that the injured party cheated on him, the defendant kicked the injured party on the left arm (causing her haematoma and swelling), ordered her to enter the car and drive to S. (whom he accused of being her lover) to clarify everything. While she was driving, he punched her several times on the face and head (causing her left-eye haematoma and oedema, cut on the eyelid, haematoma on the right eyelid and nose).

ii The defendant insulted the injured party saying that she was a whore, a bitch, cursed her mother, punched her repeatedly on the head, causing her a light bodily injury on the hairy part of the ​​ head and a superficial injury of the upper arm.

ii The defendant gave several blows with her hands and legs on the injured party’s head and body, causing her light bodily injuries, and in the second incident, she hit her on the head and body several times, causing her light bodily injuries consisting of the contusion with haematoma on the head and upper leg.

If we compare the methods of domestic violence in the sample of Belgrade and Niš cases with the sample of Novi Sad cases, we can conclude, among other things, that the meth- ods of committing criminal offences in Novi Sad are much less brutal, which suggests that the threshold of tolerance for violence is much lower in the jurisdiction of ​​the Basic Court in Novi Sad.

4.3. Profile of perpetrators Structure of perpetrators by sex In the examined sample of 25 cases there were 26 perpetrators (there was co-perpetra- tion in one case). Most perpetrators of domestic violence were men - 24 (92.3%). The perpetrators were women only in two cases (7.7%) (Chart 43).

Chart 43

Female 8%

Male 92%

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 101  Age of perpetrators Most perpetrators from the examined sample belong to the age groups 41-48 and 49-56 years (23.1%). Somewhat smaller number of perpetrators were 33-40 years old at the time of perpetration. The equal percentage of perpetrators belong to the age groups 18-25 and 57-65 years, while the smallest percentage of perpetrators are 65+ and 25-32 years old – 11.5% (Chart 44).

Chart 44

65+ 18-25 8% 11% 57-65 25-32 12% 4%

33-40 19% 49-56 23%

41-48 23%

Marital status of perpetrators In contrast to the cases from Belgrade and Niš, in the Novi Sad cases, most perpetra- tors of domestic violence are divorced - 34.6%. Six (23.1%) perpetrators were married or in cohabitation, while 15.4% of them were single. One perpetrator was widowed (3.8%) (Chart 45).

Chart 45

Single Married 15% 23% Widowed 4%

Divorced Living in 35% cohabitation 23%

102 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Number of children Most perpetrators from the examined sample are parents. The largest number of them have two or more children (42.3%), 10 of them (38.5%) have one child, while only 5 per- petrators (19.2%) have no children (Chart 46).

Chart 46

Two or more No children 42% 19%

One child 39%

Education of perpetrators As regards education, most perpetrators completed secondary vocational or high school (61.5%) and the smallest number of perpetrators have no education at all (3.8%). Equal percentage of perpetrators completed junior college/faculty and primary education - 15.4% (Chart 47).

Chart 47

Junior college or Unknown Incomplete faculty 4% primary school 15% 4%

Primary school 15%

Secondary or high school 62%

Occupation and employment status Only a small number of perpetrators (13.5%) have no occupation, while a large major- ity of them (86.5%) have a certain occupation. They are various and include: journalist,

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 103  writer, traffic technician, driver, construction technician, decorator, architect, engine driver, car mechanic, carpenter, locksmith, construction site worker, engineer - master in construction science, veterinary technician, entrepreneur - shop owner, etc.

Most perpetrators are employed - 46.2%, 34.6% are unemployed, while 11.50% are retired. This is no information about the employment status for 7.70% of perpetrators (Table 24).

Table 24

Number Percentage

Employed 12 46.2

Unemployed, looking for 9 34.6 a job

Retired 3 11.5

Unknown 2 7.7

Total 26 100.0

Perpetrators’ place of birth and residence The perpetrator’s place of birth and residence are the same in most cases; the largest part of perpetrators were born and reside in a city - 76.9% and 92.3% respectively. Six perpetrators were born in a village (23.1%), but no perpetrator resides in a village. Two perpetrators have residence in suburban settlements (Charts 48 and 49).

Chart 48

Village 23%

City 77%

104 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  Chart 49

Suburban settlement 8%

City 92%

Previous convictions of perpetrators The largest percentage of domestic violence perpetrators from the examined sample were not previously convicted - 61.5%. However, the percentage of those previously con- victed for criminal offences (34.6%) and punished for misdemeanour offences (3.8%) (a total of 10 perpetrators or 38.4%) is not insignificant because some of them were previ- ously convicted more than once (two or three times). One perpetrator was previously convicted two times for the criminal offence of domestic violence and was imposed a suspended sentence both times. One perpetrator was previously punished for a misde- meanour pursuant to the Law on Public Peace and Order (Table 25).

Table 25

Number Percentage

Previously convicted 9 34.6

No previous convictions 16 61.5

Misdemeanour convictions 1 3.8

Total 26 100

Family and personal history of perpetrators In the examined case files, there is very little information about the kind of family in which the perpetrators grew up, whether they committed juvenile criminal offences or had deviant behaviour. Although these are important criminogenic factors, the courts usually do not examine the circumstances of perpetrators’ earlier family life, their

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 105  behaviour and lifestyle in the primary family. The case files of 17 perpetrators (65.4%) do not contain data on the completeness of and relations in the primary family. Seven per- petrators lived in the complete family (26.9%), while two perpetrators were without a father (7.7%). Seven perpetrators (26.9%) lived in extremely bad family relations, while in two cases the family relationships were poor (Charts 50 and 51).

Chart 50

Complete 27%

Unknown 65% Without the father 8%

Chart 51

Bad 8%

Extremely bad 27%

Unknown 65%

In most court cases, there are no data on perpetrators’ suicide attempts and self-injury. Only one perpetrator said that he had considered suicide.

Alcohol and drug abuse Four perpetrators (15.4%) abused alcohol, but based on this fact, it cannot be concluded that most perpetrators do not consume alcohol because this information remains unknown in 80.8% of cases (Chart 52). At the time of perpetration, eight perpetrators (30.7%) were under the influence of alcohol, and it can be assumed that the number of perpetrators who consumed alcohol excessively is higher than the one shown. Particu- larly dangerous is the fact that at the time of criminal offence perpetration, complicated

106 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges or severe intoxication by alcohol was identified in 3 perpetrators (11.5%) (Chart 53). Based on the description of the event and the family situation, in the cases where the intoxica- tion by alcohol at the time of perpetration was established, it can be concluded that the use of alcohol significantly contributed to poor family relations and increased aggres- siveness towards family members.

Chart 52 Yes 15%

No 4%

Unknown 81%

Chart 53

Medium intoxication 8% Heavy intoxication 11%

Unknown Complicated or 50% severe intoxication 12% No 19%

Drug addiction was not observed in the examined sample. In 88.5% of cases, it remains unknown whether the perpetrators used drugs before committing the criminal offence. Criminal offence perpetration under the influence of drugs was not observed either in the examined sample.

Psychopathic personality structure, mental illness and degree of mental competence Psychopathic personality structure was not established in the perpetrators from the examined sample. Neuropsychiatric findings are the sources of information about a

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 107  psychopathic personality structure or mental illness in cases where psychiatric evalua- tion was conducted and where the case files contained the findings and opinion of neu- ropsychiatrist as expert witness. There were few neuropsychiatric reports on the mental health of the perpetrators from the examined sample, because most of the perpetrators were convicted for less severe forms of domestic violence, and in such cases the court does not order or very rarely orders the expert evaluation. In one case, the defendant suffered from a depressive disorder, while in two cases the perpetrators had disturbed behaviour due to excessive alcohol use.

At the time of perpetration, 50% of defendants were of sound mind, the mental com- petence of one perpetrator was diminished though not substantially, the mental com- petence of two perpetrators was substantially diminished, while this information is unknown for ten perpetrators.

Perpetrator’s attitude towards the criminal offence The perpetrator’s attitude towards the perpetrated criminal offence is examined in 21 cases. In five cases, it cannot be concluded what the perpetrators’ attitude was. Most perpetrators do not admit the perpetration of offence - 38.5%, four perpetrators express remorse and repentance (15.4%), the attitude of three perpetrators is unspecified (11.5%), two perpetrators expresses repentance only verbally ( 7.7%) and two perpetrators con- sider their action to be appropriate (7.7%) (Table 26).

Table 26

Number Percentage

Yes, genuine remorse and regret 4 15.4

Undefined 3 11.5

Regret expressed only verbally 2 7.7

No regret/consider their action to 2 7.7 be appropriate

Denial of offence 10 38.5

Unknown 5 19.2

Total 26 100.0

Regarding the perpetrator’s attitude towards own responsibility for the event, similar to the attitude towards the committed criminal offence, most perpetrators do not admit

108 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges their responsibility and deny their connection with the event - 26.9%. Also, it was not possible to determine the responsibility attitude of a large percentage of perpetrators - 23.1%. The remaining perpetrators reacted differently: four perpetrators (15.4%) gen- erally accept their own responsibility, three perpetrators justify their behaviour - 11.5%, two perpetrators (7.7%) blame neither themselves nor the victim, and two perpetrators (7.7%) do not give or have an explanation (Chart 54).

Chart 54

8% 23% 8%

11%

8% 27% 15%

Mainly blames the victim

Does not blame either victim or him/herself / considers the event to be the result of unfortunate circumstances Justifies his/her behaviour with the hopelessness of the situation (“there was no choice”)

Does not give or have any explanation

Mainly accepts his/her own responsibility

Relations between the perpetrator and the victim prior to the perpetration of criminal offence Relations between the perpetrator and the victim prior to the perpetration of criminal offence were bad. Abuse, intolerance, disagreement, insults, disparagement, threats, conflicts, physical attacks happened in almost all cases:

ii The defendant physically abused his father and mother for a long time, used force, threatened, cursed.

ii Due to the constant use of violence over a longer period of time, in the civil procedure a restraining order was imposed on the defendant, along with the measure of eviction from the apartment.

ii The defendant and the injured party divorced after two years of marriage, and after the divorce, the defendant sent offensive SMS messages.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 109  ii Psychological abuse existed since the beginning of marriage, and then physical violence continued for many years with the defendant punching the injured party; a misdemeanour procedure was conducted.

ii Physical and psychological abuse happened on a daily basis, and lasted throughout the marriage, for sixteen years, until the divorce.

ii Continuous physical and psychological abuse began when the victim gave birth. Due to suffering everyday hitting and slapping, the injured party had to leave the apartment with the one- month-old baby. She tried to reconcile with the defendant and returned, but the abuse continued so that she had to leave the apartment again.

ii The defendant and the injured party had marital problems for several years because the defendant was very jealous and consumed alcohol excessively, so that he physically and psychologically abused the injured party, and then threw her out of the house.

ii For a long period of time, the defendant abused the injured party every day, threatening to kill, slaughter her.

Motives for criminal offence perpetration The largest number of criminal offences were committed due to the existence of intoler- ance between the perpetrators and the victims, due to excessive use of alcohol, revenge, jealousy, not getting money, etc. The motives for criminal offence perpetration are deduced from the statements given by the defendants and the injured parties, as well as the testimonies of the witnesses. The court does not determine the motives for the com- mission of criminal offences.

4.4. Profile of victims Structure of victims by sex According to the data from the reviewed court cases, the number of victims is higher than the number of perpetrators, because in three cases there were two victims, which makes 28 victims (Table 27).

Table 27

Number of cases Percentage

One victim 22 88.0

Two victims 3 12.0

Total 28 100.0

110 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges The research data confirm that most victims of domestic violence are women. The percentage of female victims is 78.6%, while men account for 21.4% of the total number of victims (Chart 55).

Chart 55

Male 21%

Female 79%

Place of residence and birth of victims Like the perpetrators, the majority of the victims reside in a city - 92.9%, while two vic- tims (7.1%) live in suburban settlements. A city is the place of birth of 67.90% of victims, while 32.10% of victims were born in a village.

Age of victims There are no minors among the victims, and the highest number of victims are elderly persons: six victims (21.4%) are 57-65 years old and six (21.4%) are 65+. Three perpetra- tors belong to the age group 33-40 (17.9%), three victims are in each of the age groups 25-32 years (10.7%) and 41-48 years (10.7%), two victims belong to the age group 49-56 years (7.1%) and one victim is in the age group 18-25 years (3.6%) (Chart 56).

Chart 56

Unknown 25-32 7% 11% 65+ 21% 33-40 18%

41-48 57-65 11% 21% 49-56 7%

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 111  Marital status of victims The highest number of victims are married (32.10%), 25% of victims are in cohabitation, 21.40% of victims are divorced, one victim is neither married nor in cohabitation, while the marital status of the remaining 5 victims is unknown (Chart 57).

Chart 57

Unknown 18% Married Single 32% 4%

Divorced 21% Living in cohabitation 25%

The highest number of victims are the perpetrator’s former spouse or cohabiting part- ner - 28.60% and perpetrator’s parents - 35.70%; 14.30% of victims are in cohabitation with the perpetrator, while 3 victims are the perpetrator’s children, which makes 10.70% of the total number of victims. Three victims are still in the marriage with the perpetra- tor (10.70%).

Education of victims The victims have completed different levels of education and have various occupations: 2 victims have incomplete primary school, 7 victims have secondary or high school edu- cation, 3 victims have completed a junior college or faculty, while education is unknown for 14 victims. The victims, like the perpetrators, have a range of occupations, which again shows that both perpetrators and victims can be educated and uneducated and that the likelihood of becoming a victim of domestic violence does not depend largely on the level of either victim’s or perpetrator’s education.

Employment status of victims In examining the living conditions of the victims of domestic violence, it is important to take into account their economic circumstances, which primarily depend on their (un) employment status. Data on the employment status of victims in the examined sample show the following: most of them are retired (39.30%), 17.90% of them are employed, one is a housewife and one is unemployed. There are no data on employment status for other victims (35.70%).

112 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Nature of relationship between perpetrators and victims The largest percentage (35.7%) of the criminal offences of domestic violence were com- mitted against parents (father or mother). It is followed by violence committed against the former spouse or cohabiting partner - 28.6%. In 14.3% of cases the perpetrator and the victim were in cohabitation. Three victims were the perpetrators’ children (son/ daughter) - 10.7% (Table 28).

Table 28

Number Percentage

Spouse (marriage) 3 10.7

Cohabitation 4 14.3

Former spouses/partners (marriage or 8 28.6 cohabitation)

Father/mother 10 35.7

Son/daughter 3 10.7

Total 28 100.0

Weapons held by victims and influence of alcohol at the time of perpetration At the time of the commission of domestic violence, none of the victims carried or used any implements.

Unlike the perpetrators, who were under the influence of alcohol in a significantly higher number at the time of perpetration, one victim was intoxicated by alcohol at the time of criminal offence perpetration.

Relations between the perpetrator and the victim prior to the criminal complaint and response to previous violence As already mentioned, none of the prosecuted criminal offences of domestic violence were one-off actions, but the process of physical and psychological abuse existed well before the criminal procedure and was usually continuous. Relations between the per- petrators and the victims were very bad prior to the commission of the criminal offence. According to the established facts, the victims were exposed to physical and/or psycho- logical violence for a long period of time, while the defendants, most often under the influence of alcohol, were very aggressive, quarrelling with the injured parties, yelling, insulting, beating and slapping them. Interestingly, in one case, it was found that the

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 113  sons had abused the father to revenge for having been severely beaten by him in child- hood. In only two cases there had been no conflicts prior to the commission of the crimi- nal offence, and in one case it was not possible to deduce, based on the case file and the judgment, what kind of relations had existed between the perpetrator and the victim prior to the commission of the criminal offence.

Although violence existed even before reporting it, eleven victims (39.2%) did not address anyone seeking protection against violence. Other victims addressed the social welfare cen- tre; two victims were placed in a safe house. In one case, the victim stated that she had a neg- ative experience with the social welfare centre. Out of 28 victims, 10 addressed the police.

4.5. Criminal proceedings - substance, course and duration In most cases from the sample, criminal procedure was conducted against the perpetra- tors of the criminal offence of domestic violence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 1 - 96.2% and Article 194, paragraph 5 - 3.8%.

According to the data provided by this Court in response to the freedom of information request, the basic form of the criminal offence of domestic violence prevail in its practice (Table 29).

Table 29 Basic Court in Novi Sad Article 194 Article 194 Article 194 Article 194 Article 194 paragraph paragraph paragraph paragraph paragraph Type of 1 of the 2 of the 3 of the 4 of the 5 of the offence Criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal Criminal Code Code Code Code Code 2014 65 11 13 / 1 2015 90 14 17 / 4

4.5.1. Detention Unlike in the cases from Belgrade and Niš, where detention was imposed on domestic violence perpetrators much more often, only six perpetrators from this sample (23.10%) were detained. Detention was not imposed on the perpetrators because, according to the court’s assessment, there were no legal grounds for detention (Table 30).

Table 30 Number Percentage

Detention pronounced 6 23.1

Detention not pronounced 20 76.9

Total 26 100

114 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  4.5.2. Evidence In the examined sample, the most frequent evidence was: examination of defendants, examination of witnesses, examination of injured parties as witnesses, review of medical documentation, analysis of the findings of mobile operators about the communication with a mobile phone.

4.5.3. Outcome of procedure In the cases with final court decisions (25), the perpetrators of domestic violence (26) were mainly convicted (22 or 84.6%). Only in four cases (15.4%), the judgment dismiss- ing the charges was rendered based on Article 422, paragraph 1, point 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the abandonment of charges by the prosecutor and the abandoned motion to prosecute by the injured party (Chart 58).

Chart 58

Dismissal of charges 15%

Judgment of conviction 85%

4.5.4. Appeal In the highest percentage of cases (96%), an appeal was not filed against the first-in- stance decision. An appeal was filed only in one case because of the erroneously estab- lished factual situation, substantial violation of the provisions of the criminal procedure, violation of the criminal code and decision on criminal sanctions. In the second-instance procedure, the appeal was rejected as unfounded. A large number of first-instance deci- sions became final at the main hearing as the parties waived the right to appeal. For that reason, many judgments did not contain explanations. A plea agreement was concluded in one case and there was no appeal in this case either.

4.5.5. Duration of procedure One of the basic goals of this research has been to determine whether there was any change in the efficiency of the judiciary compared to the previous period. In fact, the results of previous research show that the criminal procedures for domestic violence are

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 115  usually very lengthy and that the criminal justice protection against domestic violence is not sufficiently efficient. In the cases examined in previous research, it took an average of 2.8 months before the public prosecutor filed a charging document. In order to see the efficiency of the court procedure, it has been observed in five phases: from submitting a criminal complaint to filing a charging document; from filing a charging document to rendering a first-instance decision; from submitting a criminal complaint to rendering a second-instance decision; from submitting a criminal complaint to the finality of judg- ment; from rendering a first-instance decision to rendering a second-instance decision (Table 31).

Table 31 First- Charging Criminal Criminal Criminal instance document/ complaint/ complaint/ complaint/ decision/ first- second- charging finality of second- instance instance document judgment instance decision decision decision Up to 1 5 (20%) 4 (16%) 0 0 0 month

1 - 3 months 0 10 (40%) 0 1 (4%) 1 (4%)

3 - 5 months 1 (4%) 2 (8%) 0 2 (8%) 0

5 - 7 months 1 (4%) 4 (16%) 0 2 (8%) 0

7 - 10 5 (20%) 3 (12%) 0 2 (8%) 0 months

10 - 12 3 (12%) 1 (4%) 0 3 (12%) 0 months

1 - 2 years 6 (24%) 0 0 10 (40%) 0

2 - 4 years 3 (12%) 1 (4%) 0 2 (8%) 0

4 - 5 years 1 (4%) 0 1 (4%) 2 (8%) 0

Over 5 years 0 0 0 1 (4%) 0

TOTAL 25 25 1 25 1

116 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges The previously conducted research has shown that the procedure before the prosecu- tor’s office was most efficient because in the majority of cases it took 1-3 months for filing a charging document, while in a much smaller number of cases a charging docu- ment was filed after seven months or a year. In the present sample of examined cases, the period from submitting a criminal complaint to filing a charging document is longer in most cases. It took one to two years to file a charging document in six cases (24%), in five cases (20%) that period was up to one month, which is certainly very fast and effi- cient; however, in some cases it was from seven to ten months. In three cases (12%), this part of the procedure lasted from 10 to 12 months, in three cases from 2 to 4 years, in one case from 3 to 5 months, in one case from 5 to 7 months and in one case from 4 to 5 years. We should certainly bear in mind the complexity of cases and the time required for the collection of evidence. As regards the criminal offences of domestic violence, research shows that the most common evidence is a medical certificate and/or a state- ment of the injured party heard as a witness. The collection of this evidence requires a relatively short time, which significantly shortens the procedure from submitting a crimi- nal complaint to filing a charging document. Therefore, it is unjustified that this phase of the procedure lasts more than a year.

According to the data presented in the table, the courts were more efficient than the prosecutor’s office. In fact, most first-instance decisions (10 or 40%) were rendered within 1-3 months of filing a charging document. Data on the number of main hearings also indicate the efficiency of courts because in most cases one or two main hearings were held. Only in one case, twelve main hearings were held. However, it is interesting that the period from submitting a criminal complaint to the finality of judgment was fairly long; ten judgments (40%) became final in one to two years from submitting a criminal complaint. Considering that in only one case an appellate procedure was conducted, the period from submitting a criminal complaint to filing a charging document contributed to a longer duration of the overall procedure.

4.6. Type and level of pronounced criminal sanctions In 96% of cases, criminal sanctions were pronounced to domestic violence perpetrators. Only in four cases (15.4%), the judgment on the dismissal of charges was rendered due to the withdrawal by the public prosecutor (Chart 59).

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 117  Chart 59

Charges Prison sentence dismissed 11% 15% Prison sentence and security measure 8%

Suspended sentence and security measure 4% Suspended sentence 62%

Prison sentence as only penalty and in combination with security measures was pro- nounced in 5 cases with different durations. The minimum prison sentence of three months was pronounced in one case, the prison sentence in the duration of four months was pronounced in one case, in two cases the prison sentence of six months was pro- nounced and in one case it was seven months. These data show that mainly short prison sentences were pronounced (Table 32).

Table 32

Number Percentage

3 months 1

4 months 1

6 months 2

7 months 1

Total 5 100.0

Security measures were pronounced in combination with prison sentences and sus- pended sentences. In total, three security measures were imposed: compulsory alco- hol addiction treatment in two cases and confiscation of object used for committing the criminal offence in one case.

In sentencing, the court took into account mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but they were not indicated in all judgments. In 16 judgments there are no explanations

118 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges in accordance with Article 429, paragraph 1, point 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and consequently, there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The judgments that do contain an explanation state the following mitigating circumstances: the defendant’s personal circumstances, youth, behaviour after committing an offence, admission and repentance, the injured party did not claim indemnification and stated that this incident was “one and only”, absence of earlier convictions, an “advanced age”, the defendant is the father of a minor child, intoxication by alcohol at the time of perpetration, factual situation related to the offence, poor financial situation. Very few aggravating circum- stances are stated in the judgments: recidivism, intoxication by alcohol (this is a miti- gating circumstance in some judgments), social danger of committed criminal offence, violation of restraining order, violation of suspended sentence.

5. Summarised findings from the entire sample

5.1. Forms of criminal offence perpetration In the examined sample of 100 court cases, the number of committed criminal offences of domestic violence was 109. Most cases of domestic violence consisted of the crimi- nal offences referred to in Article 194, paragraph 1 (62.38%), and the smallest number of criminal offences were those referred to in Article 194, paragraph 5 (2.75%). A smaller number of domestic violence cases were severe forms referred to in Article 194, para- graph 2 and 194, paragraph 3 - 22.00% and 62.38% respectively. These data show that the less severe form of domestic violence prevails in the entire sample of examined court cases (Chart 60).

Chart 60

194/3 194/5 12.8% 2.8%

194/2 22.0% 194/1 62.4%

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 119  5.2. Joinder of offences, complicity, place of perpetration In a small number of cases, the criminal offence of domestic violence was perpetrated in joinder with the same or other type of offences. Only in 19 cases (19%), the joinder of offences was identified. In cases where there was a joinder of offences, the crimi- nal offence of domestic violence was committed together with other criminal offences, such as the endangerment of safety referred to in Article 138 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia and the abduction of a minor defined in Article 191 of the Crimi- nal Code. In one case there was a joinder of offences of domestic violence and criminal offence of attack on an official in the performance of duty from Article 323 of the Crimi- nal Code of the Republic of Serbia.

In most cases, criminal offences were committed independently - 95%. In only one case, the criminal offence of domestic violence was committed in complicity or co-perpetra- tion as a form of complicity.

When the criminal offence of domestic violence is being committed, other persons are often presents, family members, usually children, who can also be considered victimised. In 50% of cases from the examined sample, there were eyewitnesses, who appeared as witnesses at the main hearing in some cases.

The research findings reveal that the criminal offence of domestic violence is usually perpetrated in cities. A city was the place of perpetration in 94.2% of all cases, while in only 6% it was a village. The place of perpetration coincides with the place of residence in 99.00% of cases, and only 1% of domestic violence cases happened outside of the place of residence. In most cases (65%), the criminal offence was committed in the joint apartment/house of the victim and the perpetrator, followed by the victim’s apartment/ house - 15% and the perpetrator’s apartment/house - 13%. Other places were less fre- quent: the victim’s parental home - 1%, park and the open space - 1%.

5.3. Profile of perpetrators Sex In the examined sample of 100 court cases, the criminal offences of domestic violence were committed by 101 perpetrators (in one case there were two perpetrators). The largest number of perpetrators were men - 96 (95.05), while the number of women was much smaller - 5 (4.95%) (Chart 61). Interestingly, only one woman committed the crim- inal offence of domestic violence against her spouse (partner violence), while other women committed criminal offence against other family members (daughter-in-law, mother, granddaughter).

120 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  Chart 61

Female 4,95%

Male 95,05%

Age As regards the age of the perpetrators, most of them belong to the age group 33-56 years - 77.22%. It is evident that a certain percentage of perpetrators (7.92%) are in the age group 65+. A smaller number of perpetrators are young: 4.95% of them are in the age group 18-24 years and 3.96% are in the age group 25-32 years (Chart 6).

Chart 62

65+ 18-24 25-32 57-65 7,92% 4.95% 3.96% 5.94%

49-56 33-40 22.77% 33.66%

41-48 20.79%

Marital status The highest number of perpetrators, like the victims, are married - 38.61%. We have already pointed out that the marital status of the perpetrators was observed at the time of perpetration. Given that in most cases violence existed over a longer period of time before reporting and conducting a court procedure, the share of single and divorced

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 121  perpetrators is noticeable: 20.79% and 19.80% respectively. 17 perpetrators (16.83%) were in cohabitation. (Chart 63).

Chart 63

Unknown 0,99% Single 20,79% Married Widowed 38,61% 1,98%

Separated 0,99%

Divorced 19,80% Living in cohabitation 16,83%

Number of children 47.52% of perpetrators had two or more children, while 28.72% of perpetrators had one child and slightly fewer perpetrators were without children - 23.76%.

Education Data on the education of the perpetrators show that the majority of them have second- ary education - 63.36%. 17.82% of perpetrators have completed primary school, 12.87% of them have junior college or faculty education, while the smallest percentage of per- petrators have incomplete primary school education - 2.97 and master’s degree - 1.98%.

Employment status Poverty is an important factor of criminal behaviour. Therefore, in identifying the causes of crime, it is necessary to find out about the economic status of perpetrators, i.e. whether they are employed and economically stable. In the examined sample, the percentage of employed perpetrators is much smaller (29.70%) than the percentage of unemployed ones (42.57%), which means that their financial situation is unsatisfactory. 13.86% of perpetrators are pensioners, but given the levels of pension, this fact does not increase the financial power of most perpetrators.

Place of birth and residence A city is the place of birth of most perpetrators - 79.20%, while 21 perpetrators were born in a village - 20.80%. Also, a much greater number of perpetrators reside in a city - 82.18%, while only 8 perpetrators reside in a village (7.92%). These data coincide with the

122 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges place of perpetration, since the highest percentage of criminal offences were committed in cities - 94%.

Previous convictions Data on the previous convictions of perpetrators show that the percentage of recidi- vists is high - 51.48%, which certainly increases their social danger, especially if they have already committed the criminal offences of domestic violence. The smaller percentage of perpetrators were not previously convicted - 44.55% (Chart 64).

Chart 64

Misdermeanor Unknown penalty 2,97% 0,99%

No Yes 44,55% 51,48%

Family and personal history of perpetrators The court files usually do not contain the information about the completeness of the perpetrator’s primary family and family relations in the primary family; thus, the com- pleteness of the family is unknown for 64.35% of perpetrators, while for 78.21% of per- petrators it was not possible to determine the quality of family relations in the primary family bases on the reviewed cases. The family of 25 perpetrators (24.75%) was com- plete, 10 perpetrators grew up without a father (9.90%) and one without a mother. In the families of most perpetrators (10 or 9.90%), relations were bad or extremely bad (7 or 6.93%), while good relations existed in five families (4.95%).

The court files contain little data on the primary family of perpetrators; the situation is the same with respect to the data on the perpetrators’ deviant behaviour in their child- hood and youth, including suicide attempts, self-injury, early abuse, running away from home, school absenteeism and juvenile offences. The above data exist only in the case files that include the finding and opinion of neuropsychiatrist as expert witness.

There are no data on suicide attempts for 71 perpetrators (70.30%), 26 perpetrators (25.74%) did not have such attempts, while 4 perpetrators (3.96%) had only suicidal ideas.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 123  In most cases (76 or 75.25%) it was not possible to find out whether there was self-injury. Self-injury did not exist in 25 perpetrators (24.75%).

Early abuse or abuse in childhood and early youth can be an indicator of later delinquent behaviour and transgenerational transmission of violent behaviour. However, in the cases examined, only for 12 perpetrators (11.88%) it was established that there had been no abuse. This information remained unknown for other perpetrators (89 or 88.12%).

It is important to have information about running away from home and school absen- teeism because it shows a person’s attitude towards the family and school education and the acceptance of social values ​​and postulates. These types of deviant behaviour did not exist in the same number of perpetrators (7 or 6.93%), while in case of 94 perpe- trators, it was unknown whether there was any running away from home and/or school absenteeism.

In order to get the entire picture of the perpetrators’ personal history, it is important to determine whether they committed juvenile offences. In the examined sample, there were no data on the commission of juvenile offences for 86 perpetrators (85.13%). 15 per- petrators (14.85%) did not behave in such a way.

Alcohol and drug abuse Data on the abuse of alcohol and drugs by the perpetrators was unknown in 53 (52.48%) and 57 (56.44%) cases respectively. Excessive alcohol consumption, often referred to by the victims as a decisive factor for disagreements and family violence, was found in 36 perpetrators (35.64%). Drug addiction existed in eight perpetrators (7.92%). Alcoholism and drug addiction of perpetrators led to imposing the security measure of compulsory treatment along with the punishment.

Intoxication by alcohol at the time of perpetration existed in 43 (42.57%) perpetrators in the form of light intoxication - 7 (6.93%), medium intoxication - 15 (14.85%), heavy intoxi- cation - 15 (14.85%) and complicated intoxication - 6 (5.94%). Three perpetrators (2.97%) were under the influence of drugs at the time of the commission of the criminal offence.

Psychopathic personality structure and mental illness in perpetrators We cannot make reliable conclusions about the existence of psychopathic structure of personality or mental illness, because in most cases there are no data - 64 (63.36%). These data could be found in the neuropsychiatric findings and opinions. Thus, 11 perpetrators (10.90%) had a psychopathic personality structure and 26 perpetrators (25.74%) did not.

124 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Perpetrator’s attitude towards the criminal offence The domestic violence perpetrators from the examined sample most often do not admit that they committed the criminal offence they are charged with - 39 (38.61%). Eighteen perpetrators (17.82%) express repentance only verbally, fifteen perpetrators (14.85%) do not repent and consider their action to be appropriate, the attitude of twelve perpetra- tors (11.88%) is unspecified, only eleven perpetrators (10.90%) express genuine remorse and repentance (Chart 65).

Chart 65

Yes, genuine remorse and Unknown repentance 5,94% 10,90% Undefined Denial of 11,88% offence 38,61% Repentance expressed only verbally 17,82% No repentance/ considers his/her action to be appropriate 14,85%

The perpetrator’s behaviour after the committed criminal offence is perceived also through the perpetrator’s attitude towards the responsibility for the event. The perpe- trators mainly do not assume such responsibility because in the largest number of cases (31 or 30.69%), they do not admit the commission of the criminal offence. Many perpe- trators do not give or do not have an explanation - 20 (19.80%). Sixteen perpetrators (15.89%) generally assume their own responsibility, while fifteen perpetrators (14.85%) mainly blame the victim (Table 33). Table 33

Number Percentage

Mainly blame the victim 15 14.85

Do not blame either victim or themselves/consider the 6 5.94 event to be the result of unfortunate circumstances Justify their behaviour with the hopelessness of the 4 3.96 situation (“there was no choice”)

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 125  Do not give or have any explanation 20 19.80

Mainly accept their own responsibility 16 15.84

Do not admit the criminal offence and deny any 31 30.69 connection with it

Blame both themselves and the victim 1 0.99

Unknown 8 7.92

Total 101 100.00

Perpetrator’s mental competence at the time of criminal offence perpetration Many perpetrators (54 or 53.47%) were of sound mind at the time of the commission of the criminal offence. Although this information is unknown with respect to fifteen per- petrators, these are certainly mentally competent perpetrators, although the court did not specifically state that fact because the explanation of the judgment was missing or a plea agreement was accepted. The mental competence was diminished in nineteen per- petrators (18.81%), though not substantially, the mental competence of eleven perpetra- tors (10.89%) was substantially diminished, while only two perpetrators (1.98%) were of sound mind.

5.4. Profile of victims The examined sample of 100 court cases included 122 victims of the criminal offences of domestic violence. There was one victim in most cases - 81 (66.39%) (Chart 66). It should be noted that in the majority of court cases there is very little information about the injured party or victim.

Chart 66

Three 7,38%

Two 26,23%

One 66,39%

126 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Structure of victims by sex Most victims of domestic violence were women - 75.41%, while the percentage of male victims is significantly smaller - 24.59% (Chart 67).

Chart 67

Male 24,59%

Female 75,41%

Place of residence and birth of victims Most victims, like perpetrators, were born a city - 85.24% and reside in a city - 70.49%. Fewer victims were born in a village - 19.67% and reside in a village - 7.38%.

Age of victims The highest number of victims from the examined sample are old persons – 24 victims are 65+ (19.67%), 21 victims are in the age group 33 – 40 years (17.21%), 20 victims belong to the age group 57-65 years (16.39%), 16 victims are 57-65 years old (13.11%), 13 vic- tims are 49-56 years old (10.65%), and 12 victims are 41-48 years old (9.84%). The smallest number of victims are minors – 8 (6.56%) and 18-24 years old (3.28%) (Chart 68).

Chart 68

Unknown Minor 18-24 3,28% 6,56% 3.28% 65+ 19,67% 25-32 13.11%

57-65 33-40 16.39% 17.21%

49-56 41-48 10.66% 9.84%

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 127  Marital status of victims According to the data on the victim’s marital status, which did not exist in all cases (this information was missing in 18 cases), the victims, like the perpetrators, were mostly mar- ried - 57 (46.72%). Seventeen victims were divorced (13.93%), while fourteen victims were in cohabitation (11.48%). Twelve (9.84%) victims were single, two victims (1.64%) were separated and two victims (1.64%) were widowed (Table 34).

Table 34

Number Percentage

Married 57 46.72

Living in cohabitation 14 11.48

Divorced 17 13.93

Separated 2 1.64

Widowed 2 1.64

Single 12 9.84

Unknown 18 14.75

Total 122 100.00

Number of children

Most victims have two or more children - 51 (41.80%), 41 (33.61%) victims have one child, while 21 victims (17.21%) do not have children.

Education and employment status of victims The case files contain very little information on the education, employment and occu- pation of victims. According to the available data on the education of victims (this infor- mation is missing in 67 cases), the highest number of victims, like the perpetrators, have secondary education - 27 (22,13%), 12 victims (9.84%) have completed primary school, seven victims (5.74%) have junior college or university education, four victims (3.28%) are without education and three victims (2.46%) have incomplete primary school education.

128 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges There were no data on the employment of victims in 43 cases (35.25%). According to the available data, a significant number of victims were employed - 24 (19.67%). There are many pensioners among the victims - 31 (25.41%); there are ten (8.20%) housekeepers and five (4.10%) pupils. Nine (7.38%) victims are unemployed.

Relationship between victims and perpetrators In contrast to previous research that found that intimate partner violence was a pre- vailing form of domestic violence, the present research shows a somewhat smaller per- centage of intimate partner violence. In fact, most victims of domestic violence are the perpetrator’s father and mother - 33 victims (27.05%), followed by the spouse - 30 vic- tims (24.59%). Violence against children also occurred: 21 victims (17.21%) were sons and daughters (Table 35).

Table 35

Number Percentage

Spouse (marriage) 30 24.59

Cohabitation 13 10.66

Former spouses (marriage 18 14.75 or cohabitation)

Father/mother 33 27.05

Son/daughter 21 17.21

Grandchild 1 0.82

Son/daughter-in-law 1 0.82

Father/mother-in-law 2 1.64

Grandfather/grandmother 1 0.82

Ex-boyfriend/girlfriend 1 0.82

Brother/sister 1 0.82

Total 122 100.00

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 129  Based on the known data, it can be concluded that none of the victims in the examined sample possessed weapons (97.54%) or used it (95.08%).

At the time of the commission of the criminal offence, 108 victims (88.52%) were not under the influence of alcohol, while seven victims were under the influence of alcohol - 7 (5.74%). For seven victims (5.74%) there was no information whether they were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the commission of the criminal offence.

5.5. Criminal proceedings - substance, course and duration In most cases from the sample (100), the criminal procedure was conducted against the perpetrators of the criminal offence of domestic violence referred to in Article 194, para- graph 1 - 62.38%; then against the perpetrators of the criminal offence of domestic vio- lence referred to in Article 194, paragraph 2 - 22.00%, Article 194, paragraph 3 - 12.84% and Article 194, paragraph 5 - 2.75%. Detention was not imposed on the majority of per- petrators - 60 (59.41%).

5.5.1. Detention Detention was imposed on 41 perpetrators (40.59%) (Chart 69).

Chart 69

Detention 40.59%

Without detention 59.41%

5.5.2. Evidence In the examined sample, the most frequent evidence was: examination of defendants, examination of witnesses, examination of injured parties as witnesses, review of med- ical documentation, forensic medical evaluation and evaluations of neuropsychiatrist and psychologist, analysis of the findings of mobile operators about the communication with a mobile phone, reading of the expert findings of the social welfare centre.

130 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  5.5.3. Outcome of procedure The judgment of conviction was the outcome of the highest number of procedures (92). Security measures were pronounced independently in two cases (1.98%). Other out- comes were: dismissal of charges - 5 (4.95%), acquittal - 1 (0.99%), suspended procedure - 1 (0.99%) (Table 36).

Table 36

Number Percentage

Acquittal 1 0.99

Suspended procedure 1 0.99

Conviction 92 91.09

Pronounced security 2 1.98 measure

Dismissal of charges 5 4.95

Total 101 100.00

Plea agreements were concluded in five cases: one in Belgrade, one in Novi Sad and three in Niš. Three hearings for the imposition of a criminal sanction were held in Niš.

5.5.4. Appeal An appeal was not filed in 73 cases; 27 appeals were filed against first-instance decisions.

5.5.5. Duration of procedure In order to see the efficiency of the court procedure, it has been observed in five phases: from submitting a criminal complaint to filing a charging document; from filing a charging document to rendering a first-instance decision; from submitting a criminal complaint to rendering a second-instance decision; from submitting a criminal com- plaint to the finality of judgment; from rendering a first-instance decision to rendering a second-instance decision (Table 37).

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 131  Table 37 First- Charging Criminal Criminal Criminal instance document/ complaint/ complaint/ complaint/ decision/ first- second- charging finality of second- instance instance document judgment instance decision decision decision Up to 1 32 15 0 1 0 month

1 - 3 months 2 33 0 10 9

3 - 5 months 9 12 5 11 11

5 - 7 months 3 12 2 7 1

7 - 10 15 8 0 9 1 months 10 - 12 9 4 3 11 2 months

1 - 2 years 20 10 3 27 2

2 - 4 years 9 5 10 15 1

4 - 5 years 1 0 3 6 0

Over 5 years 0 1 1 3 0

TOTAL 100 100 27 100 27

According to the data presented in the table, in the majority of cases - 32 (32%) the time from submitting a criminal complaint to filing a charging document was up to one month, which shows that the prosecutor’s office was very efficient, as expected in this kind of criminal offences. However, in twenty cases (20%) one to two years passed from submitting a criminal complaint to filing a charging document, in fifteen cases (15%) it took 7-10 months, in nine cases (9%) this period was two to four years, which shows that the prosecutor’s office was not equally efficient in all cases. The courts were much more efficient since in most cases (33 or 33%) it took three months from filing a charging docu- ment to rendering a first-instance decision. In ten cases (10%) this phase of the procedure lasted from one to two years, and only in five cases (5%) the court procedure lasted from two to four years and in one case more than five years. Interestingly, although there were no appeals in a large number of cases (an appeal was filed in 27 cases), which would have

132 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges certainly prolonged the procedure, in a significant number of cases (27 or 27%) between one and two years passed from submitting a criminal complaint to the finality of judg- ment. The appellate procedure was much shorter, in most cases (11 or 40.74%) between three and five months passed from rendering a first-instance decision to rendering a sec- ond-instance decision.

5.6. Type and level of pronounced criminal sanctions

5.6.1. Types of criminal sanctions A total of 92 convictions were pronounced to domestic violence perpetrators. Sus- pended sentences were pronounced in most cases - 36 (35.64%), which confirms that suspended sentence is still the prevailing criminal sanction for domestic violence. The number of imposed prison sentences and the number of imposed prison sentences in combination with security measures is equal - 15 (14.85%), while the number of imposed suspended sentences in combination with security measures is somewhat lower - 14 (13.86%). (Table 38).

Table 38

Number Percentage

Prison sentence 15 14.85

Prison sentence enforced in the premises where the accused person lives with electronic 4 3.96 surveillance Prison sentence enforced in the premises where the accused person lives without electronic 1 0.99 surveillance Prison sentence enforced in the premises where the accused person lives without electronic 1 0.99 surveillance and security measure Prison sentence enforced in the premises where the accused person lives with electronic 1 0.99 surveillance and security measure

Prison sentence and security measure 15 14.85

Prison sentence and fine 1 0.99

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 133  Prison sentence, fine and security measure of no 1 0.99 approaching or communicating

Community service and security measure of 1 0.99 compulsory alcohol addiction treatment at liberty

Suspended sentence 36 35.64

Suspended sentence and security measure 14 13.86

Suspended sentence with protective surveillance 1 0.99

Suspended sentence and fine 1 0.99

Total number of convictions 92 91.08

Security measure 2 1.98

Suspended procedure / charges denied 6 5.9

Acquittal 1 0.99

Total 101 100.00

5.6.2. Level of criminal sanctions Prison sentences of different durations were imposed on the perpetrators of domestic violence. In total, 39 sentences were pronounced as follows: prison sentences; prison sentences with security measures; prison sentences served in the premises where the convicted person lives with the use of electronic surveillance; prison sentences served in the premises where the convicted person lives without the use of electronic surveillance; prison sentences with a fine. The minimum prison sentence lasted 48 days and the lon- gest one was 3 years and eight months. Most prison sentences were of six months - 11 (28.20%) and one year - 8 (20.51%) (Table 39).

134 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  Table 39

Number Percentage

48 days 1 2.56

3 months 1 2.56

4 months 1 2.56

6 months 11 28.20

7 months 2 6.89

8 months 4 10.25

10 months 2 6.89

1 year 8 20.51

1 year and 4 months 1 2.56

1 year and 6 months 1 2.56

2 years 4 10.25

2 years and 6 months 1 2.56

3 years and 4 months 1 2.56

3 years and 8 months 1 2.56

Total 39 100.00

5.6.3. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances In considering the type and level of punishment, the courts took into account various circumstances and assessed their impact on the perpetrator and the commission of the criminal offence. It was possible to find out about these circumstances from the explana- tions of the judgments. It is evident that in some judgments, the courts stated the mit- igating and aggravating circumstances in general terms, without analysing their actual effects. Moreover, we have noticed automatism in determining mitigating and aggravat- ing circumstances. In fact, individual circumstances were quoted from legal provisions, without taking account of the fact that domestic violence brings a higher degree of dan- ger than other forms of violent behaviour.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 135  The most common mitigating circumstances are: admission of the criminal offence com- mission; repentance for having committed the criminal offence; poor financial circum- stances; absence of earlier convictions; the perpetrator is the father of a minor child (one or more children); the fact that the injured party does not join the prosecution and does not claim indemnification; elapsed time since the last criminal offence; the defendant stopped using alcohol and attended family therapy, etc. The non-uniform approach to the assessment of certain circumstances as mitigating factors is evident in decisions of all three courts. For example, the defendant’s youth was assessed to be a mitigating cir- cumstance in one case, while in another case the mitigating circumstance was the fact that the defendant was a retired person. In the explanation of one judgment, the defen- dant’s personal and family circumstances were taken as a mitigating circumstance, with- out specifying what kind of “circumstances” and why they were considered a mitigating circumstance. Neither was it explained why the university education (master’s degree) is a mitigating circumstance in case of domestic violence. The defendant’s behaviour towards the injured party was taken as a mitigating circumstance, because he apolo- gised and, according to the injured party, changed, became “good to her”. In another case, the mitigating circumstance was the fact that the defendant and the injured party did not live together, and therefore the defendant was not in a position to have another conflict with the injured party and repeat the criminal offence. In doing so, the court did not take into account the cyclical nature of domestic violence, where the stages of good and bad behaviour alternate (the phase of apologising to the victim and asking for for- giveness is followed by even more brutal violence).

Unlike the mitigating circumstances, which are specified in a large numbers of the expla- nations of the judgments, the aggravating circumstances are mentioned much less frequently. In a relatively large number of cases, the court did not specify aggravating circumstances at all. In cases where the court established aggravating circumstances, the most common ones were: previous conviction for other criminal offences; previ- ous conviction for the same criminal offence of domestic violence; conviction for vio- lent criminal offences; the fact that the previously imposed sentences did not correct the defendant’s behaviour; previous misdemeanour punishment; the enhanced degree of guilt; the severity of risk or damage to the protected goods; the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, although he knew that the use of alcohol made him aggres- sive; the offence was committed against an elderly person; persistence expressed in the perpetration of offence; violation of restraining order; violation of suspended sentence. Interestingly, intoxication by alcohol is considered both mitigating and aggravating cir- cumstance. In the explanations of some judgments, the defendant’s degree of guilt was specified as a mitigating circumstance because the defendant’s mental competence was almost substantially diminished due to his alcohol addiction, while in some other case

136 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges the mitigating circumstance was the fact that the defendant had committed the criminal offence in a state of diminished mental competence due to alcohol abuse.

The defendant’s earlier convictions were judged differently by the courts. In one case, the first-instance court did not take the defendant’s previous conviction as an aggravat- ing circumstance because a lot of time had passed since the conviction, while the sec- ond-instance court, deciding on appeal, took the defendant’s previous conviction as an aggravating circumstance. The courts do not consider the earlier conviction to be an aggravating circumstance if a long time has passed since the previous conviction (10 or 15 years) or if the procedure of legal rehabilitation is ongoing or the conditions for the expunction of the conviction have been met, regardless of which criminal offence the defendant was previously convicted for.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 137  Part Three

Conclusions 1. The data collected from the case files show that a less severe form of the criminal offence of domestic violence prevails in judicial practice, i.e. the criminal offences qualified as the basic form of domestic violence (62.38%). The severe forms of domestic violence are significantly less frequent (22.00%) and consist of extremely brutal acts of physical violence or the criminal offences of domestic violence committed against minors (12.8%). The cases of the violation of prohibitions imposed in civil procedures are very rare (2.75%), which leads to the conclusion that the violation of the imposed measures of prohibitions are rarely reported for the purpose of imposing criminal sanctions.

2. The most common form of violence in the examined court cases is physical violence (78%): physical violence without the use of implements or weapons (44%) and with the use of implements or weapons (34%). Psychological violence is more often perpetrated in combination with physical violence (16%), and much less frequently as an independent criminal offence (6%).

3. The methods of perpetration depend on the type of violence and the means of perpetration. Physical violence usually consists of punching on the head and face, pulling hair, kicking, slapping, putting a knife to the throat, choking, biting the hand, etc. Psychological violence usually consists of cursing, insulting by name- calling, spitting, harassing through SMS messages, threats, including threats to kill, etc. The analysis of the description of committed crimes shows that violence is often very brutal and causes great suffering to the victims.

138 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 4. The criminal offence of domestic violence is usually perpetrated independently, as a rule, without a joinder of offences, and in cases where there is a joinder of offences, domestic violence is most often perpetrated in combination with the criminal offence of endangering safety and the criminal offence of the abduction of a minor.

5. Domestic violence is often perpetrated in the presence of family members, mainly children. Most of the prosecuted criminal offences were committed in cities, in the victim’s and the perpetrator’s place of residence, most often in their joint apartment/house.

6. It is not possible to establish with certainty the motive for the commission of the criminal offence because the court usually does not determine this psychological factor in the process of establishing the factual situation, but based on the case files it can be deduced that the perpetrators commit the criminal offence of domestic violence most often because of jealousy, long-term intolerance towards the victim, revenge for being prevented from seeing the child they have in common, quarrels about money and division of marital property, etc.

7. The case files contain very little data that would allow a conclusion about the personal relationship between the perpetrator and the victim before the criminal offence of domestic violence. It indicates that the court pays very little attention to the examination of the circumstances related to the so-called cycles of violence: whether the victim of violence has experienced the cycles of violence and if yes, which ones and how long they lasted. However, based on the collected data, it can be concluded that almost all victims were exposed to physical and psychological violence, abuse, insults, threats and disparagement for a long time before the criminal offence was committed. In intimate partner violence, the abuse very often began immediately after the partners/spouses started to live together and usually lasted for a very long time. A relatively small number of victims have previously addressed the competent institutions seeking help, which, among other things, points to a low degree of victims’ trust in the institutions of the system.

8. The perpetrators of the criminal offence of domestic violence are usually men (over 95%). Among 5% of women who appear as domestic violence perpetrators, there is only one who committed the offence of intimate partner violence, while other committed violence against other family members. These data confirm that domestic violence is gender based.

9. Most perpetrators belong to the age group 33-56 (77.22%), but a relatively large number of perpetrators belong to the age group 65+ (7.92%). The share of younger perpetrators is somewhat smaller: 4.95% in the age group 18-24 and 3.96% in the

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 139  age group 25-32. Comparison of these data with the findings of previous research shows that the age of domestic violence perpetrators has slightly increased.

10. The perpetrators are mainly married, parents of two or more children, with secondary education and unemployed. Most perpetrators were born and reside in cities. Over one half of them are recidivists, while the circumstances regarding their primary family and behaviour in youth are mainly unknown. Nearly one third of perpetrators consume alcohol excessively, while less than 10% are drug addicts. Over 40% of perpetrators were under the influence of alcohol at the time of perpetration and slightly more than 10% of perpetrators have a psychopathic personality structure. The perpetrators were mainly of sound mind at the time of perpetration: less than 2% of perpetrators committed the criminal offence of domestic violence in the state of diminished mental competence. The perpetrators most frequently do not admit the commission of the criminal offence and do not assume their own responsibility - only somewhat more than 10% express genuine remorse and repentance.

11. Most victims of domestic violence are women (over 75%), which is another clear indicator of being gender based.

12. Most victims were born and live in cities and belong to different age groups. Most victims are in the age group 25-65 years (67.21), but there is also a large number of victims who are older than 65 (19.67%). The smallest number of victims are minors (6.56%) and those in the age group 18-24 (3.28%). Compared to the previous situation, the number of elderly victims has increased.

13. The victims of domestic violence are mainly married or divorced, with two or more children. The prevailing number of victims are either married or in cohabitation with the perpetrator, and a relatively large number of them are divorced and separated, which shows that intimate partner violence continues even when the marriage/ cohabitation is terminated. Data on the education of victims are usually missing and in the cases where such data exist it is most frequently secondary education. In more than one third of cases there are no data on the employment status of victims, while in the cases where such data exist, most victims are employed (19%) or retired (26%), but compared to the findings of previous research, the number of employed victims has decreased, while the number of pensioners has increased. Most victims do not possess and did not use weapons, and only somewhat less than 5% of victims were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the perpetration of the criminal offence.

14. In contrast to previous research, where intimate partner violence was prevailing (over 65%), the present research shows a much smaller percentage of this form of

140 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  domestic violence (about 50%), although it continues to be more frequent than other forms of domestic violence. Compared to previous research, the number of the criminal offences of domestic violence committed against other family members has increased: children (about 27%) and parents (about 15%). The number of the cases of domestic violence committed against in-law relatives (3%) and grandparents (3%) has increased.

15. There are certain positive changes in the prosecution of domestic violence cases compared to the previous period. First of all, detention is imposed much more often. According to the 2007 research findings, detention was imposed in only 13% of cases, most often due to the risk that the defendant would repeat the criminal offence or carry out a threat. According to the data collected in this new research, detention was imposed in 40% of cases as follows: Niš (48%), Belgrade (46%) and Novi Sad (23.1%). More frequent detention shows that the courts approach the problem of domestic violence in a much more responsible way and properly considering the risk of perpetration or repeating the perpetration of violence. However, detention is rarely imposed on domestic violence perpetrators because of their possible influence on witnesses, although the practice has shown that perpetrators of violence have a significant influence on witnesses, especially victims, as evidenced by a large number of victims who later refuse to testify at the main hearing and state that they do not join the criminal prosecution.

16. There are no differences in the evidence used for establishing the truthfulness of facts, except that the data on mobile phone communication provided by mobile operators were used as evidence more frequently than before. The following evidence was used: examination of defendants, examination of witnesses, examination of injured parties as witnesses, review of medical documentation, forensic medical evaluation and evaluations of neuropsychiatrist and psychologist, analysis of the findings of mobile operators about the communication with a mobile phone, reading of the expert findings of the social welfare centre, etc.

17. In the cases with final court decisions, most perpetrators of domestic violence were convicted (92 or 91%). There were only 5 (4.9%) judgments on the dismissal of charges and only one acquittal (0.9%).

18. The following criminal sanctions were imposed on the perpetrators: prison sentence, prison sentence with electronic surveillance, prison sentence served in the premises where the convicted person lives without the use of electronic surveillance, prison sentence with the use of electronic surveillance and security measures, prison sentence with security measure, suspended sentence, suspended

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 141  sentence with security measure, suspended sentence with protective surveillance, security measure, fine and suspended sentence.

19. Plea agreements are not common. They were concluded in only five cases, including three in Niš. In none of the cases the subject of agreement was the victim’s indemnification because the victims did not file such claims. Two hearings for the imposition of a criminal sanction were held in Niš, while this possibility was not used in other cities.

20. Suspended sentences were pronounced in most judgments of conviction - 36 (35.6%), which continue to be the prevailing criminal sanction for domestic violence. However, the percentage of suspended sentences is much smaller than in the previous period. In fact, according to the 2008 research, the percentage of suspended sentences was 66.60%, which is nearly a half more than in the present research. This positive shift is an indicator of the changed attitude of judicial professionals with respect to the degree of social danger of the criminal offence of domestic violence, which is the result of the overall change in the attitude of society towards this form of crime. However, the situation is not entirely satisfactory, as in many cases suspended sentences are inappropriate for the severity and manner of criminal offence perpetration.

21. Prison sentences of different durations were imposed on the perpetrators of domestic violence. Most prison sentences were of six months - 11 (28.20%) and one year - 8 (20.51%). The minimum prison sentence lasted 48 days and the longest one was 3 years and eight months.

22. The analysis of the type and level of sentences for committed criminal offences of domestic violence shows that the sentences are rather mild, bearing in mind the social risks, the method of perpetration and the fact that the majority of perpetrators had already behaved violently. The trend of mild punishment, which was recorded also in the previous research, has not changed. The fact that in many cases it takes a long time from the event, that is, from the commission of the criminal offence to the rendering of judgment and the decision on punishment, and that during that time there are significant changes in family relations including the change in the victim’s attitude towards violence, certainly contributes to such penal policy.

23. The new research, like the previous research studies, shows that mitigating circumstances, which influence the sentencing, are abundantly stated. The most common mitigating circumstances are: full or partial admission of criminal offence perpetration, perpetrator’s repentance, absence of earlier convictions, parenthood, poor personal and family circumstances, health status, the defendant’s consciousness

142 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  of having done the wrong thing, academic title, etc. Aggravating circumstances are mentioned much less frequently, and in some cases they are not mentioned at all. In the cases where the court did establish some aggravating circumstances, the most common ones were: previous conviction for other criminal offences; previous conviction for the same criminal offence of domestic violence; conviction for violent criminal offences; the fact that the previously imposed sentences did not correct the defendant’s behaviour; previous misdemeanour punishment; the enhanced degree of guilt; the severity of risk or damage to the protected goods. On the other hand, we have noticed a certain automatism in determining mitigating and aggravating circumstances. In fact, individual circumstances were quoted from the law, without taking account of the fact that domestic violence brings a higher degree of danger than other forms of violent behaviour. In many cases the court states different circumstances in general terms without further analysis of their actual effect.

24. The explanations of court decisions in the examined sample lead to the conclusion that there have been some positive developments in understanding the phenomenon of domestic violence and the need to punish its perpetrators, which is confirmed also by the fact that continuity of violence is generally not considered an essential element of the offence, although it was a guiding idea in the initial period of criminal justice protection against domestic violence.

25. An appeal is rarely filed against first-instance decisions. Erroneously or incompletely established factual situation is one of the most common grounds for appeals filed by the defendants or their defence lawyers, whereby the material inaccuracy of the judgment is explained by the fact that the judgment is based only on the injured person’s statement, which is claimed to be contradictory, illogical and incomplete. The decision on punishment is also appealed, on the grounds that it is wrongly determined.

26. The procedure has obviously shortened compared to the previous period, which is the result of more efficient work of the judicial authorities. In most cases (32%), it takes up to one month from submitting a criminal complaint to filing a charging document. However, in a large number of cases (20%) it takes from one to two years. In 15% of cases it takes 7-10 months and in 9% of cases this period is as long as 2-4 years, which shows that the efficiency of public prosecutor’s offices was not the same in all cases, but also that it has not yet reached the satisfactory level, although compared to the previous period there has been some improvement concerning efficiency. The courts are much more efficient: in most cases (33%), the first-instance procedure was terminated in up to three months. In 10% percent of cases, this phase of procedure lasted 1-2 years and in 5% of cases, the first-instance procedure lasted 2-4 years, while in one case it lasted as long as over five years.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 143  Although the procedural speed has increased compared to the previous period, the degree of efficiency was neither uniform nor did it reach the level expected for the prosecution of domestic violence cases.

144 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Appendix:

Questionnaire for collecting data from court cases: Researcher: Date: City:

Court: 1. Municipal 2. District Criminal case number: Criminal offence (name, article, paragraph, law)

Information about the perpetrator: (from the judgment) Note: If there are more perpetrators, a separate questionnaire is filled out for each one!

1) Name and surname of the perpetrator 2) Sex: 1. Male 2. Female

3) Age: 1. 18-25 2. 25-32 3. 33-40 4. 41-48 5. 49-56 6. 57-65 7. 65+

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 145  4) Marital status: 1. Married 2. Living in cohabitation 3. Divorced 4. Separated 5. Widowed 6. Single 7. Divorce litigation is ongoing 8. Unknown 5) Number of children: 6) Occupation: 7) Education: 1. None 2. Incomplete primary school 3. Primary school 4. Secondary or high school 5. Junior college or faculty 6. Master or doctoral studies 8) Employment status: 1. Employed 2. Unemployed, looking for a job 3. On forced leave, redundancy 4. Housewife (if the perpetrator is a woman) 5. Retired 6. Student 7. Other (specify) 9) If unemployed, has he/she ever worked and, if yes, why and when did he/she stop working?

10) Citizenship:

146 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 11) Place of birth: 1. Village 2. City 12) Place of residence: 1. Village 2. City 3. Suburban settlement 13) Previous convictions: 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 14) If he/she has been convicted, how many times and for which crimes (specify crimi- nal offence, article, paragraph)

Perpetrator’s family history: 15) Primary family is: 1. Complete 2. Without the father 3. Without the mother 4. Unknown 16) Relationships in the primary family: 1. Good 2. Bad 3. Extremely bad 4. Unknown 17) Father’s occupation: 18) Mother’s occupation: 19) Father’s alcoholism: 20) Mother’s alcoholism: 21) Father’s criminal convictions (specify criminal offences if seen from the case file):

22) Mother’s criminal convictions (specify criminal offences if seen from the case file):

Perpetrator’s personal history: 23) Attempted suicide: 1. Yes 2. No 3. Only suicidal ideas 4. Unknown

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 147  24) Self-injury: 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 25) Early abuse: 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown Note: If the perpetrator experienced early abuse, specify how and who abused the per- petrator and other related information, if seen from the case file.

26) Running away from home: 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 27) School absenteeism: 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 28) Perpetrating juvenile offences: 1. Yes, but no educational measures or juvenile imprisonment were imposed 2. Yes, educational measures or juvenile imprisonment were imposed 3. No 4. Unknown 29) Does the perpetrator express repentance for his/her action (according to the court’s assessment)? 1. Yes, genuine remorse and repentance 2. Undefined 3. Repentance expressed only verbally 4. No repentance/consider his/her action to be appropriate 5. Denial of offence 6. Unknown 30) The perpetrator’s attitude towards own responsibility for the event: 1. Mainly blames the victim 2. Blames both himself/herself and the victim 3. Does not blame either victim or himself or herself/considers the event to be the result of unfortunate circumstances 4. Justifies their behaviour with the hopelessness of the situation (“there was no choice”)

148 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  5. Does not give or have any explanation 6. Mainly accepts his/her own responsibility 7. Does not admit the criminal offence and denies any connection with it 8. Unknown

Psychiatric and psychological evaluation: 31) Psychopathic personality structure: 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 32) Alcoholism: 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 33) Drug addiction: 1. Yes 2. Used drugs, without addiction 3. No 4. Unknown 34) Existence of psychosis: 1. Suffers from 2. No psychosis 3. Unknown 35) Mental competence at the time of criminal offence perpetration: 1. Mentally competent 2. Diminished, but not substantially 3. Substantially diminished 4. Mentally incompetent 5. Unknown 36) Intoxication by alcohol at the time of criminal offence perpetration: 1. Light intoxication 2. Medium intoxication 3. Heavy intoxication 4. Complicated or severe intoxication 5. No 6. Unknown 37) Was the perpetrator under the influence of drugs at the time of criminal offence perpetration: 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 149  Information about the victim: (From the record on hearing and judgment) Note: If there are more victims, a separate sheet with this group of questions is filled out for each of them! 38) Name and surname of the victim 39) Number of victims: 40) Sex: 1. Male 2. Female 41) Place of residence: 1. Village 2. City 3. Suburban settlement 42) Place of birth: 1. Village 2. City 3. Suburban settlement 43) Citizenship: 44) Age: 1. 18-25 2. 25-32 3. 33-40 4. 41-48 5. 49-56 6. 57-65 7. 65+ 45) Marital status: 1. Married 2. Living in cohabitation 3. Divorced 4. Separated 5. Widowed 6. Single 7. Divorce litigation is ongoing 8. Unknown 46) Number of children: 47) Occupation: 48) Education: 1. None 2. Incomplete primary school 3. Primary school 4. Secondary school

150 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  5. Junior college or faculty 6. Master or doctoral studies 49) Employment status: 1. Employed 2. Unemployed, looking for a job 3. On forced leave, redundancy 4. Housekeeper 5. Retired 6. Student 7. Other (specify) 50) What is the victim’s relationship with the perpetrator? 1. Spouse (marriage) 2. Cohabitation 3. Former spouses/partners (marriage or cohabitation) 4. Boyfriend/girlfriend 5. Ex-boyfriend/girlfriend 6. Father/mother 7. Son/daughter 8. Brother/sister 9. Other (specify) 51) Was the victim previously abused, physically or otherwise, by the perpetrator and if yes, how?

52) If the perpetrator abused the victim earlier, did the victim address an institution (for example, social welfare centre), NGO (SOS hotline or similar) or individual (psycholo- gist, psychiatrist, medical doctor) seeking help?

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 151  53) If the perpetrator abused the victim earlier, did the victim report it, and if yes, was a criminal procedure conducted, for which criminal offence (specify criminal offence, article, paragraph, law) and what was it outcome?

54) Weapons held by the victim: 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 55) If the victim had weapons, did he/she use it? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Yes, but did not use it 4. Unknown 56) Victim’s intoxication by alcohol at the time of criminal offence perpetration: 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown

Data on the criminal offence: 57) Legal qualification in the judgment 58) Place of perpetration: 1. Village 2. City 3. Unknown 59) Place of perpetration: 1. The same as the place of residence 2. Other than place of residence, but in the same country 3. Other than place and country of residence 4. Unknown

152 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 60) Location of perpetration: 1. Perpetrator’s apartment/house/courtyard 2. Victim’s apartment/house/courtyard 3. Joint apartment/house/courtyard of the victim and the perpetrator 4. Tavern/restaurant/disco club 5. Park/street/open space 6. Victim’s workplace (pharmacy, post office, shop, petrol station or other) 7. Other (specify) 8. Unknown 61) Time of perpetration (exact date and time as indicated in the enacting terms of the court decision): 62) Means of perpetration: 63) Were there observers (witnesses, eyewitnesses)? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 64) Was it a joinder of offences? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 65) If there was a joinder of offences, specify the type of relevant offence:

66) Complicity: 1. There is co-perpetration 2. Co-perpetrators are responsible for incitement 3. Co-perpetrators are responsible for aiding and abetting 4. There is no complicity 5. Unknown 67) Motive for perpetration (if seen from the case file)

68) Detailed description of the method and means of criminal offence perpetration (according to the enacting clause and explanation of judgment and if a judgment was not rendered, provide a brief description deduced from the case file)

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 153  69) Relationship between the perpetrator and the victim prior to the perpetration of criminal offence and other preceding circumstances (explanation of judgment: victim’s statement and what the court established) Note: Pay particular attention to everything that points to the impact of war, nationalism, economic crisis, particularly the impact on their mutual relations, deterioration or other change in relations, that is, the behaviour of each of them and the like.

70) Mitigating and aggravating circumstances taken into account by the court in sentencing:

71) Criminal sanction pronounced by the first-instance court (type, amount of fine, duration of prison sentence):

154 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 72) Circumstances taken into account by the court in sentencing: Mitigating circumstances:

Aggravating circumstances:

Criminal procedure: 73) Duration of criminal procedure (specify month and year): 1. Date of criminal offence perpetration (as specified in the criminal complaint)

2. Date of criminal complaint submission: 3. Date of submitting a request for initiating an investigation: 4. Date of initiating an investigation: 5. Date of raising an indictment: 6. First-instance decision rendered: 7. Second-instance decision rendered: 8. Date of finality of judgment: 74) Number of main hearings held: 75) What evidence was presented in the investigation procedure?

76) What evidence was presented at the main hearing?

77) Was the procedure for punishment applied before the main hearing?

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 155  78) Was detention imposed on the perpetrator? If yes, how long did it last?

79) Was the measure of bringing in by force imposed on the perpetrator?

80) Compare the qualification of the criminal offence in 1. criminal complaint 2. indictment 3. judgment 81) What was the outcome of the first-instance procedure? 1. Decision on the rejection of criminal complaint - specify reason

2. Decision on the suspension of procedure - specify reason

3. Judgment on the dismissal of charges - specify reason

4. Judgment of acquittal 5. Judgment of conviction 82) Were any legal remedies filed and if yes, which one?

83) What reasons were stated in the legal remedy?

84) What was decided with respect to the legal remedy?

156 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Bibliography QQ Ajduković, M., (2000). Određenje i oblici nasilja u obitelji. Nasilje nad ženom u obitelji. Zagreb: Društvo za psihološku pomoć.

QQ Babović, M. Ginić, K. Vuković, O. (2010). Mapiranje porodičnog nasilja prema ženama u Centralnoj Srbiji. Beograd: SeConS.

QQ Blagojević, M. Žene i muškarci u Srbiji 1990-2000, Urodnjavanje cene haosa. U: Bolčić, S., Milić, A. (Pr.), (2002). Srbija krajem milenijuma: Razaranje društva, promene i svakodnevni život. Beograd: ISFF.

QQ Branković, B. (2013), Vesti iz budućnosti: Istanbulska konvencija i odgovornost države za borbu protiv nasilja nad ženama. Funkcionisanje opštih servisa - operacionalizacija dužne prilježnosti, Beograd, UNDP.

QQ Ćopić, S. (2002). Institucije i nevladine organizacije u odgovoru na porodično nasilje u Srbiji. U: Pravom protiv nasilja u porodici. Niš: Ženski istraživački centar za edukaciju i komunikaciju.

QQ European Commission, Eurobarometer on gender- based violence November 2017. Available at: www. ec.europa.eu/justice/saynostopvaw

QQ Gomien, D. Harris, D. Zwaak, L. (1996). Law and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg.

QQ Hasellbacher, L. (2010) State Obligations Regarding Domestic Violence: The European Court of Human Rights, Due Diligence and International Minimums of Protection, https:// scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google. rs/&httpsredir=1&article=1098&context=njihr

QQ Ignjatović, T. (Pr.), (2005). Nasilje prema ženama - prepreka razvoju Beograd: Autonomni ženski centar.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 157  QQ Ignjatović, T. (2011). Nasilje prema ženama u intimnom partnerskom odnosu: model koordiniranog odgovora zajednice. Beograd: Rekonstrukcija ženski fond.

QQ Ignjatović, T. Pavlović Babić, D., Lukić, M. (2015). Delotvornost sistemskih mehanizama za sprečavanje nasilja prema ženama i nasilja u porodici. Beograd: Autonomni ženski centar.

QQ Inter-Balkan Conference on Legal Strategies to Combat Domestic Violence (1997). Sofia: Bulgaria.

QQ Janis, M. W. Kay, R.S. Bradley, A.W.(2000). European Human Rights Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

QQ Jovanović, S. (2010). Pravna zaštita od nasilja u porodici. Beograd: Institut za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja

QQ Jovanović, N. Višnjić, J. Ignjatović, T. Macanović, B. (2009). Mapiranje praznine – Nezavisni nadzor nad sprovođenjem Zaključnih komentara i preporuka UN Komiteta za eliminaciju diskriminacije žena državi Srbiji, Beograd: Autonomni ženski centar

QQ Jovanović, S. Simeunović-Patić, B. Macanović, V. (2012), Krivičnopravni odgovor na nasilje u porodici u Vojvodini, Novi Sad: Pokrajinski sekretarijat za rad, zapošljavanje i ravnopravnost polova.

QQ Mole N. Harby, C. (2006) Guide to the implementation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights The right to a fair trial, Human rights handbooks, No. 3, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

QQ Milić, A. Dobitnici i gubitnici u procesu tranzicije iz ugla porodične svakodnevnice (1991- 2001). U: Bolčić, S., Milić, A. (Prir.), (2002). Srbija krajem milenijuma: Razaranje društva, promene i svakodnevni život. Beograd: ISFF.

QQ Mršević, Z. (2000). Ženska prava u međunarodnom pravu. Banja Luka: Helsinški parlament građana. Banja Luka: Udružene žene Banja Luka.

QQ Konstantinović Vilić, S. (2004). „Pravo žena na zaštitu od nasilja u porodici“. Ljudska prava za žene. Niš: Odbor za građansku inicijativu

QQ Konstantinović Vilić, S. Petrušić, N., Žunić, N. (1999). Evropski standardi o eliminaciji nasilja nad ženama. Usklađivanje prava SR Jugoslavije sa pravom Evropske unije. Zbornik radova. Niš: Centar za publikacije Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu.

QQ Konstantinović Vilić,S. Nikolić-Ristanović,V. (2003). Kriminologija. Niš: Centar za publikacije Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu.

158 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  QQ Konstantinović Vilić, S. Petrušić, N. (2004). Krivično delo nasilja u porodici pravna praksa u Republici Srbiji. Niš: Ženski istraživački centar za edukaciju i komunikaciju.

QQ Konstantinović Vilić, S., Petrušić, N. (2007). Krivično delo nasilja u porodici aktuelna pravosudna praksa u Beogradu i Nišu. Beograd: Autonomni ženski centar Beograd. Niš: Ženski istraživački centar za edukaciju i komunikaciju.

QQ Konstantinović Vilić, S., Petrušić, N. (2010). Žene, zakoni i društvena stvarnost. Knjiga 1. Niš: Ženski istraživački centar. Niš: Sven.

QQ Lukić, M. Jovanović, S. (2001). Drugo je porodica, nasilje u porodici – nasilje u prisustvu vlasti. Beograd: Institut za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja.

QQ Lukić, M. (2003). Kriminološka analiza nasilja u porodici, Niš: Pravni fakultet u Nišu.

QQ Petrušić, N. (2003). Zaštita od nasilja u porodici − porodičnopravni i procesnopravni aspekt. Dvadeset godina Zakona o vanparničnom postupku. Zbornik radova. Niš: Centar za publikacije Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu.

QQ Petrušić, N. (2005). Jurisprudencija Evropskog suda za ljudska prava u zaštiti prava na rešavanje građanskopravne stvari u razumnom roku. Evropski mehanizmi zaštite ljudskih prava. Niš: Centar za publikacije Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu.

QQ Petrušić, N. Konstantinović Vilić, S. (2012). Vodič kroz sistem porodičnopravne zaštite od nasilja u porodici. Beograd: Autonomni ženski centar. Niš: Ženski istraživački centar za edukaciju i komunikaciju.

QQ Nasilje nad ženama: istraživanje provedeno diljem Europske unije. Kratki pregled rezultata. (2014). Luxembourg: FRA. European Union Agency For Fundamental Rights. Ured za publikacije Europske unije.

QQ Nikolić-Ristanović V. ur. (2002). Porodično nasilje u Srbiji. Beograd: Viktimološko društvo Srbije.

QQ Nikolić-Ristanović, V. (1994). Nasilje nad ženama u uslovima rata i ekonomske krize. Sociološki pregled. 3. 411-412

QQ Nikolić-Ristanović, V. ur. (2010). Nasilje u porodici u Vojvodini. Novi Sad: Pokrajinski sekretarijat za rad, zapošljavanje i ravnopravnost polova.

QQ Nikolić-Ristanović V. (2013). Praćenje primene zakonskih rešenja o nasilju u porodici u Srbiji: nalazi pilot istraživanja, Beograd: UN Women.

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 159  QQ Mršević, Z. (2014) Intervjui u sudovima, javnim tužilaštvima, policiji, centru za socijalni rad vođeni tokom 2013. godine, u: Pravna regulativa tretmana žrtava domaćeg nasilja u Republici Srpskoj, www.zenskicentar.org/images/publikacije/studija/STUDIJA/doc.

QQ Stošić, M. (2012). Transakciona analiza i žene žrtve nasilja u porodici. Beograd: Uprava za rodnu ravnopravnost. Ministarstvo rada i socijalne politike.

QQ Van Dijk, P. Van Hoof, G. J. H. (1998). Theory and Practice of European Convention on Human Rights, Deventer: Kluwer.

QQ Walsh, M. N (1997). Women, Man & Gender. Ongoing Debates. New Haven & London: Yale Universty Press.

QQ www.zeneprotivnasilja.net/vesti/89 femicid-u-srbiji. Accessed on 15 December 2010, www. zeneprotivnasilja.net/femicid-u-srbiji. Accessed on 27 October 2017.

LEGAL SOURCES

QQ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. CEDAW. Official Journal of SFRY - International Treaties, no. 11/1981.

QQ The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. The Istanbul Convention. Official Gazette of RS - International Treaties, no. 12/2013.

QQ Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia. Official Gazette of RS, o. 85/2005, 88/2005 – corrigendum, 107/2005 - corrigendum, 72/2009, 111/2009, 121/2012, 104/2013, 108/2014, 94/2016.

QQ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Official Journal of SFRY, no. 7 (1971)

QQ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Official Journal, no. 7 (1971)

QQ General Protocol for Action and Cooperation of Institutions, Bodies and Organisations in the Situations of Violence against Women within the Family and in Intimate Partner Relationship of the Government of the Republic of Serbia, 2011 Available at: https://www.praxis.org.rs/index.php/sr/praxis-watch/ item/559-special-protocols-on-proceeding-in-cases-of-violence-against-women-adopted

QQ National Strategy for the Prevention and Elimination of Violence against Women in Family and in Intimate Partner Relationship. Official Gazette of RS, nos. 27/2011.

160 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges  QQ National Strategy for Improving the Position of Women and Promoting Gender Equality 2009 - 2015. Available at: https://www.minrzs.gov.rs/files/doc/porodica/strategije/Nacionalna%20 strategija%20rodna%20ravnopravnost.pdf

QQ National Strategy for Improving the Position of Women and Promoting Gender Equality 2016 - 2020. Available at: https://www.minrzs.gov.rs/files/doc/porodica/strategije/Nacionalna%20 strategija%20rodna%20ravnopravnost.pdf

QQ Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. Available at: http://www.sigurnakuca.net/ znanja_o_nasilju_nad_zenama/medjunarodni_dokumenti.203.html

QQ Law on Family of the Republic of Serbia. Official Gazette of RS, nos. 18/2005, 72/2011 – as amended and 6/2015.

QQ Special Protocol of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Policy of the Government of the Republic of Serbia for Action of Social Welfare Centres – Guardianship Authorities in Cases of Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence against Women (2013). Available at: https://www. minrzs.gov.rs/files/doc/porodica/nasilje/Posebni%20protokol%20MRZSP%20nasilje%20 u%20porodici.pdf

QQ Special Protocol of the Ministry of Interior of the Government of the Republic of Serbia for Action of Police Officers in Cases of Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence against Women (2013). Available at: https://www.minrzs.gov.rs/files/doc/porodica/nasilje/Posebni%20 protokol%20MRZSP%20nasilje%20u%20porodici.pdf

QQ Special Protocol of the Ministry of Health of the Government of the Republic of Serbia for Action in Cases of Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence against Women (2010). Available at: https://www.minrzs.gov.rs/files/doc/porodica/nasilje/Posebni%20protokol%20MRZSP%20 nasilje%20u%20porodici.pdf

QQ Special Protocol for Judiciary in Cases of Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence against Women (2014). Available at: https://www.mpravde.gov.rs/.../Protokol%20p14.%201.%202014.

QQ Recommendation of the CoE Committee of Ministers to Member States on the protection of women against violence (Rec2002/5). Available at: https://ravnopravnost.gov.hr/ UserDocsImages/arhiva/preuzimanje/dokumenti/ve/Preporuka%20Rec%20(2002)%20 5%20Odbora%20ministara%20VE%20dr%C5%BEavama%20%C4%8Dlanicama%20 o%20za%C5%A1titi%20%C5%BEena%20od%20nasilja%20i%20Memorandum%20s%20 obja%C5%A1njenjima.pdf

QQ Program for the Protection of Women against Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence and Other Forms of Gender-based Violence in AP Vojvodina for the period 2015-2020.

QQ Available at: https://www.paragraf.rs/dnevne-vesti/251214/251214-vest2.html

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 161  QQ Strategy for the Protection of Women against Domestic and Other Forms of Gender-based Violence in AP Vojvodina for the period 2008-2012. Available at: http://www.potpisujem.org/ srb/285/strategija-za-zastitu-od-nasilja-u-porodici-i-drugih-oblika-rodno-zasnovanog- nasilja-u-ap-vojvodina-koraci-dalje

QQ Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia. Official Gazette of RS, o. 72//2011, 101/2011, 121/2012, 32/2013, 45/2013 i 55/2014.

QQ Law on the Ratification of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Official Journal of SaM - International Treaties, nos. 9/2003, 5/2005, 7/2005 – corrigendum; Official Gazette of RS – International Treaties, no. 12 (2010).

QQ Law on the Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia. Official Gazette of RS, no. 10/2002.

QQ Law on the Ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. Official Gazette of RS - International Treaties, no. 012/2013

QQ Law on Protection from Domestic Violence of the Republic of Croatia. Official Gazette, no. 116/2003.

QQ Law on Protection from Domestic Violence of the Federation of B&H. Official Gazette of the Federation of B&H, no. 2/2005.

QQ Concluding observations on the combined 2nd and 3rd periodic reports of Serbia, UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), /C/SRB/ CO/2-3, of 22 July 2013. Available at: http://www.ljudskaprava.gov.rs/sites/default/files/ dokument_file/cedaw_zakljucna_zapazanja_sr.pdf

162 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges Biographies of authors QQ Nevena Petrušić, PhD is a Full-time Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Niš and Head of Department for Civil Law Sciences. She lectures in Civil Procedural Law, Extra-Judicial Dispute Resolution, Gender Equality and Gender-Based Violence, Children’s Rights, etc. She has authored a number of monographs, textbooks, legal commentaries and articles in the field of civil procedure, human rights, gender relations, domestic violence and protection against discrimination. She has participated in numerous scientific research studies in these fields. She was a coordinator of the Legal Clinic for the Protection of Women’s Rights, and now coordinates the work of the Legal Clinic for the Protection against Discrimination. She has been an active participant in the women’s movement in Serbia since 1993. Ms Petrušić is also one of the founders of SOS Hotline for Women and Children Victims of Violence in Niš (1993), the Women’s Research Centre in Niš (1997) and the Victimology Society of Serbia (1997). She participated in drafting a number of national strategic documents and models of law, and in developing numerous educational programmes. She is engaged as a consultant in UNDP, OSCE, UNICEF and SE projects. She was the first Commissioner for the Protection of Equality in Serbia. She received the OSCE’s “Personality of the Year” awards in 2009 and 2011 and the Golden Plaque Award from the Niš Municipality of Medijana.

QQ Natalija Žunić, PhD is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Niš. She lectures in Sociology with Sociology of Law and Gender Legal Studies, and was involved in the work of the Legal Clinic for the Protection of Women’s Rights. She wrote a number of articles, publications and monographs and participated in numerous national and international scientific conferences. In addition to scientific research, she is engaged in the civil sector and actively works on the promotion of human rights including women’s human rights. She participated as a lecturer and moderator in a large number of seminars and workshops in the field of human rights and gender equality. She is engaged in a number of scientific research projects. She is a member of the Sociological Society of Serbia, the Victimology Society of Serbia and the American Political Science Association. Ms Žunić is also one of the founders of SOS Hotline for Women and Children Victims of Violence in

The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges 163  Niš (1993) and the Women’s Research Centre in Niš (1997). She is one of the coordinators and lecturers in the multidisciplinary Women’s Studies in Niš. She is also a member of the editorial board of the scientific journal Temida.

QQ Vida Vilić, PhD is Assistant Director for Legal Affairs of the Clinic for Dentistry in Niš. In 2016, she received her doctorate from the Faculty of Law of the University of Niš. She has published a number of scientific papers and participated in many scientific conferences and seminars. She has been a member of the Women’s Research Center for Education and Communication in Niš since its establishment, and she was also one of the volunteers on the SOS Hotline for Women and Children Victims of Violence in Niš. As a member of the Victimology Society of Serbia, she participated in the research project Domestic Violence in Serbia. She is one of the founders of the Niš branch of the organisation Young Lawyers of Serbia. Among other things, she was a coordinator and one of the moderators in the seminar Clinical Education on Women’s Human Rights - Experiences, Challenges and Perspectives and the main coordinator of the project Towards Gender-sensitive Security Strategy of the City of Niš. She was awarded by the Victimology Society of Serbia as the best young researcher in 2017.

164 The Criminal Offence Of Domestic Violence In Judicial Practice - New trends and challenges

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi

Beograd, 2018. Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi

Izdavač:

Za izdavača:

Autorke: Nevena Petrušić, Natalija Žunić, Vida Vilić

Recenzentkinje: Prof. dr Vesna Nikolić-Ristanović Prof. dr Zorica Mršević Dr Sanja Ćopić

Grafičko oblikovanje: Milica Dervišević

Štampa:

Tiraž:

ISBN

CIP

Napomena: Štampanje ove publikacije pomogla je Misija OEBS-a u Srbiji. Stavovi izrečeni u knjizi pripadaju isključivo autoru i njegovim saradnicima i ne predstavljaju nužno zvaničan stav Misije OEBS-a u Srbiji. Sadržaj Predgovor ........................................................................................................................ 5 PRVI DEO Krivično delo nasilja u porodici – teorijski i pravni okvir........................................ 7 1. Nasilje u porodici kao rodno zasnovano nasilje..................................................................7 2. Geneza izgradnje domaćeg sistema pravne zaštite od nasilja u porodici .................13 3. Aktuelna krivična regulativa ..................................................................................................18

DRUGI DEO Istraživanje prakse sudova u procesuiranju krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici ................................................................................................. 27 1. Predmet, cilj i metodologija istraživanja............................................................................. 27 2. Sudska praksa u Beogradu.................................................................................................... 30 2.1. Opšti podaci o sudskim predmetima ......................................................................... 30 2.2. Fenomenologija krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici................................................... 30 2.3. Profil učinilaca ................................................................................................................40 2.4. Profil žrtava ...................................................................................................................... 49 2.5. Krivični postupak – sadržina, tok i trajanje................................................................ 54 2.5.1. Pritvor ...................................................................................................................... 55 2.5.2. Dokazi...................................................................................................................... 56 2.5.3. Način okončanja postupka................................................................................. 56 2.5.4. Žalba......................................................................................................................... 57 2.5.5. Trajanje postupka.................................................................................................. 58 2.6. Vrsta i visina izrečenih krivičnih sankcija ...................................................................60 3. Sudska praksa u Nišu.............................................................................................................. 65 3.1. Opšti podaci o sudskim predmetima.......................................................................... 65 3.2. Fenomenologija krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici................................................... 65 3.3. Profil učinilaca ................................................................................................................ 73 3.4. Profil žrtava ...................................................................................................................... 83 3.5. Krivični postupak – sadržina, tok i trajanje ...............................................................88 3.5.1. Pritvor ......................................................................................................................88 3.5.2. Dokazi......................................................................................................................88 3.5.3. Način okončanja postupka ................................................................................88 3.5.4. Žalba........................................................................................................................ 89 3.5.5. Trajanje postupka ................................................................................................. 89 3.6. Vrsta i visina izrečenih krivičnih sankcija ....................................................................91

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 3  4. Sudska praksa u Novom Sadu.............................................................................................. 97 4.1. Opšti podaci o sudskim predmetima.......................................................................... 97 4.2. Fenomenologija krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici................................................... 97 4.3. Profil izvršilaca............................................................................................................... 102 4.4. Profil žrtava .................................................................................................................... 110 4.5. Krivični postupak – sadržina, tok i trajanje .............................................................114 4.5.1. Pritvor .....................................................................................................................114 4.5.2. Dokazi ....................................................................................................................115 4.5.3. Način okončavanja postupka............................................................................115 4.5.4. Žalba.......................................................................................................................115 4.5.5. Trajanje postupka.................................................................................................116 4.6. Vrsta i visina izrečenih krivičnih sankcija .................................................................118 5. Sumirani nalazi iz celokupnog uzorka ............................................................................. 120 5.1. Oblici izvršenja krivičnih dela..................................................................................... 120 5.2. Sticaj, saučesništvo, mesto izvršenja krivičnog dela............................................. 120 5.3. Profil učinilaca................................................................................................................121 5.4. Profil žrtava..................................................................................................................... 127 5.5. Krivični postupak – sadržina, tok, trajanje............................................................... 130 5.5.1. Pritvor......................................................................................................................131 5.5.2. Dokazi.....................................................................................................................131 5.5.3. Način okončanja postupka................................................................................131 5.5.4. Žalba....................................................................................................................... 132 5.5.5. Trajanje postupka................................................................................................ 132 5.6. Vrsta i visina izrečene krivične sankcije.................................................................... 133 5.6.1. Vrste krivičnih sankcija ...................................................................................... 133 5.6.2. Visina krivične sankcije...................................................................................... 135 5.6.3. Olakšavajuće i otežavajuće okolnosti............................................................ 136

TREĆI DEO Zaključci ......................................................................................................................139 Prilog ............................................................................................................................ 145 Upitnik za prikupljanje podataka iz sudskih predmeta:...................................... 145 Literatura...................................................................................................................... 157 Biografije autorki........................................................................................................ 163

4 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Predgovor Knjiga Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi, rezultat je naučnog istraživanja koje je realizovano sa ciljem da se sagledaju promene u fenom- enologiji krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici, evidentiraju ključni izazovi u funkcionisanju mehanizma krivičnopravne zaštite od nasilja u porodici, utvrdi stepen njegove delotvor- nosti i efikasnosti, kao i da se na osnovu komparacije sa rezultatima ranijih istraživanja identifikuju promene i aktuelne tendencije.

Poslednje istraživanje prakse sudova u procesuiranju krivičnog dela nasilje u porodici sprovedeno je pre devet godina, a u međuvremenu je formirana nova praksa, čija bi analiza omogućila da se kritički sagleda delovanje postojećeg mehanizma krivično- pravne zaštite od nasilja u porodici i promene do kojih je u međuvremenu došlo u tumačenju propisa, sprovođenju postupka i sankcionisanju počinilaca. Iako u proteklom devetogodišnjem periodu nije došlo do značajnih zakonskih promena u samoj inkrimi- naciji krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici, 2011. godine je usvojena Nacionalna strategija za prevenciju nasilja nad ženama u porodici i partnerskim odnosima, a 31.10.2013. godine Srbija je ratifikovala Konvenciju Saveta Evrope o sprečavanju i borbi protiv nasilja nad ženama i nasilja u porodici (Istambulska konvencija). Osim toga, u proteklom periodu sprovedeno je niz edukativnih programa i stručnih skupova namewenih nosiocima pra- vosudnih funkcija, pa je moguće ispitati da li je edukacija uticala na njihov rad. Upravo su to bili ključni razlozi zbog kojih smo pristupile novom istraživanju.

Rezultati istraživanja prezentovani u ovoj monografiji pružaju svojevrsni presek stanja i omogućavaju praćenje budućih promena u radu pravosudnih organa, u kontekstu novog Zakona o sprečavanju nasilja u porodici, koji je krajem 2016. godine usvojen. Nal- azi i saznanja stečena ovim istraživanjem mogu biti osnov za nova naučna uopštavanja i stručnu raspravu o spornim pitanjima u tumačenju i primeni zakona, ali i za širu društ- venu debatu o načinima prevladavanja uočenih problema i kritičko preispitivanje prakse u cilju unapređenja efikasnosti i delotvornosti krivičnopravne zaštite koja se pruža u slučajavima nasilja u porodici.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 5  Tokom istraživanja od neprocenjivog značaja bile su stručne sugestije, prijateqski podsti- caji i podrška uvažene prof. dr Slobodanke Konstantinović Vilić, koja je rukovodila ranijim istraživanjima, na čemu joj najtoplije zahvaljujemo.

AUTORKE

6 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Prvi deo

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici – teorijski i pravni okvir 1. Nasilje u porodici kao rodno zasnovano nasilje

Nasilje u porodici je društvena pojava koja se tiče kako života pojedinaca, tako i celokup­­­­nog društva. Nasilje u porodici ubraja se u “fenomen dugog trajanja” i kao socijalno-patološka pojava postalo je skoro deo našeg svakodnevnog života. Modeli i obrasci njegovog postojanja, i opstajanja, deo su patrijarhalnih ili tradicionalnih shvatanja o odnosu polova, rodnim obrascima i porodičnim odnosima. U porodici se, oblikuju i određuju ne samo obrasci ponašanja, već se formiraju i modeli kulturnih obrazaca, što je neophodno za funkcionisanje društva i odnose među ljudima, a, pre svega, važi za tradicionalna društva. Tradicionalni modeli porodičnih veza, indukovana društvena svest o rodu i rodnim odnosima još uvek su deo preovlađujućih porodičnih šema, u kojima se odvija porodični život u našoj sredini, kao i mesta i uloge muškaraca i žena u tim relacijama.

U javnom predstavljaju i definisanju glavnih društvenih i kulturoloških karakteristika nasilja u porodici leži jedan od osnovnih razloga zbog kojih porodično nasilje dugo nije smatrano ozbiljnim oblikom nasilja u društvu, već uobičajenim i socijalno prihvatljivim ponašanjem. Ako posmatramo, iz rodne perspektive, porodicu u Srbiji, od devedesetih

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 7  godina pa sve do sadašnjeg perioda razvoja, videćemo da je karakteriše pad individu- alnog i društvenog materijalnog standarda, kao i ukupnog životnog nivoa muškaraca i žena. Proces pauperizacije naročito među urbanim stanovništvom, kao i velika ekon- omska i celokupna društvena nesigurnost, između ostalog, imali su za posledicu da je u Srbiji nasilje u porodici poprimilo dramatičan obim i dinamiku (Nikolić-Ristanović, 2002: 13). Višegodišnja ekonomska kriza, opšte osiromašenje stanovništva, enormno povećanje broja nezaposlenih osoba, dolazak velikog broja izbeglica i dr., proizveli su “plodno tlo” da se nasilje u porodici razmahne i da njegova učestalost poprimi alar- mantna obeležja.

Sociološka istraživanja pokazuju da su protekla zbivanja i uslovi života na ovim pros- torima “ostavili duboke posledice na planu bio-socijalne reprodukcije porodica, koji teško da će moći biti zaceljeni u skoroj budućnosti. Društvu ostaje da se nosi sa brojnim i teškim posledicama negativnog demografskog salda u situaciji krajnjeg društvenog i individualnog siromaštva, što u svakom slučaju ne daje neke svetlije izglede za trajnije rešavanje problema” (Milić, 2002: 260). Zemlje u tranziciji su prolazile u jednom dugom vremenu, kako se desilo i u samoj Srbiji, kroz složene i međusobno povezane procese re-tradicionalizacije i re-patrijarhalizacije, što uzrokuje da se ženska moć, pre svega, ispoljava u privatnoj sferi, da jačaju maskuline vrednosti, da se odvija instrumentalizacija žena i podvođenje interesa žena interesima nacije, što je naročito vidljivo u demografs- kom diskursu, kada je reč o populaciji i fertilitetu, odnosno kada se insistira na “povratku žena” u porodicu ili u anti-abortus kampanjama (Blagojević, 2002: 294).

Istraživanja nasilja u porodici u oblasti kriminologije, sociologije i psihologije1 poka- zala su: da je porast nasilja u društvu direktno povezan sa porastom nasilja u porodici; da osoba može biti izložena nasilju u porodici tokom celog svog života; da su najčešće žrtve nasilja u porodici žene, deca i stare osobe; da je nasilje u porodici ponašanje u cilju uspostavljanja moći i/ili kontrole ili zadovoljenja nekih potreba nasilnika na štetu žrtve; da su posledice izloženosti nasilju brojne i da bitno utiču na mentalno zdravlje onih koji su neposredno izloženi nasilju, ali i onih koji ga posmatraju; da je nasilje u porodici rezu- ltat interaktivnog delovanja niza činilaca, individualnih i društvenih, i da nasilje doživl- jeno u detinjstvu doprinosi pribegavanju nasilja kao načinu rešavanja međuljudskih sukoba u odraslom dobu života (Ajduković, 2000: 11). Saglasno tome, nasilje u poro- dici određuje se kao kontinuirana primenu fizičke i psihičke sile prema članovima poro- dice, uz ugrožavanje i povređivanje domena sigurnosti i odnosa poverenja i ispoljavanje kontrole i moći nad članovima porodice, bez obzira na to da li je ovakvo ponašanje u

1 Istraživanja uzroka nasilja u porodici poslednjih decenija intenzivirana su i podstaknuta snažnim zahtevima društvenih pokreta, posebno ženskih pokreta za bitno drugačiji postupak i pronalaženje efikasnog društvenog odgovora na nasilje u porodici, da bi postala i deo feminističkog diskursa u teorijskim istraživanjima u oblasti kriminologije, sociologije i psihologije. Videti više: (Lukić, Jovanović, 2001:13);(Walsh,1997).

8 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi važećem zakonodavstvu predviđeno kao krivično delo i da li je izvršilac nasilja prijavljen organima gonjenja (Konstantinović-Vilić, Nikolić-Ristanović, 2003:128; Lukić, 2003:14).

U članu 3(a) Konvencije Saveta Evrope o sprečavanju i borbi protiv nasilja nad ženama i nasilja u porodici2 nasilje prema ženama se određuje kao „kršenje ljudskih prava i oblik dis- kriminacije prema ženama i predstavlja sva dela rodno zasnovanog nasilja koja dovode ili mogu da dovedu do: fizičke, seksualne, psihičke, odnosno finanijske povrede ili patnje žene, obuhvatajući i pretnje takvim delima, prinudu ili proizvoljno lišavanje slobode, bilo u jav- nosti, bilo u privatnom životu“. Član 3(b) definiše nasilje u porodici kao „svako delo fizič- kog, seksualnog, psihičkog, odnosno ekonomskog nasilja, do kojeg dolazi u okviru porodice ili domaćinstva, odnosno između bivših ili sadašnjih supružnika ili partnera, nezavisno od toiga da li učinilac deli ili je delio boravište sa žrtvom“. U okviru nasilja u porodici3, prema tekstu Konvencije, razlikuju se dva tipa nasilja: partnersko nasilje između sadašnjih odno- sno bivših supružnika odnosno partnera i međugeneracijsko nasilje, koje se najčešće javlja između roditelja i dece. Nasilje u partnerskom odnosu prepoznato je kao vid rodno odre- đenog nasilja, dok je međugeneracijsko nasilje u porodici određeno rodno neutralno, a obuhvata žrtve i učinioce oba pola (Ignjatović, Pavlović Babić, Lukić, 2015: 17).

Nasilje u porodici javlja se u nekoliko oblika: nasilje u braku, nasilje prema članovima zaje- dničkog domaćinstva i nasilje prema deci. Svaki od ovih oblika predstavlja povređivanje i ugrožavanje domena sigurnosti i odnosa poverenja između članova porodice, a mani- festuje moć i kontrolu nad žrtvom. Nasilje prema članovima porodice je najčešće duboko sakrivena tajna i članovi porodice o njemu ne govore javno, zato i govorimo o fenomenu „tamne brojke“ nasilja u porodici. Za članove porodice veoma je značajno da porodica prema spoljnoj okolini sačuva izgled stabilnosti i sigurnosti porodičnog života. Nasilnik se često ponaša drugačije, različito kada je u javnosti i kada je u svom porodičnom ili pri- vatnom okruženju, ispoljavajući svoju agresivnu prirodu u sopstvenoj kući. Veoma dugo važio je nepodeljen stav da su porodični odnosi strogo privatna sfera života i da je zaš- tita privatnosti mnogo značajnija od zaštite fizičkog i psihičkog integriteta člana porodice, žrtve nasilja. O nasilju u porodici, posebno nasilju u braku, još uvek postoji veliki broj ste- reotipa i predrasuda (Konstantinović Vilić, 2004: 76; Stošić, 2012: 32; Petrušić, Konstantinović Vilić, 2012:9). Ipak, danas je percepcija nasilja u porodici promenjena – to je danas društveni problem i oblik kriminaliteta, jer je postalo jasno da se, zbog posledica koje izaziva, ono ne sme društveno tolerisati, te da je aktivno suprotstavljanje nasilju jedna od osnovnih oba- veza svake demokratske države koja poštuje i štiti ljudska prava.

2 Sl. glasnik RS – Međunarodni ugovori. Br. 12/13. 3 Upotreba termina „nasilje u porodici“ (domestic violence), kao i „nasilje u intimnim partnerskim odno- sima“, ali i novijeg termina „rodno zasnovano nasilje“ (gender based violence) prikriva, međutim, njihovu rodnu dimenziju, odnosno činjenicu da su žene u znatno većem procentu, na specifičan način i sa ozbil- jnim posledicama, žrtve ovog vida nasilja. (Ignjatović, 2011:14).

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 9  Nema pouzdanih statističkih podataka o obimu nasilja u porodici, jer žrtve veoma retko same prijavljuju nasilje državnim organima gonjenja iz straha od osvete nasilnika, patrij- arhalnog stava da je žena uvek kriva za nasilje koje trpi, da treba da “ćuti ” i bude “lojalna” porodici i sl. Muškarci, ukoliko se pojave kao žrtve, uglavnom nikada ne prijavljuju nasilje, jer zbog ogromnog tereta tradicije i njenih kulturnih vrednosti žele da zadrže mit o svo- joj neprikosnovenoj moći i “glavnoj” ulozi u porodici. Među žrtvama uglavnom vlada strah da neće dobiti odgovarajuću zaštitu i da će prijavljivanje nasilja samo još više raz- besneti nasilnika i učiniti nasilje težim. Njihov strah je često opravdan, posebno ako reak- cija državnih institucija nije efikasna i delotvorna.

Istraživanja pokazuju da je u mnogim zemljama nasilje u porodici veoma rasprostranjeno i da ima ozbiljne posledice: u SAD 25% žena žrtava porodičnog nasilja bilo fizički mal- tretirano dok su bile u drugom stanju, da deca zlostavljanih majki imaju šest puta veću mogućnost da izvrše samoubistvo i pet puta veću mogućnost da koriste alkohol od dece čije majke nisu zlostavljane; u Velikoj Britaniji dešava se najmanje pola miliona slučajeva nasilja u porodici godišnje, a u 80% tih slučajeva radi se o ženama žrtvama (Inter-Balkan Conference on Legal Strategies to Combat Domestic Violence, 1997). Istraživanje koje je rađeno na nivou zemalja Evropske unije 2014. godine pokazuje da je nasilje nad ženama raširena, ali često neprijavljena, povreda ljudskih prava širom zemalja Evropske Unije. Otprilike 8% žena doživelo je fizičko i/ili seksualno nasilje u razdoblju pre sprovođenja intervjua u sklopu istraživanja 2014. godine, a jedna od tri žene doživela je neki oblik sek- sualnog i/ili fizičkog zlostavljanja od 15 godine života (Nasilje nad ženama: istraživanje provedeno diljem Europske unije. Kratki pregled rezultata, 2014: 9). Rezultati istraživanja Eurobarometra (Eurobarometer on gender-based violence, 2017) o rodno zasnovanom nasilju i nasilju u porodici, pokazuju da je 22% žena starijih od 15 godina imalo iskustva sa fizičkim i/ili seksualnim nasiljem od strane partnera, jedna od tri žene je imala iskustva sa fizičkim i/ili seksualnim nasiljem, a jedna od dvadeset žena je bila žrtva silovanja; 74% ispitanika/ca misli da je nasilje u porodici uobičajena pojava u društvu; 23% ispitanika/ ca poznaje žene iz svog okruženja koje su bile žrtve nasilja u porodici. Na pitanje „Zašto ljudi izbegavaju da govore o nasilju u porodici“, 26% ispitanika/ca je izjavilo „da ih se to ne tiče“, 18% smatra da nema dovoljno dokaza za postojanja nasilja u porodici, 16% misli „da situacija nije jasna“, a 16% „ne želi da prouzrokuje probleme“. Samo 12% ispitanika/ ca je izjavilo da je policiji prijavilo da u porodici nekog od poznanika sumnja da postoji nasilje. Što se tiče institucionalne pomoći žrtvama nasilja u porodici, 74% ispitanika/ca smatra da je takva pomoć žrtvama dostupna, dok 15% smatra da je nasilje u porodici pri- vatna stvar koja treba da se reši unutar porodice. Zaključak je da građani Evropske Unije prepoznaju porodično nasilje, ali da mnogi o tome ne govore.

Istraživanja sprovedena u našoj zemlji pokazuju da je obim nasilja relativno veliki, da ima sve ozbiljnije posledice i da su njegove žrtve mnogo češće žene i deca nego odrasli

10 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi muškarci. Najčešće žrtve nasilja u porodici su žene svih starosnih kategorija, iako i muš- karci, pre svega muška deca, mogu biti žrtve nasilja u porodici. Prema rezultatima istraži- vanja sprovedenog 1993. godine (Nikolić-Ristanović, 1994) više od polovine anketiranih žena (112 ili 58.3%) bile su žrtve neke vrste nasilja u braku; 94 ili 49% žena izjavilo je da je bilo psihički maltretirano u braku (teško vredjanje, namerno činjenje nečega što teško povredjuje, pretnje batinama i ubistvom); 36 ili 18.7% žena je fizički maltretirano, odnosno dobija batine od svojih muževa; 36 ili 18.7% žena su žrtve silovanja ili pokušaja silovanja od strane sopstvenih muževa. Fizičko zlostavljanje je obično praćeno drugim oblicima nasilja. Žene koje su bile tučene od strane svojih muževa istovremeno su bile žrtve psihičkog nasilja (38.9%), seksualnog nasilja (25%) ili i jednog i drugog (52.8%). Medjutim, žene nisu žrtve nasilja izvršenog samo od strane svojih muževa. One su žrtve nasilja koje vrše njihovi odrasli sinovi, svekar, svekrva i dr. Najčešći povodi za nasilje, prema izjavama samih žena žrtava nasilja su: svadje oko novca (14.3%), neslaganje sa roditeljima jednog od partnera (10.4%), svađe u vezi dece i muževljev alkoholizam i lju- bomora. Nasilničko ponašanje muža najčešće počinje pre zaključenja braka (13.4%), na samom početku braka (8.9%) ili posle rodjenja drugog deteta (4.5%) (Nikolić-Ristanović, 1994: 41-42).

Istraživanje nasilja u porodici u Vojvodini pokazalo je da Vojvodina spada u područja sa visokom stopom psihičkog i fizičkog nasilja. Više od polovine ispitivanih žena (uzo- rak je obuhvatio 516 žena iz sedam gradova Vojvodine) odgovorilo je da su posle svog punoletstva bile žrtve nekog od oblika nasilja u porodici. Pri tome, skoro svaka druga žena bila je žrtva psihičkog nasilja, skoro svakoj trećoj ženi je prećeno fizičkim nasiljem, a oko trećine je i postalo žrtva fizičkog nasilja. Skoro svaka peta žena bila je žrtva proga- njanjanja, a nešto manje od desetine žena odgovorilo je da su viktimizirane seksualnim nasiljem. Dominira partnersko nasilje, ali, pored njega, javlja se i nasilje koje vrše deca prema roditeljima, roditelji prema punoletnoj deci, kao i nasilje među srodnicima po taz- bini (Nikolić-Ristanović, 2010: 127).

Poslednjih godina povećan je broj slučajeva nasilja u porodici koji se završavaju smrtnim ishodom.4 Žrtve ubistava su najčešće žene koje su prethodno trpele nasilničko ponašanje svojih muževa ili drugih muških srodnika i koje nisu dobile odgovarajuću zaštitu od poli- cije, centara za socijalni rad i drugih državnih organa niti od ljudi iz svoje neposredne

4 Prema praćenju femicida od strane Mreže Žene protiv nasilja tokom 2017. godine, u Srbiji je ubijeno najmanje 26 žena u porodično-partnerskom kontekstu. Sve ubijene žene su poznavale učinioca, 23 žene su ubijene od strane partnera (bivših/sadašnjih, bračnih/vanbračnih), a tri od strane člana porodice. Najveći broj žena (12) usmrćen je nožem, deset vatrenim oružjem, jedna žena je udavljena, dok su tri usmrćene na drugi način. Devet žena je ubijeno u kući/stanu koji je delilo sa nasilnikom, pet u sopstvenoj kući/stanu, jedna u kući/stanu nasilnika, a 11 u drugim prostorima. Konstatuje se stalno povećanje broja ubijenih žena, bez adekvatnog društvenog odgovora. (www.zeneprotivnasilja.net/femicid-u-srbiji). Praćenje femicida vrši se na osnovu medijskih izveštaja, što svakako nije potpuna statistika i pravi poka- zatelj rasprostranjenosti ovog najtežeg oblika nasilja prema ženama i nasilja prema ženama u porodici.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 11  okoline. Žene su posebno ugrožene onda kada odluče da napuste svoje nasilne muževe. Žena koja trpi nasilje u braku, kojoj se obično postavlja pitanje zašto nije napustila nasil- nika ako joj se ne odgovara da bude sa njim i ako zaista trpi zlostavljanje, najčešće je žena koja je uhvaćena u zamku straha od ubistva prilikom napuštanja nasilnika. Poznato je iz slučajeva koji se prijavljuju SOS telefonima za žene i decu žrtve nasilja da nasilnik retko želi da se brak okonča. On je zavistan od veze sa žrtvom, jer u toj vezi on ostvaruje svoju moć.

U Srbiji od nedavno postoji relativno zadovoljavajući sistem pravne zaštite od nasilja u porodici. Ipak, povoljna zakonska rešenja i međuinstitucijska saradnja ne ostvaruju brz i pozitivan efekat, s obzirom da negativni trendovi u masovnoj kulturi, kulturno prihvaćeni obrazac nasilja, teško stanje u ekonomiji, globalni i lokalni porast nasilja i kriminaliteta, nekonzistentne socijalne politike i prakse, i dr. idu u prilog opšteg porasta nasilja, pa i nasilja nad ženama i decom. To potvrđuju nalazi sadržani u službenim izveštajima držav- nih organa, u nezavisnim izveštajima ženskih nevladinih organizacija (Jovanović, Višn- jić, Ignjatović, Macanović, 2009: 25-26; Jovanović, Simeunović-Patić, Macanović, 2012), ali i u zaključnim komentarima Komiteta za eliminaciju diskriminacije žena upućenim Srbiji (CEDAW), u kojima se, pored ostalog, država podstiče da pojača svoje napore u prevazilaženju stereotipnih stavova prema ulogama i odgovornostima žena i muškaraca u porodici i u društvu, te da nastavi sa sprovođenjem mera za eliminaciju rodnih stereo- tipa promovisanjem pozitivne slike i suštinske ravnopravnosti žena.5

Dosadašnja istraživanja pravne prakse procesuiranja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici u Srbiji pokazala su da postoji neadekvatna i neblagovremena reakcija institucija na nasilje u porodici, što često dovodi do sekundarne viktimizacije žrtava (Lukić, Jova- nović, 2001; Konstantinović Vilić, Petrušić, 2007; Jovanović, Simeunović-Patić, Macanović, 2012). Najčešće izostaje blagovremena intervencija policije prilikom ispoljavanja lakših oblika nasilja (uvrede, pretnje, omalovažavcanja, drsko i bezobzirno ponašanje i slični oblici psihičkog nasilja), pa žrtva, posle prijavljivanja odustaje od traženja dalje zaštite. Osim toga, vrlo često se ne pruža podrška i pomoć žrtvama nasilja u porodici od strane centara za socijalni rad, koji bi trebalo da deluju sinhronizovano sa policijom, već se ponekad savetuje očuvanje i održavanje partnerske veze. Kada je reč o krivičnom proce- suiranju dela nasilja u porodici, podaci govore da se muškarci češće hapse, da im se češće određuje pritvor i da im se češće izriče kazna nego ženama počiniteljkama ovog oblika nasilja. Sudovi češće izriču kaznu zatvora u slučajevima u kojima je krivično delo nasilja u porodici tretirano kao deo šireg konteksta drugotrajnog nasilja, a na određivanje prit- vora i kažnjvanje utiče težina izvršenog nasilja, kao i zlostavljanje drugih članova porod- ice S druge strane, alkoholizam ima značajan uticaj na odluku policije o hapšenju i

5 Videti: Zaključna zapažanja o kombinovanom Drugom i Ttrećem periodičnom izveštaju Republike Srbije, Komitet za eliminaciju diskriminacije žena, CEDAW, /C/SRB/CO/2-3, od 22. 07. 2013. godine.

12 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi odluku suda o određivanju pritvora, ali ne i na odluke o kazni ili uslovnoj osudi. (Niko- lić-Ristanović, 2013: 44).

Iskustvo pokazuje da su seksistički stavovi profesionalaca koji neposredno rade na sluča- jevima nasilja u porodici, ključni uzroci institucionalne diskriminatorne prakse koja se ispoljava u tretmanu žena žrtava porodičnog nasilja (Petrušić, Konstantinović Vuilić, Žunić, 2015, 31-45; Mršević, 2014). Nesumnjivo je, stoga, da pored unapređenja zakono- davnog i institucionalnog okvira, mora da postoji i šira društvena podrška sprečavanju nasilja u porodici, kao deo kulturnog sistema vrednosti – da ono nije društveno prih- vatljivo, odnosno, da se u društvu stvori „klima nulte tolerancije na nasilje“. Ostvarivanje ovog cilja nije moguće bez uklanjanja suštinskih uzroka nasilja nad ženama, što podra- zumeva suzbijanje diskriminacije žena, eliminisanje postojeće rodne hijerarhije, mar- ginalizacije žena i strukturalne rodne nejednakosti, prevazilaženje ideologije seksizma, stereotipnih društvenih i kulturoloških stavova o rodu i uspostavljanje stvarne ravno- pravnosti žena i muškaraca (Petrušić, Konstantinović Vuilić, Žunić, 2015, 44).

2. Geneza izgradnje domaćeg sistema pravne zaštite od nasilja u porodici

Nasilje u porodici je socijalno-patološka pojava koju je naše društvo decenijama margin- alizovalo i ignorisalo. Patrijarhalna shvatanja o odnosu polova i roditeljstvu, koja su još uvek dominantna u našoj sredini, predstavljaju jedan od osnovnih razloga zbog kojih porodično nasilje dugo nije smatrano ozbiljnim oblikom nasilja, već uobičajenim i soci- jalno prihvatljivim ponašanjem. Uprkos tome što je tokom poslednjih dvadeset godina društvene krize u Srbiji nasilje u porodici poprimilo dramatičan obim i dinamiku (Niko- lić-Ristanović 2002: 13), čemu su posebno doprineli višegodišnja ekonomska kriza, opšte osiromašenje stanovništva, enormno povećanje broja nezaposlenih osoba, dolazak velikog broja izbeglica i dr., sve do 2002. godine nisu postojali adekvatni pravni meha- nizmi za sprečavanje i suzbijanje nasilja u porodici.6

Zahvaljujući, pre svega, dugogodišnjim nastojanjima ženskih NVO da porodično nasilje učine društveno vidljivim i njihovom sistematskom javnom zagovaranju i lobiranju za usvajanje odgovarajućih zakonskih rešenja u Srbiji je uspostavljen valjan pravni okvir za sprečavanje, suzbijanje i zaštitu žrtava nasilja u porodici.

6 O problemima u reagovanju institucija sistema na nasilje u povom periodu, videti (Ćopić, 2002:63-73)

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 13  Prvi korak, u izgradnji koherentnog sistema zaštite od nasilja u porodici,7 učinjen je donošenjem Zakona o izmenama i dopunama Krivičnog zakona Republike Srbije8. Stupanjem na snagu ovog zakona, nasilje u porodici inkriminisano je kao posebno kriv- ično delo (čl. 118a), čime je ustanovljena represivna, krivičnopravna zaštita od nasilja u porodici. Propisivanje nasilja u porodici kao krivičnog dela članom 118a Zakona o izmenama i dopunama Krivičnog zakona Republike Srbije 2002. godine, psihički i fizički integritet članova porodice dobio je potpuniju zaštitu. Osim toga, zakonodavac je na ovaj način nedvosmisleno pokazao da bračni i porodični odnosi u kojima postoji nasilje nisu više privatna stvar patrijarhalne i tradicionalne porodice, već razlog za opravdanu represivnu reakciju organa državne prinude.

Odredbama čl. 118a bila su predviđena četiri oblika krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici počev od najlakšeg (povreda ili ugrožavanje telesnog ili duševnog integriteta člana porodice upotrebom sile ili ozbiljne pretnje), do najtežeg (smrt člana porodice). Pred- viđene kazne za pojedine oblike ovog krivičnog dela kretale su se od novčane kazne do kazne zatvora najmanje deset godina. Zakon nije precizno odredio pojam „člana porod- ice“ i u praksi je ostalo otvoreno pitanje tumačenja ove odrednice. Najčešće se pojam „član porodice“ tumačio restriktivno, što je dovelo do sužavanja dometa krivičnopravne zaštite od nasilja u porodici, te su u praksi izvan ovog sistema pravne zaštite ostali van- bračni, razvedeni i rastavljeni supružnici, lica koja su bila u emocionalnoj vezi i lica u fak- tičkoj zajednici. Takođe, nije bilo zakonskih mogućnosti za izricanje zaštitnih mera niti mera bezbednosti, zbog čega je ocenjeno da se, uprkos nesumnjivom značaju nove ink- riminacije, teško „može govoriti o postojanju osnova za postizanje adekvatne pravne zaštite žrtava nasilja u porodici“ (Nikolić-Ristanović, 2003: 10).

Kao rezultat reforme krivičnog zakonodavstva i njegovog usklađivanja sa međunarod- nim i evropskim standardima donet je 2005. godine Krivični zakonik Republike Srbije, koji je predviđao krivično delo nasilja u porodici u čl. 194 u okviru Glave devetnaeste „Krivična dela protiv braka i porodice“.9 U odnosu na raniji zakonski tekst, došlo je do smanjenja visine predviđenih kazni zatvora za sve oblike izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilje u porodici dela i propisan je, pored postojeća četiri, i peti oblik izvršenja krivičnog dela – kršenje izrečene porodičnopravne mere zaštite od nasilja u porodici (čl. 194. st. 5. KZ).

Sledeća novela Krivičnog zakonika Republike Srbije10 donela je nekoliko novina: iz st. 1 čl. 194. izbačeno je „drsko“ ponašanje; definisano je ko se smatra „članom porodice“, pov- ećana je visina kazni za sve oblike krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici i uvedena je mera

7 O potrebi ustanovljavanja sistema zaštite od nasilja u porodici koji je zasnovan na prožimanju preven- tivnih i represivnih mera, detaljno videti (Petrušić, 2003: 195-216) 8 Sl. glasnik RS. 10/02. Zakon je počeo da se primenjuje 9. 03. 2002. godine. 9 Sl. glasnik RS, 85/05, 88/05. (ispravka), 107/05 (ispravka). 10 Sl. glasnik RS, 72/09.

14 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi bezbednosti zabrana približavanja i komunikacije sa oštećenim. Najnovijim važećim krivičnim zakonikom Republike Srbije11 ponovo je u st. 1 predviđeno „drsko“ ponašanje kojim se ugrožava spokojstvo, telesni integritet ili duševno stanje člana porodice. Ostale odredbe koje se odnose na druge oblike nasilja u porodici, vrstu i visinu kazne, mere bezbednosti i određivanje ko se smatra članom porodice nisu menjane.12

U procesu ustanovljavanja sistema pravne zaštite od nasiqa u porodici poseban značaj ima donošenje Porodičnog zakona Republike Srbije13, koji je počeo da se primenjuje 1. jula 2005. godine. Ovim zakonom, zaokružen je sistem zaštite od nasilja tako što je zakonodavac izričito zabranio nasilje u porodici i članovima porodice priznao pravo na zaštitu od nasilja u porodici (čl. 10. PZ RS), regulisao preventivne, porodičnopravne mere zaštite i uslove pod kojima se one određuju (čl. 197 - 200. PZ) i predvideo i uredio pose- ban postupak po čijim se pravilima postupa u parnici koja se vodi radi zaštite od nasilja u porodici (čl. 283-289. PZ).

Inkriminacija nasilja u porodici je u međuvremenu pretrpela više izmena usvajanjem Krivičnog zakonika 2005. godine i Zakona o izmenama i dopunama Krivičnog zakonika 2009. U nastojanju da se uspostavi koordinisano delovanje institucija sistema u spreča- vanju i zaštiti od nasilja u porodici, 2016. godine usvojen je Zakon o sprečavanju nasilja u porodici. Ovim zakonom regulisano je postupanje državnih organa i ustanova u spreča- vanju nasilja u porodici i pružanju zaštite i podrške žrtvama nasilja u porodici.

Država je ratifikovala skoro sve međunarodne ugovore u oblasti ljudskih prava i rodne ravnopravnosti. Usvojeni su brojni strateški dokumenti i protokoli, koji su sukcesivno donošeni počev od 2008. godine. U Konvenciji Saveta Evrope o sprečavanju i borbi protiv nasilja nad ženama i nasilja u porodici iz 2011. godine (Istambulska konvencija), koju je Srbija ratifikovala 2013. godine,14 ustanovljeni su pravno obavezujući standardi za zaštitu žena od nasilja u porodici, ukazuje se da su rodne predrasude i nedostatak potrebnih znanja o rodnoj (ne)ravnopravnosti i rodno zasnovanom nasilju ozbiljna pre- preka za uspostavljanje delotvornog sistema zaštite od nasilja u porodici. Saglasno tome, od država članica očekuje se da u skladu sa standardom “potpune posvećenosti”

11 Sl. glasnik RS, 85/05, 88/05 – ispravka, 107/05 ispravka, 72/09, 111/09, 121/12, 104/13, 108/14, 94/2016. 12 Videti više pod tačkom 3. 13 Sl. glasnik RS. 18/05. u daljem tekstu PZ. 14 Zakon o potvrđivanju Konvencije Saveta Evrope o sprečavanju i borbi protiv nasilja nad ženama i nasilja u porodici, Sl. glasnik RS – Međunarodni ugovori, br 012/2013.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 15  (“due diligence”)15 rade na iskorenjivanju seksizma i uspostavljaju de iure i de facto rodne ravnopravnosti. To, pored ostalog, podrazumeva preduzimanje neophodnih mera u promociji promena društvenih i kulturnih obrazaca ponašanja žena i muškaraca, sa cil- jem iskorenjivanja predrasuda, običaja, tradicije i drugih praksi, koje se zasnivaju na ideji inferiornosti žena, odnosno na stereotipnim ulogama žena i muškaraca.16 Ratifikacijom Istambulske konvencije Srbija se obavezala da će preduzimanjem odgovarajućih mera sprečiti svaki vid diskriminacije žena, što uključuje i sprečavanje i zaštitu od rodno zasno- vanog nasilja. To, pored ostalog, podrazumeva dužnost države preduzima sve potrebne mere u ciju promene socijalnih i kulturnih modela ponašanja i eliminisanja stereotipa o ulozi polova u društvu.17

15 Termin „potpuna posvećenost“ prevod je engleskog izraza „due diligence“, koji je upotrebljen u Istan- bulskoj konvenciji. „Due diligence“se još prevodi i kao „dužna prilježnost“ i „dužna pažnja“. Ovaj koncept se pojavljuje u dokumentima o ljudskim pravima i njime se izražava obaveza države da sprečava kršenje ljudskih prava koja vrše privatna lica putem preventivnog delovanja, sprečavanja povreda, sankcioni- sanja izvršilaca (otkrivanje, procesuiranje i kažnjavanje), kao i da žrtvama pruži adekvatno obeštećenje. U praksi medjunarodnih institucija primena ovog koncepta veoma je složena jer se mora dokazati da država nije postupala u skladu sa standardom „potune posvećenosti“, da njene institucije nisu predu- zele sve potrebne mere prevencije, a da su u konkretnom slučaju morali i mogli da preduzmu mere za sprečavanje i kažnjavanje počinioca nasilnog akta (Branković, 2013:38- 39). Овај стандард je pрви пут је upotrebljen u Interameričkom sudu za ljudska prava 1988. godine u predmetu Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras. Sud je u ovom predmetu državu oglasio odgovornom pozivajući se na standard „dužne pažnje“, ističući da nezakonit akt kojim se krše ljudska prava i koji ne može biti pripisan državi može do vesti do odgovornosti države, ne zbog takvog nezakonitog akta, već zbog tog što je država propustila da takav nezakonit akt spreči (Hasellbacher, (2010). Standard “potpuna posvećenost” ključni je kriteri- jum koji koristi CEDAW komitet u ostvarivanju svoje nadzorne funkcije nad primenom Konvencije: kada razmatra izveštaje država članica, ali i kada, na osnovu Opcionog protokola uz Konvenciju o eliminisanju svih oblika diskriminacije žena, postupa po individualnim predstavkama i sprovodi istrage o teškom ili sistematskom kršenju prava. Kao jedan od važnih indikatora, CEDAW komitet uzima u obzir i delovanje vlasti na planu suzbijanju rodnih stereotipa i tradicionalnih obrazaca o ulogama i obavezama žena i muškaraca u porodici i društvu, kao i delovanje u domenu edukacije i obuke sudija, policijskih službe- nika i predstavnika organa javne vlasti u cilju razumevanja rodnih dimenzija nasilja u porodici, njegovih uzroka i posledica. Tako je, na primer, u predmetu A.T. v. Hungary, (CEDAW Communication No. 2/2003, U.N. Doc. CEDAW/C/32/D/2/2003 (2005), http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cedaw/decisions/2-2003.html) postupajući po predstavci gospođe A.T. koja je, kao žrtva višegodišnjeg partnerskog nasilja, pritužbu podnela zbog kršenja prava na delotvornu zaštitu od nasilja u porodici, Komitet utvrdio da “pravni i insti- tucionalni sistem Mađarske još uvijek nije spreman da obezbedi međunarodno očekivanu, koordiniranu, sveobuhvatnu i efikasnu zaštitu i podršku žrtvama nasilja u porodici”, nalazeći da su deo uzroka takvog stanja „ukorenjeni tradicionalni stereotipi u pogledu uloga i obaveza žena i muškaraca u okviru porodice [...], kao i odnos i ponašanje prema ženama u celoj državi”. Standard „dužne pažnje“ koristi i Evropski sud za ljudska prava. O tome, šire: (Petrušić, Konstantinović Vilić, Žunić, 2015). 16 Čl. 12. Istanbulske konvencije. Pored toga, u čl. 6. države su obavezane da vode rodno osetljive politike, što podrazumeva uključivanje pitanja roda u primeni i proceni uticaja odredbi konvencije na promociji i delotvornoj primeni politika jednakosti između žena i muškaraca i osnaživanja žena. (Branković, 2013). 17 U čl. 5. CEDAW navedeno je da države članice treba da preduzimaju sve podesne mere radi izmene dru- štvenih i kulturnih običaja u pogledu ponašanja muškaraca i žena da bi se otklonile predrasude, kao i uobičajena i svaka druga praksa zasnovana na shvatanju o inferiornosti ili superiornosti jednog ili drugog pola ili tradicionalnoj ulozi muškaraca, odnosno žena.

16 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi U prvoj Nacionalnoj strategija za poboljšanje položaja žena i unapređivanje rodne ravno- pravnosti (2009 - 2015)18 jedan od posebnih ciljeva jeste prevencija i suzbijanje svih vidova nasilja nad ženama i obezbeđivanje sveobuhvatnog sistema zaštite za žene žrtve nasilja. U drugoj Nacionalnoj strategiji za rodnu ravnopravnost za period od 2016. do 2020. godine,19 kao jedan od posebnih ciljeva utvrđena je povećana sigurnost žena od rodno zasnova- nog nasilja u porodici i u partnerskim odnosima.

Način postupanja i saradnja institucija na sprečavanju i zaštiti žrtva od nasilja u porodici utvrđen je Opštim protokolom o postupanju i saradnji ustanova, organa i organizacija u situacijama nasilja nad ženama u porodici i u partnerskim odnosima Vlade Republike Srbije iz 2011. kao i posebnim protokolima: Posebni protokol Ministarstva rada, zapošlja- vanja i socijalne politike Vlade Republike Srbije o postupanju centara za socijalni rad – organa starateljstva u slučajevima nasilja u porodici i ženama u partnerskim odnosima (2013), Posebni protokol Ministarstva unutrašnjih poslova Vlade Republike Srbije o postupanju policijskih službenika u slučajevima nasilja nad ženama u porodici i u partnerskim odnosima (2013), Posebni protokol Ministarstva zdravlja Vlade Republike Srbije o postupanju u slučaje- vima nasilja nad ženama u porodici i u partnerskim odnosima (2010) i Posebni protokol za pravosuđe u slučajevima nasilja nad ženama u porodici i partnerskim odnosima (2014). Na nivou AP Vojvodine 2008. godine usvojena je Strategija za zaštitu od nasilja u porodici i drugih oblika rodno zasnovanog nasilja u AP Vojvodini za period od 2008. do 2012. godine, a 2014. godine usvojen je Program za zaštitu žena od nasilja u porodici i partnerskim odno- sima i drugih oblika rodno zasnovanog nasilja u AP Vojvodini za period od 2015. do 2020.

Iako na nivou države još uvek ne postoji centralizovani sistem prikupljanja podataka o nasilju u porodici koji bi pružio pouzdan uvid u rasprostranjenost nasilja u porodici, podaci koje prikupljaju institucije i ženske NVO pokazuju da je nasilje u porodici je i dalje široko rasprostranjeno i da postaje sve brutalnije. Njegove najčešće žrtve su žene, deca i nemoćne osobe, što potvrđuje da je nasilje u porodici zasnovano na rodnoj određeno- sti i da je omogućeno rodnom diskriminacijom i nedostatkom društvene odgovornosti za nasilje nad onima koji nemaju moć, niti sposobnost da mu se odupru. Među žrtvama nasilja u porodici evidentiranim u sistemu socijalne zaštite, žene čine 79,6% žrtava Žene čine 75% oštećenih u pravosnažno okončanim krivičnim postupcima vođenim zbog kriv- ičnog dela nasilje u porodici. Čak 54, % žena živi sa nekim iskustvima porodičnog nasilja tokom svog života (Babović, Ginić, Vuković, 2010: 89).

Jedan od ključnih segmenata uspešne borbe protiv nasilja u porodici jeste krivično- pravna zaštita. Ovaj oblik zaštite ostvaruje se u krivičnom postupku, koji se vodi pro- tiv lica okrivljenih za izvršenje krvičnog dela nasilja u porodici. Stepen delotvornosti i

18 Sl. glasnik RS, br. 15/2009. 19 Sl. glasnik RS, br. 4/2016.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 17  efikasnosti krivičnopravne zaštite od nasilja u porodici nije na zadvovoljavajućem novou. Na to je ukazao i CEDAW komitet u Zaključnim komentarima na kombinovani Drugi i treći periodični izveštaj Srbije.

Izgradnja zakonskih instrumenata za zaštitu od nasilja u porodici predstavlja ispunjavanje međunarodne obaveze države da zaštiti pravo na život, slobodu i ličnu sigurnost svojih građana, da spreči nasilje, bez obzira gde se ono događa, te da osobama koje su preživele nasilje pruži sveobuhvatnu pravu zaštitu, socijalnu pomoć i podršku radi izlaska iz situacije nasilja i ublažavanja štetnih posledica koje ono izazvalo. S druge strane, stvaranje odgo- varajućih mehanizama zaštite od nasilja u porodici predstavlja ispunjavanje međunarod- nih obaveza države na planu eliminisanja nasilja u porodici kao rodno baziranog nasilja koje žene drži u podređenom položaju u odnosu na muškarce i ozbiljno umanjuje njihovu mogućnost da ravnopravno sa muškarcima uživaju ljudska prava i slobode.20

3. Aktuelna krivična regulativa

U pozitivnom pravu Srbije krivično delo nasilja u porodici inkriminisano je Krivičnim zakonikom Republike Srbije, kojim je krivično delo nasilja u porodici predviđeno je u čl. 194, u okviru Glave devetnaeste – „Krivična dela protiv braka i porodice“.

Odredbama čl. 194. KZ RS predviđeno je pet oblika krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici. Svaki od oblika podrazumeva primenu fizičkog i psihičkog nasilja, ali ne i ekonomskog i seksualnog21 (regulisano je drugim odredbama KZ u Glavi osamnaestoj – krivična dela protiv polne slobode) i ukazuje na ugrožavanje spokojstva, telesnog integriteta ili dušev- nog stanja člana porodice.

Radnja prvog, osnovnog oblika krivičnog dela sastoji se iz nekoliko alternativno pred- viđenih radnji izvršenja: primena nasilja, pretnja da će se napasti na život ili telo, drsko ili bezobzirno ponašanje (čl.194 st.1 KZ RS). Posledica dela se ispoljava u vidu konkretne opasnosti, koja se sastoji u ugrožavanju spokojstva, telesnog integriteta ili duševnog stanja člana porodice, kao i u nanošenju vidljivih povreda na telu žrtve koje se mogu

20 „Nasilje nad ženama ... je ispoljavanje istorijski nejednakog odnosa snaga između žena i muškaraca, koji je doveo do muške dominacije nad ženama i do njihove diskriminacije od strane muškaraca, što kao ishod ima sprečavanje potpunog napredovanja žena i činjenicu da je nasilje nad ženama jedan od presudnih mehani- zama putem kojeg se žene prisiljavaju na prihvatanje položaja podređenosti u odnosu na muškarce“ (Dekla- racija o eliminisanju porodičnog nasilja nad ženama (1993). Videti i: Preporuka br. 19 CEDAW Komiteta za eliminisanje svih oblika nasilja nad ženama (1992), Pekinšku deklaraciju i platformu za akciju (1995), Preporuka odbora ministara Veća Evrope zemljama članicama za zaštitu žena od nasilja (Rec2002/5). O međunarodnim standardima zaštite od nasilja prema ženama, detaljno: (Mršević, 2000; Konstantinović Vilić, Petrušić, Žunić, 1999; Ignjatović, 2005; Konstantinović Vilić, Petrušić, 2010:93-120). 21 Zakon o zaštiti od nasilja u obitelji Hrvatske, usvojen 14. 7. 2003. godine (Narodne novine, 116/03), u čl. 4. prilikom definisanja nasilja u porodici navodi kao oblik nasilja i „spolno uznemiravanje“.

18 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi kvalifikovati kao lake telesne povrede, koje se dokazuju lekarskim uverenjem i mogu biti i predmet veštačenja.

Nasilje može da se javi kao: fizičko, seksualno, psihološko, emocionalno i ekonomsko nasilje. U čl.194 KZ RS inkriminisano je fiziko i psihološko i emocionalno nasilje, ekon- omsko nasilje nije posebno inkriminisano, ali se može u širem kontekstu tumačiti kao psihološko nasilje, dok je seksualno nasilje inkriminisano u Glavi XVIII kao krivična dela protiv polne slobode.

Fizičko nasilje u okviru odredbe čl. 194 st.1 sastoji se u primeni fizičke sile, kojom se žrtvi nanosi laka telesna povreda ili pokušava da nanese laka telesna povreda, odnosno ugrožava se telesni integritet bez nanošenja povreda. Može se izvršiti se na različite načine i upotrebom različitih srestava, obuhvata: batinjanje, udaranje pesnicama po glavi i telu, čupanje kose, paljenje, šutiranje, davljenje, bacenje na pod, polivanje vre- lom vodom, benzinom, nanošenje opekotina cikaretom, lomljenje ruke, nosa, vilice, uda- ranje kaišem, drvenim, metalnim ili drugim predmetima itd. Znaci fizičkog zlostavljanja najčešće su vidljivi i manifestuju se kao: povrede na licu, grudnom košu, rukama, nog- ama, stomaku, u vidu hematoma, ogrebotina, posekotina, opekotina, preloma kostiju, izbijanja zuba, tragova gušenja na vratu, povređivanja bubne opne itd. Za indikaciju ispoljenog fizičlkog nasilja nije neophdno postojanje vidljivih promena na telu žrtve, koje se obično dokazuju lekarskim uverenjem i mogu biti predmet veštačenja. Ukoliko nema vidljivih promena na telu žrtve, dokazivanje postojanja fizikog nasilja postiže se svim drugim raspoloživim dokaznim sredstvima.

Iako se u praksi fizičko nasilje, po pravilu, vrši kontinuirano u dužem vremenskom peri- odu, pojedinačni akt fizičkog nasilja, sam po sebi, predstavlja dovoljan pravni osnov za pokretanje krivičnog postupka za zaštitu od nasilja u porodici. Ukoliko u takvim slučaje- vima javni tužilac ne pokrene krivični postupak, nasilnik, osnažen činjenicom da je pri- mena nasilja legalna i legitimna, može ponoviti nasilje i to u opasnijem vidu i izazvati teže posledice.

Psihološko nasilje se sastoji u vređanju, klevetanju, pretnji upotrebom sile, pretnji da će se oduzeti deca, izolaciji i kontroli žrtve, zastrašivanju, omalovažavanju, ruganju, iza- zivanju osećanja lične nesigurnosti, stalnom zlonamernom kritikovanju, zloupotrebi pov- erenja, emotivnoj rezervisanosti, emocionalnom ucenjivanju i sl. (Konstantinović-Vilić, Petrušić, 2007:29).

Emocionalno nasilje obuhvata neiskazivanje ljubavi i pažnje, odbacivanje, zanemarivanje emotivnih potreba člana porodice itd. Emocionalno nasilje može da bude i duhovno i ono se sastoji u sistematskom ismevanju ili uništavanju religijskih ili kulturnih uverenja (Jova- nović, 2010: 174).

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 19  Ekonomsko nasilje se sastoji u oduzimanju materijalnih sredstava, uslovljavanju novčanih davanja, onemogućavanje pristupa zajedničkim izvorima prihoda i sl. Ekon- omsko nasilje nije posebno navedeno u opisu osnovnog oblika krivičnog dela. Ali, s obzirom da različiti vidovi ispoljavanja ekonomskog nasilja (nasilno oduzimanje novca i vrednih stvari, kontrolisanje zarada i primanja, trošenje novca isključivo radi zadovol- jenja sopstvenih potreba, zabrana članu porodice da se zaposli i ostvari sopstvene pri- hode, uništenje ili oštećenje imovine i sl.) mogu da dovedu do ugrožavanja spokojstva i duševnog stanja člana porodice, nesumnjivo je da bi pod nasiljem u porodici u smislu inkriminacije iz čl. 194 KZ trebalo podrazumevati i oblike ekonomskog nasilja.

Navedeni oblici nasilja retko se manifestuju samostalno, najčešće dolazi do kombinacije ili istovremenog ispoljavanja dva ili više oblika.

Pretnja da će se napasti na život ili telo predstavlja oblik ispoljavanja psihičkog nasilja. Ona treba da bude objektivno ozbiljna i da subjektivno izazove osećanje ugrožene sig- urnosti. Subjektivno osećanje ugrožene sigurnosti zavisi od psihičkih karakteristika lica kome se preti, što znači da jedna ista pretnja neće izazvati isti osećaj ugrožavanja sig- urnosti kod lica sa različitim psihičkim osobinama.

Pod bezobzirnim ponašanjem podrazumeva se svako ponašanje koje znatno odstupa od uobičajenog ponašanja u okviru porodice i ispoljava se kao netrpeljivost, mržnja, omalovažavanje, prezir, manifestovanje moći i kontrole nad žrtvom. Ovo je jedan pravni standard čiju sadržinu popunjava sud u svakom konkretnom slučaju. Tom prilikom treba da se vodi računa o „nultoj toleranciji“ na nasilje, što znači da visoki individualni prag tol- erancije na nasilje kod žrtve ne bi trebalo da bude odlučujući kritierijum prilikom pre- poznavanja postojanja nasilja u porodici.

Ugrožavanje se sastoji u izazivanju opasnosti po zaštićeno dobro i stvaranju mogućno- sti da dođe do povrede zaštićenog dobra. To znači da ugrožavanje na neki način pre- thodi neposrednom ispoljavanju nasilja i predstavlja konkretnu opasnost da se nasilje zaista ispolji.

Kao jedan od oblika ispoljavanja psihičkog nasilja može da se javi i proganjanje ili uhođenje. Ovaj oblik psihičkog nasilja nije inkriminisan u našem krivičnopravnom zakonodavstvu u okviru odredbi o nasilju u porodici u čl. 194 KZ, već je proganjanje najnovijim izmenama Krivičnog zakonika predviđeno kao posebno krivično delo u Glavi XIV u okviru krivičnih dela protiv sloboda i prava čoveka i građanina (čl. 138a).22 Progan- janje se u većini slučajeva dešava između osoba koje su u partnerskom odnosu ili su ranije bile u partnerskom odnosu, što znači da počinje da se manifestuje tokom trajanja

22 Sl. glasnik RS, br. 85/05, 88/05 - ispr., 107/05 - ispr., 72/09, 111/09, 121/12, 104/13, 108/14 i 94/16

20 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi partnerske veze ili kada se ona prekine. Slično kao kod nasilja u porodici, kod progan- janja nasilnik koristi različita sredstva i primenjuje različite forme proganjanja (telefon- ski pozivi, slanje pisama i poklona, slanje SMS poruka i e-mail poruka i dr.) da bi ostvario i zadržao kontrolu nad žrtvom. (Nikolić-Ristanović, Kovačević-Lepojević, 2007: 6). Za raz- liku od Krivičnog zakonika Srbije, Zakon o zaštiti od nasilja u obitelji Hrvatske23 u okviru definicije nasilja u porodici uključuje „uhođenje i sve druge načine uznemiravanja“ (čl.4). Zakon o zaštiti od nasilja u obitelji Federacije BIH24 takođe predviđa kao oblik nasilja u porodici „uhođenje i sve druge slične oblike uznemiravanja drugog člana obitelji“ (čl.6).

Za postojanje krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 KZ RS bitno je da se radnja pre- duzima prema određenom pasivnom subjektu – članu svoje porodice. Ranije važeći Kriv- ični zakonik nije precizirao ko se smatra članom porodice, već je u čl. 112 st. 28. KZ RS, navodio da se članovima porodice smatraju i bivši supružnici i njihova deca, kao i roditelji bivših supružnika. Ova odredba, inače, opšteg karaktera, bila je sadržana je u Glavi XII KZ RS, pod marginalnim naslovom „Značenje izraza“. Na taj način je zakonodavac sta- tus člana porodice priznavao samo sadašnjim ili bivšim supružnicima, njihovoj deci i roditeljima. Nepostojanje jasnih pravila o tome koja lica uživaju krivičnopravnu zaštitu od nasilja u porodici predstavljao je jedan je od ključnih problema u pravnoj praksi, koji je zakonodavac ostavio otvorenim, uprkos tome što je na ovaj problem ukazala i teorija i pravna praksa (Konstntinović-Vilić, Petrušić, 2004: 164; 2007:109).

Važeći Krivični zakonik otklanja dilemu u pogledu tumačenja ko se smatra članom poro- dice. Krivični zakonik u čl. 112, tač. 28., pod marginalnim naslovom „Značenje izraza u ovom zakoniku“, određuje da se članom porodice smatraju: supružnici, njihova deca, preci supružnika u pravoj liniji krvnog srodstva, vanbračni partneri i njihova deca, usvo- jilac i usvojenik, hranilac i hranjenik. Članovima porodice smatraju se i braća i sestre, nji- hovi supružnici i deca, bivši supružnici i njihova deca i roditelji bivših supružnika, ako žive u zajedničkom domaćinstvu, kao i lica koja imaju zajedničko dete ili je dete na putu da budu rođeno iako nikada nisu živeli u istom porodičnom domaćinstvu. Određivan- jem „članova porodice“ na ovaj način, Krivični zakonik isključuje iz krivičnopravne zaštite od nasilja u porodici bivše supružnike koji ne žive u zajedničkom domaćinstvu i nemaju zajedničko dete, bivše vanbračne partnere, koji mogu da žive u zajedničkom domaćin- stvu, ali se ipak ne smatraju članovima porodice, kao i roditelje vanbračnih partnera. Prihvatanjem ovakvog rešenja, ne uvažavaju se zahtevi postavljeni u međunarodnim dokumentima u kojima se insistira na pružanje posebne zaštite bivšim bračnim i van- bračnim partnerima, bez obzira na to da li žive u zajedničkom domaćinstvu ili ne. Takođe se zanemaruje činjenica, potvrđena istraživanjima, da nasilje u porodici ne prestaje odmah čim dođe do prekidanja bračne ili vanbračne zajednice.

23 Narodne novine, br. 116/03. 24 Službene novine Federacije BIH, br. 22/05

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 21  Postavlja se pitanje da li je za postojanje krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 KZ RS, kako osnovnog tako i ostalih oblika, neophodno da postoji kontinuitet u ispolja- vanju nasilja. Prema kriminološkim shvatanjima (Walker, 1979:46; Konstantinović-Vilić, Nikolić-Ristanović, 2003:128), žena se smatra zlostavljanom ukoliko prođe kroz ciklus zlo- stavljanja bar dva puta, a nasilje u porodici se definiše kao kontinuirana primena fizičke i psihičke sile prema članovima porodice. U praksi je ovakav stav bio dominatan u počet- nom periodu primene krivičnopravnih normi o nasilju u porodici u Srbiji, ali je on, pod uticajem argumentovanih kritika da traženje kontinuiteta u ispoljavanju nasilja one- mogućava pružanje pravovremene krivičnopravne zaštite žrtvama nasilja u porodici (Konstantinović-Vilić, Petrušić, 2004:30, 2007:24), uglavnom napušten. Smatramo da za kvalifikaciju dela nasilja prema članu porodice kao krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl.194 KZ uopšte nije od značaja dužina i kontinuitet u ispoljavanju nasilja. Ovakav stav sada ima podlogu u KZ, kojim je, u čl. 112 tač.30 predviđeno da se, kad je radnja krivičnog dela određena trajnim glagolom („ko primenom nasilja, pretnjom...drskim ili bezobzirnim ponašanjem ugrožava spokojstvo...“), smatra da je delo učinjeno ako je rad- nja izvršena jednom ili više puta. Saglasno tome, krivično delo nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 st.1 KZ izvršeno je i kada je radnja „ugrožavanja“ preduzeta samo jednom. Takođe, sma- tramo da je za kvalifikaciju krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici potpuno nevažno da li su pri- likom izvršenja dela intervenisali nadležni organi i da li je ova intervencija evidentirana u službenim protokolima (Konstantinović-Vilić, Petrušić, 2007:24-25).

Za prvi oblik krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici, koji može izvršiti član porodice pasivnog subjekta, u pogledu krivice potreban je umišljaj i predviđeno je kažnjavanje zatvorom od tri meseca do tri godine.

Drugi oblik krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici postoji ako je pri izvršenju dela iz čl. 194. st. 1. KZ korišćeno oružje, opasno oruđe ili drugo sredstvo podobno da telo teško povredi ili zdravlje teško naruši (čl. 194. st. 2. KZ). Kvalifikatornu okolnost kod ovog oblika krivičnog dela predstavlja korišćenje oružja, opasnog oruđa ili sredstva koje je podobno da telo teško povredi ili zdravlje teško naruši, što znači da nije bitno da je došlo do povređivanja. Pod oružjem se podrazumevaju razne vrste vatrenog ili hladnog oružja. Opasno oruđe je pojam koji obuhvata sredstva koja su namenjena obavljanju određenih poslova i koja su po svojoj prirodi podobna za nanošenje teške telesne povrede ili teško narušavanje zdravlja. Drugo sredstvo može biti proizvod prirode: kamen, drvo ili proizvod ljudskog rada (flaša, pepeljara i sl.). Sudska praksa je neujednačena u shvatanju da li se noga na koju je obuvena cipela, kao i pojedini delovi tela učinioca, smatraju opasnim oruđem (Lukić, Jovanović, 2003: 18). I kod ovog oblika krivičnog dela za kvalifikaciju dela sma- tramo da je dovoljno da postoji samo „ugrožavanje“, a ne vidljive telesne povrede. Pos- ledica radnje izvršenja je stvaranje konkretne opasnosti po telesni integritet ili duševno stanje člana porodice, a može da bude i nanošenje lake telesne povrede. Ukoliko dođe

22 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi do povređivanja i nanošenja lake telesne povrede, ova povreda dobija kvalifikaciju “opasne lake telesne povrede” jer je prilikom izvršenja dela korišćeno oružje ili oruđe ili drugo sredstvo podobno da telo teško povredi ili zdravlje teško naruši.

Za ovaj oblik predviđeno je kažnjavanje zatvorom od šest meseci do pet godina.

Treći oblik krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici postoji u slučaju kada je izvršeno nasilje prouzrokovalo tešku telesnu povredu ili teško narušavanje zdravlja člana porodice ili je delo izvršeno prema maloletniku (čl. 194. st. 3. KZ).

Radnja izvršenja ovog oblika krivičnog dela ista je kao kod prva dva oblika, ali se pos- ledice razlikuju. Kvalifikatorna okolnost je teža posledica koja je nastupila, što znači da posledica dela nije samo stvaranje opasnosti da do povređivanja telesnog integriteta ili narušavanja duševnog stanja dođe, već je zaista naneta teška telesna povrede ili je došlo do teškog narušavanja zdravlja člana porodice. Za ovaj oblik krivičnog dela nasilje u porodici predviđena je kazna zatvora od dve do deset godina.

Ispoljavanje kvalifikovanog oblika nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194. st. 3. KZ postoji i u slučaju kada je pasivni subjekt izvršenja dela maloletni član porodice – dete (maloletnik do 14 godina) i maloletnik (od 14-18 godina). Objekat zaštite od svih oblika fizičkog i psihičkog nasilja koji se ispoljavaju u porodici je dete. Radnja izvršenja koja se sastoji u primeni nasilja kod ovog oblika krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici, slična je sa radnjom izvršenja kod krivičnog dela „zapuštanje i zlostavljanje maloletnog lica“ (čl.193 KZ RS). Zbog nejasne zakonske formulacije pojma „zlostavljanje“25 i različitih kazni predviđenih za ove oblike krivičnih dela, u praksi je vrlo teško napraviti razliku i razgraničiti da li se radi o kvalifikovanom obliku nasilja u porodici ili zapuštanju i zlostavljanju maloletnog lica. Predviđeno je kažnjavanje zatvorom od dve do deset godina.

Četvrti, najteži oblik krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici postoji kad je nasilje dovelo do smrti člana porodice (čl. 194. st. 4 KZ). Kazna za ovaj najteži oblik nasilja u porodici je tri do petnaest godina. Poslednjih godina u Srbiji je zabeležen porast broja slučajeva nasilja u porodici koji se završavaju smrtnim ishodom. Žrtve su u većini slučajeva žene, koje su prethodno, dugo godina trpele nasilno ponašanje svojih muževa ili drugih muških srodnika, a nisu dobile odgovarajuću zaštitu državnih organa i institucija ili drugih službi kojima su se obraćale za zaštitu od nasilja. Prema podacima NGO Mreže Žene protiv nasilja u prvih sedam meseci od početka 2010. godine u Srbiji je ubijeno 24 žene, od kojih su dve maloletnice. U skoro 80% slučajeva ubice su bili sadašnji ili bivši partneri,

25 Zlostavljanje se najčešće tumači kao preduzimanje određenih radnji koje kod pasivnog subjekta prouz- rokuju određene telesne i duševne patnje slabijeg intenziteta koje ne predstavljaju laku telesnu povredu, delatnost kojom se drugom licu nanosi fizički ili psihički bol, patnja nelagodnost ili strah većeg inten- ziteta. Radnje koje se navode u čl.194 KZ svakako se mogu smatrati zlostavljanjem iako zakonodavac ovaj naziv ne koristi. Videti: (Jovanović, 2010:187)

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 23  supružnici, očevi i sinovi žrtava. Sedam učinilaca je posle ubistva izvršilo samoubistvo; deset žena je ubijeno pištoljem, a dvanaest oštrim predmetom (nož, sekira, vile); jedna žena je zapaljena benzinom. U Srbiji je od 1. januara do 30. juna 2017. godine od strane partnera ili člana porodice ubijeno 15 žena. U istom periodu 2016. godine ubijeno je 18 žena, a u toku cele 2016. godine čak 33 žene.26

Peti oblik krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici postoji kad izvršilac nasilja kome je sud izrekao meru zaštite od nasilja u porodici prekrši ovu meru (čl. 194. st. 5. KZ). Mere zaštite od nasilja u porodici predviđene su Porodičnim zakonom (čl.198 st.2) i njihova suština ogleda se u ograničavanju ili privremenoj zabrani održavanja ličnih odnosa izvršioca nasilja sa žrtvom nasilja, što uključuje i ograničavanje izvesnih prava i sloboda izvršioca nasilja (Petrušić, Konstantinović-Vilić, 2007:15). Prema čl. 194. tač. 5 KZ RS, lice koje prekrši bilo koju meru zaštite od nasilja u porodici, kazniće se zatvorom od tri meseca do tri godine i novčanom kaznom.

Novina u Krivičnom zakoniku je predviđanje mere bezbednosti zabrana približavanja i komunikacije sa oštećenim (čl.89a). Ova mera bezbednosti se može izreći ako je učiniocu izrečena novčana kazna, rad u javnom interesu, oduzimanje vozačke dozvole, uslovna osuda i sudska opomena. Sud može zabraniti učiniocu krivičnog dela približavanje oštećenom na određenoj udaljenosti, zabraniti pristup u prostor oko mesta stanovanja ili mesta rada oštećenog i zabraniti dalje uznemiravanje oštećenog, odnosno dalju komu- nikaciju sa oštećenim, ako se opravdano može smatrati da bi dalje vršenje takvih radnji učinioca krivičnog dela bilo opasno po oštećenog. Mera može trajati najduže tri godine, a može se ukinuti pre isteka vremena za koje je određena ukoliko prestanu razlozi zbog kojih je određena.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici goni se po službenoj dužnosti, što znači da javni tuži- lac pokreće krivični postupak. Ovakvo rešenje je u skladu sa značajem vrednosti kojima se pruža krivičnopravna zaštita (porodica) i u skladu je sa preporukama i pravnim stan- dardima sadržanim u međunarodnim dokumentima o ljudskim pravima. U neposred- noj vezi sa preduzimanjem krivičnog gonjenja i krivičnim postupkom u slučajevima izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja i porodici su dva krivičnoprocesna rešenja, koja, ukoliko budu primenjena protivno cilju zbog kojeg su ustanovljena (pored ostalog efikasnost i ubrzanje krivičnog pstupka, postizanje brzog izricanja presude, izbegavanje sekund- arne viktimizacije žrtve i dr.) mogu oslabiti krivičnopravnu zaštitu žrtve nasilja u porodici. To su sporazum o priznanju krivičnog dela i ročište za izricanje krivične sankcije (čl.313-319 i čl. 512-516 ZKP). 27 U slučaju primene sporazuma o priznanju krivičnog dela radi se o

26 www.zeneprotivnasilja.net/vesti/89 femicid-u-srbiji, (pristup 23.12.2017); www.zeneprotivnasilja.net/ femicid-u-srbiji (pristup 23. 12. 2017). 27 Zakonik o krivičnom postupku Republike Srbije, Sl. glasnik RS. br. 72/11, 101/11, 121/12, 32/13, 45/13 i 55/14.

24 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi uprošćeoj procesnoj formi kada se zaključuje sporazum između javnog tužioca i okrivl- jenog od donošenja naredbe o sprovođenju istrage do završetka glavog pretresa. Spo- razum se zaključuje kada se javni tužilac i okrivljeni dogovore da okrivljeni u potpunosti prizna izvršenje krivičnog dela koje mu se optužbom stavlja na teret, a da tužilac za uzvrat okrivljenom učini izvesne povlastice i ustupke, pre svega u pogledu blažeg kažn- javanja. Stranački dogovor je odlućujući za sudsku odluku o glavnoj stvari zato što se njime određuje vrsta i visina sankcije koja se izriče i sud donosi odluku o prihvatanju spo- razuma ili o odbacivanju ako nisu ispunjeni zakonski uslovi. Ročište za izricanje krivične sankcije se može održati samo ukoliko su ispunjeni zakonom predviđeni uslovi: ako se radi o krivičnim delima za koja se može izreći kao glavna kazna novčana kazna ili kazna zatvora do pet godina i ako javni tužilac u optužnom predlogu stavi zahtev za održa- vanje ročišta za izricanje krivične sankcije. Javni tužilac ovaj zahtev može staviti ako sma- tra da na osnovu složenosti predmeta i prikupljenih dokaza, a naročito usled hapšenja okrivljenog pri izvršenju krivičnog dela ili priznanja da je učinio krivično delo, održavanje glavnog pretresa nije potrebno. Zakonom je predviđeno koje kazne može predložiti javni tužilac da sud izrekne okrivljenom, okrivljeni treba da se saglasi sa navodima javnog tužioca i da izjavi da neće podnositi prigovor i izjaviti žalbu protiv prvostepene presude.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 25 26 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Drugi deo

Istraživanje prakse sudova u procesuiranju krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici 1. Predmet, cilj i metodologija istraživanja

Istraživanje prakse sudova u procesuiranju krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici, čiji su rezu- ltati preyentovani u ovog knjizi, oslanja se na rezultate dva ranija istraživanja pravne prakse u Republici Srbiji procesuiranja krivičnog dela nasilja u i to: Krivično delo nasilja u porodici - pravna praksa u Republici Srbiji (mart 2002. – decembar 2003.) (Konstanti- nović-Vilić, Petrušić: 2004) i Krivično delo nasilja u porodici – aktuelna pravosuda praksa u Beogradu i Nišu (Konstantinović-Vilić, Petrušić: 2007).

Istraživanje Krivično delo nasilja u porodici - pravna praksa u Republici Srbiji (mart 2002. – decembar 2003. predstavlja prvo kritičko sagledavanje policijske, javnotužilačke i sudske prakse u pet gradova na teritoriji Srbije (Beograd, Novi Sad, Niš, Leskovac i Subotica), koje je omogućilo da se, na osnovu pregleda i analize uzorka od 620 predmeta, evidentiraju negativne pojave i problemi koji se javljaju prilikom otkrivanja i prijavljivanja dela nasilja

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 27  u porodici, sprovođenja krivičnog postupka i kažnjavanja izvršilaca dela. Ovim istraživan- jem utvrđeni su stavovi profesionalaca o pojedinim pitanjima vezanim za učinioce i žrtve dela nasilja prema članovima porodice, način njihovog sagledavanja ove vrstu krimi- naliteta, mogućnosti preventivnog i represivnog delovanja institucija sistema i pravce unapređenja postojećeg modela pravne zaštite od nasilja u porodici.

U okviru drugog istraživanja Krivično delo nasilja u porodici – aktuelna pravosuda praksa u Beogradu i Nišu analizirani su javnotužilaški i sudski predmeti formirani u procesuiranju krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici u Beogradu i Nišu i komparirani sa ranijim istraživanjem. Ovo istraživanje je obuhvatilo period od januara 2006. do maja 2007. godine i uzorak od 529 predmeta. Istraživanje je sprovedeno, pored ostalog i sa ciljem da se ispitaju prek- tični efekti novih zakonskih rešenja do kojih je došlo određenim izmenama u inkrimi- naciji krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici 2005. godine.

Postoji više povoda i opravdanja za novo istraživanje prakse sudova u procesuiranju krivičnog dela nasilje u porodici. Pre svega, poslednje istraživanje je sprovedeno je pre devet godina, a u međuvremenu je formirana nova praksa, čija je analiza omogućila da se kritički sagleda delovanje postojećeg mehanizma krivičnopravne zaštite od nasilja u porodici i promene do kojih je u međuvremenu došlo u tumačenju propisa, sprovođenju postupka i sankcionisanju počinilaca. Iako u proteklom periodu nije došlo do zakonskih promena u samoj inkriminaciji krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici, 2011. godine je usvojena Nacionalna strategija za prevenciju nasilja nad ženama u porodici i partnerskim odno- sima, a 31.10.2013. godine Srbija je ratifikovala Konvenciju Saveta Evrope o sprečavanju i borbi protiv nasilja nad ženama i nasilja u porodici (Istambulska konvencija). Osim toga, u proteklom periodu sprovedeno je niz edukativnih programa i stručnih skupova za pos- tupanje profesionalaca, te je značajno ispitati uticaj edukacije profesionalaca na pos- tupanje u praksi. Rezultati novog istraživanja omogućiće da se napravi svojevrsni presek aktuelnog stanja i na osnovu toga prate buduće promene u delovanju pravosudnih organa na sprovođenju novog Zakona o sprečavanju nasilja u porodici iz 2016. godine,28 kojim je regulisano je postupanje državnih organa i ustanova u sprečavanju nasilja u porodici i pružanju zaštite i podrške žrtvama nasilja u porodici.

Neposredni predmet novog istraživanja jeste analiza aktuelne prakse sudova u proce- suiranju krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici u tri najveća grada u Srbiji – Beogradu, Nišu i Novom Sadu, u svim fazama krivičnog postupka. Analizom su obuhvaćeni sudski pred- meti sa pravnosnažnim sudskim presudama u kojima je optužni akt (optužnica, optužni predlog) podnet u toku 2014. i 2015. godine. Ukupno je pregledano i analizirano 100 sud- skih predmeta, odabranih po principu slučajnog uzorka i to: 50 predmeta Prvog, Drugog i Trećeg Osnovnog suda u Beogradu, 25 predmeta Osnovnog suda u Nišu, 25 predmeta

28 Sl. glasnik RS, br. 94/2016. Saglasno odredbi iz čl. 39. zakon je počeo da se primenjuje 1. juna 2017. godine.

28 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Osnovnog suda u Novom Sadu. Broj sudskih predmeta u uzorku je 100, broj izvršenih kri- vičnih dela je 109, broj izvršilaca 101 i broj žrtava 122.

Prema podacima dobijenim od strane sudova29 čija je praksa obuhvaćena istraživanjem, u 2014. i 2015. godini ovim sudovima podneta su ukupno 762 optužna akta, i to:

Tabela 1 Sud Prvi OS Drugi OS Treći Onovni Osnovni Ukupno Beogradu Beogradu OS u sud u sud u Beogradu Novom Nišu Sadu

2014. 46 215 18 65 47 391

2015. 124 81 31 90 45 371

Cilj istraživanja je da se prikupe i analiziraju relevantni podaci o radu organa pravosuđa prilikom postupanja u krivičnim postupcima pokrenutim zbog izvršenja svih oblika kriv- ičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 KZ, sagledaju promena u fenomenologiji krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici i kritički analizira delotvornost i efikasnost u sudskom proce- suiranju krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici oceni njegove efektivnosti i efikasnosti, kao i da se izvrši upoređivanje sa rezultatima ranijih istraživanja.

Za prikupljanje podataka iz spisa sudskih predmeta korišćen je poseban upitnik, koji je baziran na instrumentima korišćenim u ranijim istraživanjima, kako bi podaci mogli da se kompariraju. Prikupljani podaci su statistički obrađeni korišćenjem programa SPSS 14.0.

Prikupljanje i obrada relevantnih podataka obavljeni su u tri faze. U pripremnoj fazi istra- živanja, izvršena je koordinacija i priprema istraživanja (utvrđeni su istraživački uzo- rak, metodologija i plan istraživanja, izrađen je upitnik i dobijene su od predsednika sudova odgovarajuće dozvole za sprovođenje istraživanja). U drugoj fazi prikupljeni su

29 Podaci su dostavljeni po zahtevu autorki za pristip informacijama od javnog značaja, koji je upućen sudovima oktobra 2017. godine. Traženi su sledeći podaci za period 2014. i 2015. godinu: 1) Broj krivičnih prijava za krivično delo nasilje u porodici podneto u toku 2014. i 2015. godine (čl. 194. Krivičnog zakonika Republike Srbije, precizirano po stavovima); 2) Broj osuđujućih i broj oslobađajućih presuda za ovo delo, po godinama, kao i broj slučajevima u kojima je optužba odbijena; 3) Broj žalbi protiv prvostepenih pre- suda, koje je za ovo delo podnelo osnovno javno tužilaštvo; 4) Broj žalbi protiv prvostepenih presuda koje su podnela osuđena lica preko svojoh branilaca; 5) Broj zaključenih sporazuma o priznanju krivice; 6) Broj potvrđenih presuda, broj ukinutih presuda i broj preinačenih presuda. Iako su svi sudovi dosta- vili podatke, oni nisu potpuni. Ako pretpostavimo da je razlog nedostavljanja traženih podataka njihovo nepostojanje u službenoj evidenciji, što je u nekim dopisima i navedeno, zabrinjavajuće je da sudovi ne raspolažu podacima iz okončanih krivičnih predmeta, pa ostaje upitno da li i na osnovu čega prate spro- vođenje kaznene politike i svoju efikasnost u procesuiranja krivičnih dela nasilja, što je jedan od njihovih permanentnih zadataka.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 29  i statistički obrađeni podaci iz sudskih predmeta. U trećoj fazi istraživanja izvršena je naučna analiza prikupljenih podataka i pripremljen tekst monografije.

2. Sudska praksa u Beogradu

2.1. Opšti podaci o sudskim predmetima Pregledano je ukupno 50 sudskih predmeta, koje čine sudski predmeti Prvog opštinskog suda u Beogradu (nadležan za gradske opštine Vračar, Zvezdara, Palilula, Savski Venac i Stari grad), Drugog opštinskog sud u Beogradu (nadležan za gradske opštine Voždovac, Čukarica, Rakovica i Grocka), Trećeg opštinskog suda u Beogradu (nadležan za gradske opštine Zemun, Novi Beograd i Surčin).

2.2. Fenomenologija krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici Oblik izvršenja U istraživanom uzorku izvršeno je ukupno 50 krivičnih dela nasilja u porodici. Najveći procenat izvršenih krivičnih dela 64% ima karakteristike prvog oblika krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 st. 1. Svi ostali oblici ovog krivičnog dela su manje zastupljeni: 22% izvršenih krivičnih dela je nasilje u porodici iz čl. 194 st. 2; 12% izvršenih krivičnih dela je nasilje u porodici iz čl. 194 st. 3 KZ RS.

Kad je u pitanju krivično delo nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194. st. 5. KZ RS (kršenje mera zaštite od nasilja u porodici), samo u jednom slučaju (2%) je izvršilac osuđen za ovo krivično delo, što pokazuje da je procesuiranje ovog dela je u praksi još uvek retko (Grafikon 1).

Grafikon 1

194/3 194/5 12% 2%

194/2 194/1 22% 64%

30 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Sticaj Najveći broj krivičnih dela nije izvršen u sticaju – 82%. U sticaju je izvršeno 16% krivičnih dela, dok je za 2% predmeta ostalo nepoznato da li su krivična dela izvršena u sticaju. U nekoliko slučajeva, kada su krivična dela izvršena u sticaju, konstatovano je da se radi o produženom krivičnom delu.

Saučesništvo U okviru ispitivanog uzorka nije bilo nijednog oblika saučesništva. Učinioci su sami izvršavali krivično delo nasilja u porodici.

Prilikom izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilje u porodici u 48% slučajeva bilo je očevidaca, najčešće su to bila deca i drugi članovi porodice, ali i susedi, koji su saslušavani kao sved- oci u krivičnom postupku.

Mesto izvršenja Prema podacima iz ispitivanog uzorka, u 98% slučajeva, krivično delo nasilja u porodici izvršeno je u gradu. Selo se javlja samo u jednom slučaju kao mesto izvršenja, što je u skladu i sa ranijim istraživanjem ove pojave, kada je takođe utvrđeno da je mesto izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici mnogo češće grad nego selo (62,10%:18,60%). U najvećem procentu 98% mesto izvršenja je isto kao i mesto stanovanja izvršioca i žrtve (Grafikon 2).

Grafikon 2

selo 2%

grad 98%

Mesto samog događaja je najčešće zajednički stan izvršioca i žrtve – 74%, stan žrtve – 14% i stan učinioca – 8%. Slični podaci su dobijeni i prilikom ranijeg istraživanja, kada je konstatovano da je čak u 78% slučajeva mesto događaja zajednički stan učinioca i žrtve,

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 31  što pokazuje da je zajedničko boravište (stan, kuća, dvorište) gde bi član porodice tre- balo da se oseća najsigurnijim, ustvari najmanje bezbedno mesto.

Vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela Prilikom sagledavanja fenomenoloških karakteristika krivičnog dela, vreme izvršenja je takođe značajno radi praćenja distribucije kriminaliteta u različitim vremenskim razdo- bljima (godišnja doba, doba dana). Podaci iz uzorka ne pokazuju posebne vremenske pravilnosti kada se radi o godišnjim dobima i dobu dana. Najviše krivičnih dela nasilja u porodici u okviru uzorka izvršeno je u leto 15 (30%), nešto manje u jesen 14 (28%), mnogo manje u toku zime 6 (12%) i proleća 5 (10%), dok je u dužem vremenskom peri- odu (na primer od zime do jeseni ili od leta do zime) izvršeno 10 krivičnih dela (20%). Ovakav nalaz je u skladu sa kriminološkim istraživanjima prema kojima se imovinska kriv- ična dela najčešće vrše u jesenjim i zimskim mesecima, dok se krivična dela protiv lično- sti (gde bi šire posmatrano s obzirom na objekt napada pripadalo krivično delo nasilja u porodici) najčešće vrše u letnjim i jesenjim mesecima. Posmatrano u odnosu na doba dana kada se izvršava krivično delo nasilja u porodici, u najviše slučajeva gde je konsta- tovano vreme izvršenja dela (33), krivično delo je izvršeo u popodnevnim ili večernjim časovima - 22 (66%).

Sredstva izvršenja Sredstva izvršenja krivčnog dela nasilja u porodici u ispitivanom uzorku su različiti pred- meti, počev od korišćenja određenih delova tela (šaka, prsti, pesnica, noga, zubi - ujedi), različitih predmeta (ekektrični kabli, sredstva za vezivanje, drška od cegera, drvena noga od fotelje, drška od metle, drvena gitara, patika, bušalica, kamen), pa do hladnog oružja (nož, sekira) Kao i u ranijim istraživanjima, fizičko nasilje bilo je najzastupljeniji oblik nasilja – u 78% slučajeva, i to fizičko nasilje bez upotrebe oruđa ili oružja u 22 (44%) i uz upotrebu oruđa/oružja 17 (34%). Fizičko i psihičko nasilje kumulativno je bilo izvršeno u 8 (16%) slučajeva, dok je ostalim slučajevima 3 (6%) izvršeno samo psihičko nasilje. Prilikom primene fizičkog, psihičkog i seksualnog nasilja kombinovani su različiti načini izvršenja.

Načini izvršenja Načini izvršenja krivičnog dela zavisili su od vrste nasilja (fizičko, psihičko), ali i od sred- stava izvršenja.

Fizičko nasilje vršeno je na različite načine, među kojima su: udaranje pesnicama u glavu i lice, čupanje kose, šutiranje, šamaranje, stavljanje noža pod grlo, davljenje, ujedanje za ruke i sl.

Psihičko nasilje izvršavano je psovanjem, vređanjem pogrdnim imenima („kurva“, „drolja“, „seljančura“ „da je niko i ništa“ i dr), pljuvanjem, uznemiravanjem sms porukama, pretnjama ubistvom i sl.

32 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Analiza opisa izvršenih krivičnih dela pokazuje da je nasilje ponekad veoma brutalno, što ilustruju sledeći primeri:

ii Okrivljeni je vređao oštećenu, navodeći da je neodgovorna prema njihovom detetu od devet meseci, odgurnuo je i zavrnuo levu ruku, tako da je zadobila lake telesne povrede u vidu preloma trećeg prsta leve šake.

ii U toku 2013., 2014. i 2015. godine okrivljeni je vređao je oštećenu, govorio joj je da je niko i ništa, da je bosanska seljančura, da su sve njegove devojke bile bolje u odnosu na nju, zatim je fizički je nasrnuo, udarao je pesnicama u glavu, vukao za kosu po podu, šutirao, tukao stolicama, pretio da će da je zakolje, ubije, sharani, zahtevajući da mu ošptećena obezbedi novac za heroin.

ii Okrivljeni je udario oštećenu najpre otvorenom šakom u predelu lica, a zatim je udario motkom od 1,90 m najpre u predelu glave i tela, a zatim nastavio da je udara šakama zatvorenim u pesnicu u predelu lica i tela, nanevši joj lake telesne povrede u vidu trauma glave i kontuzije.

ii Oštećena je zadobila lake telesne povrede u vidu nagnječenja glave i desnog kolena na taj način što je okrivljeni više puta zatvorenom šakom udario po glavi i šutirao po telu u predelu noge.

ii Tokom 2013., 2014. i 2015. godine okrivljeni je svakodnevno kontrolisao oštećenu prilikom odlaska i dolaska s posla, zahtevajući da dođe u tačno određeno vreme, u suprotnom bi je udarao, pretio, vikao. Kada se odselila sa ćekom i unukom u iznajmljen stan, posećivao je preteći joj “ti moraš da umreš pre mene, ja ću ubiti tebe pa sebe jer sam ja svoju misiju završio, udao sam, oženio i dočekao unučiće”. Kada se oštećena sa ćerkom vratila u nadgrađeni deo kuće svakodnevno joj je pretio i vređao govoreći da je “kurva, drolja, da ima savetnike na poslu”, omalovažavao je da nije niko i ništa, da je on nije doveo u Beograd bila bi seljanka, optuživao da se nalazi u ljubavnoj vezi sa njenim poslodavcem i pretio da je nabavio pušku kako bi je ubio i da je naoštrio nož kako bi završio sa njom, zahtevajući od nje da mu donese zajedničku sliku i da je stavi na sto, a da će sliku staviti na spomenik kada je ubije jer ne želi da pravi trošak deci. Sledeći put je zvao telefonom oštećenu kada se vraćala sa posla i pretio “Izađi tu gde jesi da ti iščupam srce i dušu, odsečem glavu i da završim sa tobom”. Istog dana je fizički napao tako što je jednom rukom stezao u predelu vrata, a drugom rukom uvrtao levu ruku oštećene i na taj način joj naneo lake telesne povrede u vidu nagnječenja u potiljačnom predelu poglavine, nagnječinu sa krvnim podlivom u predelu poleđine leve šake.

ii Okrivljeni je verbalno napao majku tražeći joj novac, posle čega je pesnicom razbijao stvari po kući i fizički napao oca udarivši ga više puta pesnicom u predelu tela, da bi potom uzeo drveni naslon od fotelje, tj dršku od fotelje i udario oca više puta po celom telu, kojom

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 33  prilikom je oštećeni zadobio lake telesne povrede u vidu nagnječenja levog podključnog predela, više nagnječenja čeonog i jagodičnog predela, nagnječenje korena nosa, više razderotina leve ušne školjke i oguljotinu čela.

ii Okrivljeni je vređao oštećenu rečima da bi voleo da mu nije majka, da bi voleo da je mrtva, tražio joj novac, čupao joj kosu, a zatim ključem “dvanaesticom” je udario prvo po ruci i podlaktici a potom u predelu glave “jer ga proverava”.

ii Posle kraće verbalne rasprave okrivljeni je počeo da vređa oštećenu suprugu, pa kada ona nije htela da dozvoli da uzme njihovu sedmomesečnu ćerku, ušao je u kuhinju odakle je uzeo kuhinjski nož, stavio u džep, uzeo bebu, otišao u kupatilo, seo na wc šolju i počeo da hrani dete pri tome odbijajući da ga preda oštećenoj. Više puta je izlazio iz kupatila, držeći dete u jednoj ruci, a nož u drugoj ruci, vređajući oštećenu rečima “Plači kurvo, možda ti se istopi salo, koliko košta tvoja materica da ti platim što si rodila” i preteći da će da ubije dete jer je “on stvorio, on će i da je ubije”.

ii Usled duševne bolesti (paranoidne psihoze) okrivljeni je u neuračunljivom stanju zamahnuo nožem prema ocu a zatim ubo u predelu leđa nanevši mu laku telesnu povredu – otvorenu ranu zadnjeg dela grudnog koša

ii U alkoholisanom stanju okrivljeni je maltretirao svoju majku tako što je pretio da će je ubiti, hvatao je za vrat i davio, vukao po podu, lomio stvari po kući, oštrio noževe i zabadao ih po ormanu, vratima, podu. Pretio je majci da će je zaklati nožem i satarom I da je niko neće skupiti ukoliko doktorki iz Specijalne bolnice za lečenje bolesti zavisnosti kaže da ponovo pije.

ii Okrivljena je svakodnevno maltretirala majku na taj način što je tražila da ide I da joj kupi cigarete, doručak i kafu ne vodeći računa o tome da li majka ima novca, zahtevala da joj majka da novac govoreći “rodi mi ga”, a, kada joj majka nije dala novac, fizički je napadala I vređala rečima “moj tata je bio dobar ćovek, a ti si najgora žena”, lomila čaše i druge stvari po kući. Jednom prilikom posle verbalnog sukoba oko “Božićnog kolača”, okrivljena je majku oborila na pod, udarala pesnicama po glavi, kada se oštećena sakrila rukom da se zaštiti, okrivljena je ugrizla za ruku i nanela laku telesnu povredu.

ii Primenom nasilja, pretnjom da će napasti na život i telo i bezobzirnim ponašanjem, ugrožavao spokojstvo, telesni integritet i duševno stanje člana svoje porodice – oštećenog oca na taj načim što je u više navrata pretio da će da ga ubije, zakolje, probuši gume na autu, vršio je nuždu u kadi kupatila kuće, zaključanu kapiju kuće udarao rukama; pa je posle kraće rasprave udario je oca pesnicom u predelu glave i tela nanevši mu lake telesne povrede.

ii Nepokretnu majku, koja je vezana za postelju jer boluje od karcinoma, i oca okrivljeni je psihički i fizički maltretirao na taj način što ih je u stanju akutne intoksikacije pod dejstvom

34 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  opijata i tableta sa sedativnim dejstvom, vređao, lupao po kući, padao na pod, pretio ocu da će ga izbaciti iz stana, gađao ga staktenom pikslom, pogodio ga u obraz, gurnuo ga u grudi, uzeo dva noža iz kuhinje i metalnom drškom noža ga udario po licu preteći da će da ga ubije, dok je majka bespomoćno vrištala uplašena za bezbednost supruga.

ii Okrivljeni je pod dejstvom alkohola pretio i vređao majku, suprugu i ćerke, govorio je da su kurve i da mu “ne ostaje ništa nego da ih pobije”. Kada je odveden u policiju, rekao je “kad izađem iz policije, sve ću vas pobiti”.

ii Okrivljeni je svojoj bivšoj vanbračnoj supruzi slao preteće slao joj je preteće SMS poruke ”mrtva si, veruj mi, kunem ti se, mrtva si, krv ćeš da pljuješ, životinjo odvratna, ako dođem ubiću te, uzeću ti dete”.

ii Svoju vanbračnu suprugu sa kojom živi u zajedničkom domaćinstvu, nezadovoljan hranom koju je ona pripremila, okrivljeni je najpre vređao rečima “kurvo, fuksetino”, a zatim je, oštećenu koja je držala dete u rukama, rukom gurnuo u predelu ramena odbacivši je ka vitrini, pa, kada je oštećena pobegla u dvorište, uzeo je nož za hleb i jurio po dvorištu govoreći “ubiću te”. Sledećeg dana je, posle verbalne rasprave, dva puta udario oštećenu kablom za struju u predeo leđa usled čega je zadobila lake telesne povrede u vidu nekoliko krvnih podliva.

ii Okrivljeni je svoju suprugu udario glavom i naneo joj lake telesne povrede u vidu krvnog podliva u čeonom delu glave. Drugom prilikom je ušao u sobu gde je oštećena spavala, lupao, vikao, psovao, vređao, govorio da će joj polomiti ruke i noge, da će je ubiti, zatim je zadao više udaraca u predelu lica, vukao je za kosu, oborio na pod, nogama udarao po leđima, stomaku i nogama, usled čega je oštećena zadobila krvne podlive po telu.

ii Oštećenu suprugu je okrivljeni gurnuo obema rukama otvoenom šakom u predeo grudi usled čega je ona pala, a kada se podigla, okrivljeni je udario desnom rukom otvorenom šakom u predelu vilice usled čega je zadobila povredu u vidu rasekotine.

ii Okrivljeni je fizički nasrnuo na majku uhvativši je u predelu stomaka, podigao je u vazduh, bacio na krevet, udario nekoliko puta po temenu glave vređajući je i preteći; kada je došla policija udario je policajca koji je tom prilikom zadobio tešku telesnu povredu u vidu frakture metakarpalne kosti ruke i desne šake.

ii Okrivljeni je posle vređanja udario majku pesnicom u predelu glave i naneo joj laku telesnu poredu na kapku oka. Drugom prilikom je fizički napao I udario u desnu slepoočnicu.

ii Posle svađe okrivljeni je oštećenu suprugu više puta udario pesnicom u levu stranu lica i u predelu ramena, dok je oštećena u nameri da se odbrani, ogrebala okrivljenog po ruci gurajući ga od sebe, on joj je stezao je nadlakticu leve ruke, tako da je zadobila lake telsne povrede.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 35  ii Svoju bivšu suprugu okrivljen je udario više puta otvorenom šakom u predelu lica i po drugim delovima tela usled čega je zadobila povrede u vidu hematoma po telu, vratu, leđima i glavi, vređao je, psovao i pretio da će da je ubije.

ii Okrivljeni je prišao oštećenoj supruzi dok je sedela na mestu vozača, otvorio vrata kola, dao joj zdravstvenu knjižicu za dete i pretio da će, kada se bude završilo suđenje oko razvoda i kada joj bude “pripalo” maloletno dete, zažaliti dan kada se rodila, da će joj to biti poslednji dan kada se nasmejala, “da će je iseckati na komadiće”.

ii U alkoholisanom stanju okrivljeni je došao u stan i počeo da viče na oštećenu suprugu kako je napravila veliki račun za telefon, zatim je vukao za kosu i pljuvao, gurnuo joj prst u oko, udarao je u rebra nanevši joj laku telesnu povredu u vidu nagnječina u predelu grudnog koša sa leve strane, a zatim je udario pesnicom u predelu brade nanevši joj i tu laku telesnu povredu u vidu nagnječenja u predelu lica. Posle par sati nakon što je oštećena pobegla iz stana, kada se vratila u stan gde zajedno žive, okrivljeni nije hteo da joj otključa i da je pusti u zajednički stan, već je ostavio u hodniku. Kada je došla policija i uhapsila okrivljenog, on je pred policijom pretio oštećenoj da će “da joj presudi”, da “ima da je nema” i da će ona videti “ jer prodaje drogu”.

ii Svoju vanbračnu suprugu okrivljeni je više puta je udarao šakama u predelu tela i glave, vukao je za kosu, oborio na krevet, davio rukama i jastukom, stavljao jastuk u usta, ujedao za ruke dok je pokušavala da se odbrani i govorio da će da je zadavi.

ii Okrivljeni je došao je do kuće u kojoj oštećena njegova supruga živi sa roditeljima i sestrom, lupao na ulazna vrata, zatim oštećenu, koja mu je otvorila vrata, odgurnuo od ulaznih vrata usled čega je ona pala na pod, počupao je za kosu, vukao po podu do dnevne sobe, vređao je i pretio, šutirao je nogama po telu, držeći u ruci metalnu šipku koju je poneo sa sobom i zamahnuo da udari oštećenu, dok je za to vreme njihovo maloletno dete posmatralo događaj, plakalo, vrištalo, molilo oca da stane, nakon čega je protivpravno uzeo maloletnu ćerku od oštećene, čime je onemogućio izvršenje odluke nadležnog organa Drugog osnovnog suda u Beogradu kojim je određen način održavanja ličnih odnosa okrivljenog i njegove maloletne dece. Ćerku, koja se u skladu sa navedenom odlukom nalazila kod majke, uzeo je u naručje i u pižami izneo iz stana oko 24h.

ii Okrivljena je najpre oštećenoj unuci, sa kojom je živela u zajedničkom domaćinstvu, zabranila da opere svoj veš u veš mašini i izbacila njene stvari iz bubnja, zatim je uzela metalnu šipku – dršku od džogera sa plastičnom oblogom – i više puta oštećenu udarila po rukama, usled čega je oštećena zadobila lake telesne povrede I u vidu rasekotine u predelu desne nadlaktice, oguljotine u predelu desne podlaktice i oguljotine u predelu palca leve šake, a motka kojom je bila udarena od siline udarca pukla je na dva dela.

36 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  ii Okrivljeni je svojoj vanbračnoj supruzi naneo tešku telesnu povredu dok je primoravao na neželjeni seksualni odnos, polomio joj je butnu kost usled udaraca pesnicom i šakama po celom telu. Nakon izlska iz bolnice, nastavio je svakodnevno da je tuče, pa kako nije mogla da hoda, ostavljao je bez hrane, nije je vodio u wc, silovao je više puta. Od komplikacija povreda oštećena je u invalidskim kolicima.

ii Posle kraćeg verbalnog sukoba optuženi je svoju majku udario u predelu leđa, uhvatio obema rukama za kosu i čupajući je vukao po celoj sobi, nakon toga je iz garaže uzeo sekiru i pretio je da će da je ubije ako pozove policiju.

ii Okrivljeni je u alkoholisanom stanju svoju suprugu vređao, zatim udarao, šamarao po glavi i telu, drvenom nogom od stolice udarao je po leđima, nogama i telu nanevši joj veliki broj telesnih povreda koje je sud ocenio kao jedinstvenu tešku telesnu povredu.

ii Po izlasku iz dnevne bolnice gde se lečio od alkoholizma, okrivljeni je konzumirao alkohol, došao u stan, počeo je da psuje majku, bacio je stolicu ka njoj, bacio je na krevet, uhvatio je za vrat i počeo da je steže, te je oštećena u jednom momentu počela da beži iz stana i pozvala je pomoć.

ii U zajedničkoj porodičnoj kući u alkoholisanom stanju okrivljeni je maltretirao suprugu, ćerku i zeta: supruzi je pretio i psovao, ćerku gurnuo i udario joj šamar, a zetu prišao nožem uz pretnju da će da ga zakolje jer se meša u sukob.

ii Posle verbalne rasprave između okrivljenog i majke maloletnog oštećenog, koji je iz straha za sopstvenu bezbednost i bezbednost majke uzeo mobilni telefon da pozove policiju, okrivljeni je uzeo držalju od metle, koja je služila za otkuvavanje veša i počeo da juri maloletnog oštećenog i jednom ga je udario.

ii Okrivljeni je svojoj bivšoj supruzi slao SMS poruke pretećeg sadržaja, pretio da će da je ubije, zgazi i vređao je.

ii Okrivljeni je oštećenog malolenog sina više puta udario otvorenom i zatvorenom šakom u predelu glave i tela, zatim ga je više puta udario drvenom gitarom po nogama od kojih udaraca se gitara polomila, a okrivljeni je nastavio da ga udara rukama po telu, a onda mu je pretio govoreći da će da postane klošar, lopov, pa je opet nastavio sa šamarima.

ii Kada je okrivljeni, posle slanja sms poruka oštećenoj bivšoj vanbračnoj supruzi, došao je u stan majke svoje bivše vanbračne supruge, ušao je u kupatilo, gde se nalazila oštećena, prišao joj je i udario šamar u predelu lica, posle čega se oštećena zanela i udarila glavom u vrata tuš kabine. Zatim je udario majku oštećene u predelu vrata, što je videla i maloletna zajednička ćerka okrivljenog i oštećene, koja je od stresa pala na kauč. Okrivljeni je nastavio da udara oštećenu rukama u predelu glave i ruku i povredio joj palac desne ruke.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 37  ii Okrivljeni je od majke je tražio novac za prevoz pa kako nije bio zadovoljan novcem koji je dobio, obema rukama je odgurnuo u predelu grudi, povukao za prste i gađao mokrim peškirom. Nešto kasnije je opet tražio novac, pa kako oštećena opet nije htela da mu da novac pljunuo je u lice, psovao i vređao nju i oca koji ga je smirivao.

ii U dužem vremenskom periodu od 2012. do -16.10.2014. godine fizički i psihički maltretirao roditelje sa kojima živi u zajedničkom domaćinstvu na taj način što ih je psovao, vređao, pretio da će ih ubiti, izbaciti iz kuće. Jednom prilikom, kada ga je majka pitala šta bi želeo da mu pripremi za jelo, vikao je na nju “Šta ti meni da daješ, ti meni nisi ništa, sad ću da te ubijem”, zatim je čupao za kosu i odgurnuo tako da je oštećena udarila leđima i glavom u zid.Pod uticajem alkohola i antidepresiva koje pije, nekontrolisano je vikao na majku i psovao, zatim je desnom rukom uhvatio u predelu vilice i stezao od kojih radnji je oštećena pretrpela veliki bol i strah.

ii Posle razvoda braka i iseljenja iz stana godinu dana je okrivljeni više puta maltretirao svoju bivšu suprugu na taj način što je dolazio do stana u kome ona stanuje, uznemiravao je, lupao na vrata, zvao na interfon, farbao vrata, šarao ih sprejem, sprejem napunio bravu da oštećena nije mogla da otključa, obijao poštansko sanduče, sekao kablove od kablovske televizije, zvao je noću telefonom, pretio i vređao je.

ii Okrivljeni je u dužem vremenskom periodu psovao i vređao suprugu nazivajući je pogrdnim rečima i udarao je rukom u predelu glave i tela.

ii U periodu od jula 2012. godine do jula 2014. godine fizički i psihički maltretirao svoju suprugu na taj način što je vređao pogrdnim rečima, psovao i pretio rečima “doći ću ti glave, uradiću ti ono što niko nikome nije uradio, udariću te u glavu da te ošamutim, vezaću te i seckaću te, novine će da pišu i televizija će da snimi”, “ne može te niko zaštititi, ja ću ti presuditi”, “platićeš ti meni”, posle čega je nasrtao na oštećenu udarajući je zatvorenom i zatvorenom šakom svuda po telu.

ii Okrivljeni je dugo godina heroinski zavisnik i maltretira fizički i psihički roditelje. Vređa ih i psuje, a majku je jednom prilikom posle svađe uhvatio za kosu, čupao i udario pesnicom u teme.

ii Okrivljeni se posvađao sa majkom, pretio je da će je ubiti, a zatim zamahnuo rukom i udario je u predeo glave.

ii U alkoholisanom stanju okrivljeni je započeo je verbalnu raspravu sa suprugom, odgurnuo je rukama u predelu tela i zadao više udaraca u glavu usled čega je zadobila lake telesne povrede u vidu nagnječenja kože glave desno na temenu.

ii Okrivljeni je maloletnog sina zbog ocene iz engleskog jezika probudio, grdio, rekao da ne može da spava i da dobija loše ocene, da mu takav nije potreban i da može da ide od kuće.

38 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  Maloletni oštećeni je u pidžami izašao iz kuće, okrivljeni je pošao za njim i došao do stana svoje tašte gde se nalazio oštećeni i udario ga nekoliko puta rukom po glavi i telu. Isterao ga bez obuće iz stana, uhvatio ga sa obe ruke u predelu ramena, bacio ga na pod hodnika, tako da je oštećenom počela da teče krv iz nosa.Oštećeni je zadobio lake telesne povrede u vidu razderno nagnječne rane u predelu unutrašnje strane gornje usne, krvni podliv kože u predelu leve strane vrata, krvni podliv kože nosne piramide i krvni podliv kože u predelu leve jagodice.

ii Okrivljeni je došao do stana u kome njegova bivša supruga i maloletna deca žive, pa je bušilicom počeo da burgija vrata tj bravu oštetivši je, nakon čega su oštećeni zvali policiju, a okrivljeni je otišao pre dolaska policije. Na taj način je ugrozio spokojstvo i duševno stanje članova svoje porodice, bivše supruge i maloletne dece. U presudi je navedeno da sud nije izrekao meru bezbednosti zabrane približavanja i komunikacije sa oštećenom zato što je smatrao da izricanje ove mere nije opravdano u konkretnom slučaju: parnični postupak po tužbi okrivljenog protiv oštećene za iseljenje iz stana je okončan, oštećena se sa decom iselila iz stana, što je bio i osnov za drsko ponašanje okrivljenog i preduzimanje “šikane” prema oštećenoj da se iseli iz stana, kao i činjenica da okrivljeni i oštećena nemaju nikakve veze više od četiri godine.

ii Okrivljeni je došao je ispred kuće roditelja oštećene gde ona sada živi sa roditeljima i decom i kamenjem razbio dupla stakla sobe u kojoj je spavao njegov maloletni sin i na taj način je prekršio meru zaštite od nasilja u porodici.

ii U prisustvu dvoje maloletne dece okrivljeni je fizički nasrnuo na oštećenu suprugu, zadao joj udarac pesnicom u glavu, vređao je i pretio joj da će je odrobijati i iskopati oči.

ii U svojoj porodičnoj kući okrivljeni je pretio supruzi rečima “jel hoćeš sada da te zakoljem”, zatim je uhvatio za odeću i desnu ruku i šamarao usled čega je zadobila lake telesne povrede u vidu nagnječenja sa oguljotinom u čeonom predelu.

ii U dvorištu porodične kuće okrivljeni je presreo oštećenu svoju supugu, uhvatio je za kosu, stavio joj nož pod grlo i pretio joj je da će joj sina iseći, napraviti od njega bogalja i invalida, da će ako se ne iseli iz kuće i nju i sina zadesiti veliko zlo.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 39  2.3. Profil učinilaca Struktura učinilaca po polu U najvećem broju predmeta postupak se vodio protiv lica muškog pola – 96%, dok je ženski pol u uzorku bio zastupljen sa samo 4% (Grafikon 3). Ovaj nalaz se u potpuno- sti slaže sa ranijim istraživanjima kojima je utvrđeno da među krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici preovlađuju lica muškog pola i da su žene mogo manje zastupljene (91,5%:8,5%).

Grafikon 3

ženski 4%

muški 96%

Uzrast učinilaca U pogledu uzrasta učinilaca, najzastupljenija je starosna kategorija od 33-40 godina sa 42%, a zatim starosna kategorija od 41- 48 godina sa 18%. Interesantno je da je sta- rosna kategorija preko 65 godina zastupljena sa 12% što je znatno povećanje u odnosu na ranije istraživanje kada je ova starosna kategorija bila zastupljena sa 6,41%. Sa samo 2% u ispitivanom uzorku bila je zastupljena starosna kategorija od 25-32 godina, što je manje u odnosu na ranije istraživanje kada je ova starosna kategorija bila zastupljena sa 7,9%. Ako se uzme u obzir učešće učinilaca od 49-56 godina koje iznosi 20%, učinilaca od 41- 48 godina, koje iznosi 18%, i učinilaca od 57-65 sa 6%, možemo da zaključimo da se uzrasna kategorija učinilaca krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici blago pomerila ka starijoj uzrasnoj kategoriji (Grafikon 4).

40 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  Grafikon 4

preko 65 25-32 12% 2% 57-65 6% 33-40 42%

49-56 20%

41-48 18%

Bračno stanje učinilaca Bračno stanje učinilaca posmatrano je u ispitivanom uzorku u vreme izvršenja kriv- ičnog dela nasilja u porodici. Ovo je potrebno naglasiti jer se kod većine učinilaca i žrtava bračno stanje promenilo posle izvršenja krivičnog dela, vođenja i okončanja krivičnog postupka.Najveći broj učinilaca je u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela bio u braku – 38% i vanbračnoj zajednici – 20%. Neoženjeno/neudato je bilo 20% učinilaca, razvedeno 16%, rastavljeno 2% i udovaca/udovica 2% (Grafikon 5). U poređenju sa ranijim istraživanjima, nema bitnih promena u bračnom statusu učinilaca jer je ranije bila veća procentualna zastupljenost lica koja su se u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela nalazila u bračnoj zajednici.

Grafikon 5

nepoznato neoženjen/neudata 2% 20% oženjen/udata udovac/udovica 38% 2%

rastavljen-a 2%

razveden-a živi u 16% vanbračnoj zajednici 20%

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 41  Broj dece Najveći broj učinilaca (46%) ima dvoje i više dece, sa jednim detetom je 28% učinilaca, a bez dece je 26% učinilaca, dok je sa jednim detetom 28% učinilaca. Prema ranijim istraživanjima takođe preovlađuju učinioci sa dvoje i više dece, ali je, za razliku od ovog istraživanja, znatno manji procenat učinilaca bez dece (14,22%) (Tabela 2).

Tabela 2

Broj Procenat

Bez dece 13 26

Jedno dete 14 28

Dva i više 23 46

Ukupno 50 100,0

Očigledno je da na izvršenje nasilja u porodici nije od značaja okolnost da je učinilac roditelj. S druge strane, okolnost da 74% učinilaca krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici ima dece, potvrđuje da je opasnost od transgeneracijske transmisije nasilja izrazito velika i da je, pored ostalog, i zato neophodno da suzbijanje nasilje u porodici bude jedan od važnih političkih prioriteta države. Pri tome treba imati u vidu da su u velikom broju slučajeva nasilja u porodici deca prisustvovala izvršenju nasilja ili je prema njima izvršeno nasilje.

Obrazovanje učinilaca Ni u pogledu obrazovnog statusa učilaca nema bitnih promena u odnosu na nalaze iz ranijeg istraživanja: najveći broj učinilaca ima srednje obrazovanje – 66%, sa višom ško- lom ili fakultetom je 14%, a sa osnovnom školom je 12%. Sa nezavršenom osnovnom školom je 4% i sa magistraturom je jedan izvršilac– 2% (Tabela 3). Na osnovu ovog nalaza možemo zaključiti da učinioci krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici nisu neobrazovane osobe i da obrazovanje nije delovalo kao preventivni faktor u suzbijanju i sprečavanju nasilja.

42 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  Tabela 3

Broj Procenat

Nezavršena osnovna škola 2 4

Osnovna škola 6 12

Srednja škola ili Gimnazija 33 6

Viša škola ili fakultet 7 14

Magistratura ili doktorat 1 2

Nepoznato 1 2

Ukupno 50 100,0

Zanimanje učinilaca Učinoci krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz ispitivanog uzorka različitih su zanimanja, što je razumljivo s obzirom da među njima preovlađuju lica sa srednjim, višim i visokim obra- zovanjem. Tako se u uzorku pojavljuju sledeća zanimanja: vojno lice, mašinbravar, diplo- mirani građevinski inžinjer, automehaničar, konobar, carinski referent, komercijalista, radnik, električar, instruktor vožnje, autoelektričar, moler, policijski službenik, mašinski tehničar, programer, svešteno lice, vozač, precizni mehaničar, student pravnog fakulteta, stjuard, monter, turistički tehničar, trgovac, mašinbravar, akademski muzičar (violinista), medicinski tehničar, trgovac, obućar, dramaturg, viši medicinski tehničar, građevinski tehničar, elektrotehničar, gumar, komunalni radnik, kožarski tehničar.

Nalazi u pogledu obrazovanja i zanimanja osoba koje su izvršila krivično delo nasilja u porodici poklapaju se opštevažećim stavom da se učinioci krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici regrutuju iz svih društvenih slojeva, da su različitog obrazovnog profila i različi- tih zanimanja.

Zaposlenost učinilaca U pogledu zaposlenosti učinilaca krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici, može se konstatovati da je u isptivanom uzorku najviše nezaposlenih lica i lica koja traže posao – 40%, dok je zaposlenih nešto manje – 30%, za razliku od ranijeg istraživanja gde je u uzorku bio najveći procenat zaposlenih lica (56,40%). Manji je procenat penzionera – 18% i lica koja studiraju – 2% (Grafikon 6).

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 43  Grafikon 6

vlasnik firme nepoznato 2% 8% student zaposlen 2% 30%

penzioner 18%

nezaposlen, traži posao 40% Mesto rođenja i prebivalište učinilaca Upoređivanjem mesta rođenja i prebivališta učinilaca, može se konstatovati sledeće: u gradu je rođeno 76% učinilaca i u gradu ima prebivalište – 84% učinilaca. U selu je rođeno 24% učinilaca, prebivalište na selu ima 2% učinilaca, a u prigradskom naselju 14% ima prebivalište (Tabele 4 i 5).

Tabela 4 Mesto rođenja

Broj Procenat

Selo 12 24

Grad 38 76

Ukupno 50 100,0

Tabela 5 Prebivalište

Broj Procenat

Selo 1 2

Grad 42 84

Prigradsko naselje 7 14

Ukupno 50 100,0

44 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Ranija osuđivanost učinilaca Podaci o ranijoj osuđivanosti učinilaca krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici pokazuju da je veći procenat osuđivanih 50% lica od neosuđivanih 44%. Ovi podaci se razlikuju od rani- jeg istraživanja prema kome je bio veći broj ranije neosuđivanih učinilaca – 55%. Učin- ioci su osuđivani za različita krivična dela, uglavnom imovinskog karaktera, a 11 učinilaca je ranije bilo osuđeno za krivično delo nasilja u porodici. U jednom slučaju bilo je čak tri osude za nasilje u porodici (svaki put je bila izrečena uslovna osuda), a u dva slučaja su izvršioci bili sva puta osuđeni za istovrsno krivično delo nasilje u porodici (Grafikon 7).

Grafikon 7

nepoznato 6%

da ne 50% 44%

Iz sudskih predmeta se ne može sa sigurnošću utvrditi da li je među učiniocima kriv- ičnog dela nasilja u porodici bilo lica sa izbeglčkim statusom ili povratnika sa ratišta. Prili- kom ispitivanja okrivljenih sud nije utvrđivao ove okolnosti zbog čega i ne može da se sagleda u kojoj meri je ova okolnost mogla da bude od uticaja na izvršenje krivičnog dela nasilje u porodici.

Porodična i lična anamneza učinilaca O porodičnim prilikama, karakteristikama ličnosti i ponašanju učinilaca krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici do momenta izvršenja dela ima veoma malo podataka u sudskim spi- sima. To pokazuje da se u sudskom postupku veoma retko, sem ukoliko se ne odredi psi- hološko ili psihijatrijsko veštačenje, saznaju činjenice koje se odnose na porodični život i ponašanje učinioca pre izvršenja dela, kao i na osobine njegove ličnosti.

U velikom procentu u okviru ispitivanog uzorka nema podataka o kompletnosti pri- marne porodice učinioca (64%), kao i o porodičnim odnosima u primarnoj porodici (86%). Samo u malom broju slučajeva 13 (26%) konstatovano je da je primarna porodica učinioca bila kompletna, da su odnosi u porodici bili loši – 4 (8%) ili dobri – 3 (6%). Takođe nema dovoljno podataka o pokušajima samoubistva – 41 (82%), samopovređivanju – 45

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 45  (90%), ranom zlostavljanju – 6 (92%), bežanju od kuće – 48 (96%), bežanju od škole – 48 (96%), vršenju krivičnih dela u maloletstvu – 45 (90%). Smatramo da je ove podatke neo- phodno prikupiti u toku postupka jer se samo tako može kompletno sagledati uticaj raz- nih faktora sredine na vršenje krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici.

Zloupotreba alkohola i droga Prekomerna upotreba alkohola kod učinilaca pre izvršenje krivičnog dela zabeležena je u velikom broju slučajeva – 42%. Samo u 18% slučajeva učinioci nisu ranije konzumirali alkohol. Ipak, treba konstatovati da nije bilo podataka o ranijoj upotrebi alkohola u 40% slučajeva. Pojedini izvršioci su izjavljivali prilikom psihološko psihijatrijskog veštačenja da piju od ranog detinjstva i dugo godina. Upotreba droga pre izvršenja dela i zavisnost od upotrebe droga takođe nije ispitivana u svim slučajevima, pa je ovaj podatak ostao nepoznat u 42% slučajeva.

U vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici 46% učinilaca je bilo pod dejstvom alkohola (lako pijanstvo, srednje pijanstvo, teško pijanstvo). Ova okolnost je veoma značajna s obzirom na to da jedan broj učinilaca nalazi opravdanje za izvršenje krivičnog dela nasilje u porodici u tome da su bili pod dejstvom alkohola i da u takvom stanju nisu mogli da shvate značaj svojih postupaka ili da se ne sećaju šta su uradili. Čak jedan broj žrtava izjavljuje da su okrivljeni sasvim drugačiji kada su trezni i da tada nisu nimalo agre- sivni. Ipak, prekomerna upotreba alkohola se svakako mora sagledavati kao kriminogeni faktor koji značajno doprinosi izvršenju krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici. Pod dejstvom droge u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela bilo je 6% učinilaca, dok 68% nije bilo pod dejst- vom droga. Međutim, ove podatke treba oprezno tumačiti, s obzirom na to da u 26% sluča- jeva ostalo nepoznato da li su učinioci bili pod dejstvom droga u vreme izvršenja dela.

Psihopatska struktura ličnosti i duševne bolesti kod učinilaca

U jednom broju predmeta sprovedeno je psihijatrijsko i psihološko veštačenje radi utvrđivanja stepena krivice i uračunljivosti učinioca. Psihopatska struktura ličnosti kon- statovana je u samo 6% slučajeva u nalazima veštaka, što svakako ne odgovara pravoj zastupljenosti lica sa psihopatskom strukturom među izvršiocima krivičnih dela sa ele- mentom nasilja. U velikom procentu 54% u nalazima veštaka ili u toku postupka nije utvrđivano da li se radi o psihopatskooj strukturi ličnosti okrivljenog, što pokazuje da ova okolnost nije bila predmet interesovanja suda.

Učinioci krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici u okviru ispitivanog uzorka, kako pokazuju nal- azi veštaka neuropsihijatra, u najvećem broju slučajeva ne boluju od duševne bolesti (psi- hoze). Samo u nekoliko slučajeva je konstatovano da se radi o nekom obliku duševnog obolenja i to: privremena duševna bolest – faza psihotične dekompenzacije, paranoidni poremećaj ličnosti, duševni poremećaj sa sumanutošću – paranoidna psihoza, epilepsija,

46 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi paranoidna psihoza (perzistentni poremećaj sa sumanutošću). Ostali poremećaji u strukturi ličnosti, kao što su emocionalna nestabilnost, sklonost agresivnom ponašanju i ispadima, sumanuta ljubomora, produžena reakcija na stres, posledica su dugotrajne upotrebe alkohola ili zloupotrebe narkotika (kokain, heroin).

Odnos učinilaca prema krivičnom delu Kakav je odnos izvršilaca prema preduzetoj radnji krivičnog dela izuzetno je značajna okolnost jer je sud uzima u obzir prilikom odmeravanja kazne. Prema odredbi čl. 54 KZ (opšta pravila o odmeravanju kazne), kao jedna od okolnosti koja utiče na odmeravanje kazne navedeno je držanje učinioca posle učinjenog krivičnog dela, a naročito njegov odnos prema žrtvi krivičnog dela.

Za razliku od ranijih istraživanja, kada u spisima predmeta nije bilo dovoljno podataka o tome kakav je odnos učinioca prema izvršenom delu (19,23% predmeta nije sadržalo podatake o ovoj okolnosti), odnosno da li učinilac priznaje delo i izražava kajanje za pre- duzetu radnju, u ispitivanom uzorku postoje navedeni podaci. Kao i u ranijim istraživan- jima, najveći procenat učinilaca – 46% ne priznaje izvršenje dela, ne kaje se i smatra svoj postupak adekvatnim – 22%, neodređeno se izjašnjava 10%, dok 18% samo verbalno izražava kajanje, a samo 4% se stvarno kaje (Tabela 6).

Tabela 6

Broj Procenat

Da, stvarno žaljenje i kajanje 2 4

Neodređeno 5 10

Samo verbalno izražava 9 18 kajanje Ne kaje se/smatra svoj 11 22 postupak adekvatnim

Ne priznaje delo 23 46

Ukupno 50 100,0

Sopstvenu odgovornost za nastali događaj ne sagledava najveći procenat učinilaca – 40%, oni čak osporavaju vezu sa događajem, nema ili ne daje objašnjenje 26% učinilaca, 18% učinilaca smatra da je žrtva kriva za nastali događaj, 4% ne krivi ni sebe ni žrtvu, već smatra da je događaj posledica nesrećnih okolnosti, 2% racionalizuje svoju odgovo- rnost bezizlaznošću situacije, a samo 10% uglavnom prihvata svoju odgovornost (Tabela

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 47  7). Interesantno je napomenuti da su kod jednog broja učinilaca stav prema izvršenom krivičnom delu i prihvatanje odgovornosti za događaj uslovljeni određenim krivično- procesnim mogućnostima da se zaključi sporazum o priznanju krivičnog dela sa javnim tužiocem (čl. 313 ZKP) ili da se održi ročište za izricanje krivične sankcije tako da nije potrebno održavanje glavnog pretresa (čl. 512 ZKP).

Tabela 7

Broj Procenat

Uglavnom prebacuje 9 18,0 odgovornost na žrtvu

Ne krivi ni sebe ni žrtvu/ događaj smatra nesrećnim 2 4,0 sticajem okolnosti Racionalizuje svoju odgovornost “bezizlaznošću 1 2,0 situacije” (“nije bilo izbora”)

Ne daje objašnjenje ili 13 26,0 ga nema

Uglavnom prihvata sopst- 5 10,0 venu odgovornost

Ne priznaje krivično delo, tj. 20 40,0 osporava vezu sa događajem

Ukupno 50 100,0

Raniji odnos učinioca i žrtve pre izvršenja krivičnog dela U svim slučajevima iz ispitivanog uzorka pre izvršenja krivičnog dela postokjali su loši odnosi između učinioca i žrtve. Ti loši i poremećeni odnosi su se manifestovali na različite načine kroz ispoljavanje fizičkog i psihičkog nasilja. Često su kod partnerskog nasilja poremećeni odnosi počinjali odmah posle početka zajedničkog života i trajali u dužem vremenskom periodu:

ii Oštećena i okrivljeni su u bili u braku 40 godina, nasilje je postojalo od početka zasnivanja braka, ali je poslednjih godina kulminiralo i nastao je „pakao od života“;

ii Okrivljeni je izuzetno teške naravi posebno kada popije, stalno pravi probleme i preti da će ubiti oštećenu koju smatra svojim vlasništvom;

48 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  ii Uvek kada popije okrivljeni postaje agresivan, vređa, preti, udara;

ii Fizičko i psihičko nasilje je postojalo sve vreme trajanja bračne zajednice i nastavilo se posle razvoda;

ii Nasilje trajalo petnaest godina;

ii Sve vreme trajanja bračne zajednice oštećena je trpela fizičko nasilje, okrivljeni je polomio ruku i bio osuđen za kriično delo teške telesne povrede;

ii Stalne svađe i telesno povređivanje šest godina koliko je trajala vanbračna zajednica;

ii Intenzitet nasilja sina prema roditeljima se povećavao zbog preteranog konzumiranja alkohola i droga;

ii Između sina, koji je heroinski zavisnik petnaest godina, i roditelja svakodnevno psihičko nasilje;

ii Od početka zajedničke veze postojalo je psihičko nasilje, kasnije je počelo i fizičko nasilje zbog čega je oštećena napustila bračnu zajednicu;

ii Dug period primene fizičkog i psihičkog nasilja, ipak oštećena želi da se pomiri sa okrivljenim.

Stepen uračunljivosti učinilaca Podaci o uračunljivosti izvršilaca u vreme izvršenja dela pokazuju da je najveći procenat učinilaca bio uračunljiv u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela – 54%. Kod 22% učinilaca kon- statovana je smanjena uračunljivost, ali ne bitno, 12% je imalo bitno smanjenu uračunlji- vost i 4% izvršilaca je bilo neuračunljivo.

Motivi izvršenja krivičnog dela Neposredni motiv izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici u ispitivanom uzorku nije moguće sa sigurnošću utvrditi jer se u sudskim postupcima ova okolnost ne sagle- dava. O motivima za izvršenje krivičnog dela moguće je posredno zaključivati na osn- ovu odbrane okrivljenog i saslušanja oštećenog kao svedoka i drugih svedoka. Prema raspoloživim podacima, kao motivi za izvršenje krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici pojavl- juju se: ljubomora; potreba za novcem radi nabavke droge ili alkohola; vraćanja dugova; osveta zbog napuštanja bračne zajednice; ljutnja zbog loših ocena u školi i sl.

2.4. Profil žrtava Struktura žrtava po polu Ukupan broj žrtava u istraživanom uzorku je veći od broja učinilaca jer je u pojedinim slučajevima krivično delo izvršeno prema većem broju lica (Tabela 8). Tako je ukupan

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 49  broj žrtava 61. Kao i u ranijim istraživanjima, veći broj žrtava30 je ženskog pola. Ukupan broj žrtava ženskog pola je 78,7% (u ranijim istraživanjima 80,42%), a muškog pola 21,3% (u ranijim istraživanjima 19,57%) (Grafikon 8)

Tabela 8

Broj predmeta Procenat

jedna 41 67,2

dve 7 22,9

tri 2 9,8

Ukupno 61 100,0

Grafikon 8

muški 21%

ženski 79%

Prebivalište i mesto rođenja Prebivalište žrtava krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici u mnogo većem broju slučajeva je grad – 86,9%, zatim prigradsko naselje – 8,2%, selo –4,9%. Mesto rođenja najvećeg broja žrtava takođe je grad – 67,2%. U selu je rođeno 16,4% žrtava, i u prigradskom naselju 6,6%. Za ostale žrtave nema podataka o mestu rođenja.

Uzrast žrtava Prema podacima iz pregledanih sudskih predmeta, žrtve su različitog uzrasta. Malolet- nih žrtava je 6,6%. Punoletne žrtave pripadaju sledećim starosnim kategorijama: 25-32 godine 11,5%, 33-40 godina – 16,4%, 41-48 godina – 9,8%, 49-56 godina – 13,1%, 57-65 godina 19,7%, preko 65 godina 19,7% i nema podataka za 2 žrtve (3,3%) (Grafikon 9). Za

30 Izraz „žrtva“ korišćen je u značenju „oštećenog“ koji je u definisan kao lice čije je kakvo lično ili imovinsko pravo krivičnim delom povređeno ili ugroženo (čl. 2. st. 11. ZKP „Značenje izraza“).

50 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi razliku od podataka iz ranijeg istraživanja, kada je dominirala uzrasna kategorija žrtava od 41-48 godina (15,62%) i 49-56 godina (15,67%), sada u ispitivanom uzorku preovlađuju lica starijeg uzrasta od 57godina do preko 65 godina, ukupan procenat je 39,4%.

Grafikon 9

nepoznato maloletno dete 3% 7% 25-32 preko 65 20% 11%

33-40 16% 57-65 20% 41-48 49-56 10% 13%

Bračno stanje žrtava

S obzirom na to da je u strukturi krivičnih dela nasilja u porodici u velikom procentu zas- tupljeno partersko nasilje, razumljivo je da je u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela najveći procenat žrtava bio u braku (50,8%). (Grafikon 10). Ovaj nalaz je sličan sa rezultatima rani- jih istraživanja kada su takođe u ispitivanom uzorku preovlađivale žrtve koje su bile u braku u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela (35,13%). Razvedenih je 16,4% što pokazuje da se partnersko nasilje nastavlja i kada prestane da postoji bračna zajednica. Znatno je manji procenat žrtava koje su u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela bili rastavljeni (1,6%) ili su udovci/udovice – 1,6%.

Grafikon 10 nepoznato neoženjen/neudata 13% 6% udovac/udovica 2%

oženjen/udata rastavljen-a 51% 2% razveden-a 16% živi u vanbračnoj zajednici 10%

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 51  Broj dece U pogledu broja dece, najmaji procenat žrtava je bez dece – 11,5%, a najveći broj ima jedno (42,6%) ili dvoje i više dece (39,3%) (Tabela 9)

Tabela 9

Broj Procenat

Bez dece 7 11,5

Jedno dete 26 42,6

Dva i više 24 39,3

Nepoznato 4 6,6

Ukupno 61 100,0

Obrazovanje žrtava U velikom broju sudskih predmeta – 57,4% nema podataka o obrazovanju žrtava. Isto je pokazalo i ranije istraživanje kada je konstatovano da u 36,88% nema podataka o obra- zovanju žrtava. Ovaj nalaz pokazuje da se u sudskom postupku uzima veoma malo poda- taka o oštećenom, tako da se do podataka o obrazovanju i drugim parametrima vezanim za žrtvu dolazi posredno, na osnovu iskaza žrtve saslušane u svojstvu svedoka, kada sama žrtva saopštava taj podatak ili, ukoliko je vršeno psihološko veštačenje oštećenog, iz nalaza veštaka.

Prema raspoloživim podacima, najviše žrtava, kao i izvršilaca, ima srednje obrazovanje – 21,3%, zatim sledi manji broj žrtava sa višom školom ili fakultetom – 6,6% i osnovnom školom – 4,9%.

Zaposlenost žrtava Podaci o zaposlenosti žrtava takođe u velikom procentu nisu sadržani u sudskim pred- metima koji su bili predmet isptraživanja – 37,7%. Interesantno je da je među žrtvama veliki procenat penzionera – 26,2%, zaposleno je 19,7%, nezaposleno – 4,9%, 6,6% je domaćica i 4,9% učenika. Navedeni rezultati se razlikuju od ranijih istraživanja, kada je u uzorku bilo čak 34,12% zaposlenih žrtava, sa penzionera 11,8%.

Podaci o zaposlenosti žrtava su takođe retko sadržani u sudskim predmetima. Zbog toga se ne može sa sigurnošću tvrditi da je u ispitivanom uzorku ekonomska nesmostalnost žrtava imala odlučujuću ulogu u etiologiji nasilja u porodici.

52 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Priroda odnosa između učinilaca i žrtava Kao ranije istraživanje, kada je konstatovano da je dominatan oblik nasilja u porodici partnersko nasilje - nasilje prema bračnom supružniku i vanbračnom partneru (48,90% i 18,20%), ovo istraživanje je takođe pokazalo da je dominatan oblik nasilja u porodici partnersko nasilje. (Grafikon 11). Partnersko nasilje je zastupljeno u braku – 26,2%, između bivših bračnih i vanbračnih partnera – 13,1% i u vanbračnoj zajednici – 11,5%, što u ukupnom procentu iznosi 50,8%. U visokom procentu je zastupljen odnos između roditelja i dece (roditelji su žrtve, deca izvršioci) – 29,5%. I odnos između dece i roditelja (deca su žrtve, roditelji izvršioci) – 14,8%.U znatno manjem procentu su zastupljeni ostali članovi porodice kao žrtve: unuk/unuka – 1%, zet/snaja – 1%, tast/tašta – 1%.

Grafikon 11

unuk/unuka zet/snaja tast/tašta 2% 2% 2% suprug/supruga sin/ćerka (brak) 15% 26%

vanbračna zajednica 11% otac/majka 29% bivši supruzi (bračni ili vanbračni) 13%

Postojanje oružja kod žrtve i alkoholisanost u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela Za razliku od učinilaca koji su u većini slučajeva imali i koristili oružje prilikom izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 st.2 žrtve nisu imale oružje – 96,7% niti su ga upotrebile – 93,4%. Takođe, za razliku od učinilaca koji su u većini slučajeva bili pod uti- cajem alkohola u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela, žrtve u 86,9% slučajeva nisu u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela bile pod uticajem alkohola.

Odnos učinioca i žrtve pre podnošenja krvične prijave i reagovanje na ranije akte nasilja Kao što smo već konstatovali, prema podacima iz analiziranih predmeta, nasilje prema članovima porodice ispoljavano je u dužem vremenskom periodu. Iz navoda u krivičnoj prijavi i iz iskaza žrtava koje nisu odbile da svedoče i koje su saslušane kao svedoci na glavnom pretresu, vidi se da je najveći broj žrtava bio zlostavljan pre kritičnog događaja stalno ili povremeno u dužem vremenskom periodu. U mnogim predmetima sreću se svedočanstva žrtava da su fizičkom i psihičkom nasilju bile izložene od samog zasnivanja

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 53  braka, odnosno vanbračne zajednice.Na osnovu ovih podataka se može zaključiti da akti nasilja u porodici nisu izolovani incidenti, već da su pokazatelji obrasca zlostavljanja, koje se dešavalo u dužem vremenskom periodu. Ipak, treba napomenuti da je, za razliku od navoda u krivičnoj prijavi i izjave odmah posle kritičnog događaja, jedan broj žrtava u daljem toku postupka menjao iskaz i negirao ranije date izjave o postojanju nasilja želeći da zaštite okrivljenog.

Kao i ranija istraživanja i ovo je pokazalo da većina žrtava nije tražila pomoć od insti- tucija iako su nasilju bile izložene tokom dugog vremenskog perioda. Čak 91,8% žrtava nije tražilo pomoć Centra za socijalni rad ili drugih instiucija koje se bave zaštitom žrtava. Samo 8,1% ili samo 5 žrtava je obavestilo Centar za socijalni rad, od toga je jedna žrtva je bila smeštena u prihvatilište gde je sa detetom provela četiri meseca. U jednom slučaju je traženo mišljenje Autonomnog ženskog centra, koje se nalazi u spisima predmeta. Žrtve se nisu obraćale institucijama ni u onim slučajevima kada su učinioci bili u više navrata lečeni u psihijatrijskim ustanovama.To znači da se i pored brojnih kampanja o nultoj tol- eranciji nasilja i bolje medijske pokrivenosti pojave nasilja, žrtve još uvek nisu ohrabrile i stekle poverenje da traže pomoć.

Slična je situacija i kad je u pitanju prijavljivanje nasilja policiji: u 78,6% slučajeva nije bilo ranijeg prijavljivanja nasilja policiji, u 21,4% žrtve su prijavljivale nasilje policiji i ranije, pa je u nekim slučajevima vođen krivični ili prekršajni postupak. U poređenju sa poda- cima iz prethodnog istraživanja, smanjen je broj slučajeva nasilja u porodici koji su prija- vljivani policiji (ranije istraživanje 39,7% prijava), što znači da su žrtve i dalje neodlučne i zaplašene reakcijom nasilnika. U jednom slučaju nasilja, policija je dva puta bila oba- veštavana i dolazila je na poziv oštećene, ali je oštećena u daljem postupku odustajala od krivičnog gonjenja jer je okrivljeni obećavao da „neće više“. Jedna žrtva je izjavila da je bilo sramota da prijavljuje, dok je druga smatrala da će se nasilnik promeniti i da se nasilje neće ponavljati. Kada se nasilje ispoljava prema roditeljima, oni često ne žele da prijave nasilje jer se radi o posebnom emotivnom odnosu prema nasilniku. Ipak, strah od nasilnika i pretnje koje on upućuje žrtvi jedan od najčešćih razloga zbog kojih su ostajale da žive sa nasilnikom. Mnoge žrtve su neprijavljivanje nasilja opravdavale strahom da će im optuženi onemogućiti da viđaju svoju decu, pri čemu su sve one ovaj vid pretnji sma- trale realnim. U pregledanim sudskim predmetima nije bilo detaljnih podataka o odnosu policijskih službenika prilikom prijavljivanja nasilja u porodici prema žrtvi niti se na osnovu iskaza žrtava saslušanih kao svedoka može zaključiti kako je policija reagovala. Ipak, nesumnjivo je da je u slučajevima nasilja u porodici od izuzetnog značaja kakav je profesionalni odnos osoblja u institucijama kojima se žrtva obraća za pomoć; ukoliko pri- likom prvog prijavljivanja dela ne naiđe na poverenje i podršku, mala je verovatnoća da će se ponovo obratiti i zatražiti pomoć.

54 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  2.5. Krivični postupak – sadržina, tok i trajanje Krivični postupak se vodio u najvećem broju slučajeva u okviru uzorka prema izvršio- cima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 st. 1 – 64/%, zatim prema izvršiocima kriv- ičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 st. 2 – 22%, čl. 194 st.3 – 12% i čl. 194 st. 5 – 2%.

I prema podacima koje su dostavili sudovi u Beogradu postupajući po zahtevu za pristup informacijama od javnog značaja pokazuju, procesuirana krivična dela nasilja u porodici najčešće su kvalifikovana kao osnovni oblik dela – čl. 194. st. 1. KZ (Tabele 10, 11 i 12).

Tabela 10 Prvi osnovni sud u Beogradu Oblik Član 194. Član 194. Član 194. Član 194. Član 194. Ukupno dela st. 1. KZ st. 2. KZ st. 3. KZ st. 4. KZ st. 5. KZ

2014. 32 7 5 / 2

2015. 80 30 8 / 6

Tabela 11 Drugi osnovni sud u Beogradu

Član 194. Član 194. Član 194. Član 194. Član 194. Oblik dela st. 1. KZ st. 2. KZ st. 3. KZ st. 4. KZ st. 5. KZ

2014. 140 36 33 1 6

2015. 56 12 11 / 2

Tabela 12 Treći osnovni sud u Beogradu

Član 194. Član 194. Član 194. Član 194. Član 194. Oblik dela st. 1. KZ st. 2. KZ st. 3. KZ st. 4. KZ st. 5. KZ

2014. 13 2 3 / 1

2015. 26 4 3 / 1

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 55  2.5.1. Pritvor Za razliku od ranijeg istraživanja čiji rezultati pokazuju da je pritvor određivan vrlo retko, samo u 12,9% slučajeva, ovo istraživanje je pokazalo da je određivanje pritvora učinio- cima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici bilo mnogo češće, čak u 46% slučajeva (Grafikon 12).

Češće određivanje pritvora izvršiocima na osnovu zakonskih razloga za određivanje prit- vora, među kojima dominira opasnost da će okrivljeni ponoviti izvršenje krivičnog dela, odnosno izvršiti delo kojim preti, pokazuje da se problemu nasilja u porodici prilikom procesuiranja od strane sudova prilazi na mnogo odgovorniji način.

Grafikon 12

da 46% ne 54%

Određivanje pritvora zbog mogućeg uticaja na svedoke, što je jedan od zakonskih razloga za određivanje pritvora, bilo je mnogo manje zastupljeno. Istraživanje je, među- tim, pokazalo, da izvršioci nasilja itekako imaju uticaj na svedoke, posebno na žrtve, o čemu svedoči veliki broj žrtava koje kasnije odbijaju da svedoče na glavnom pretresu i izjavljuju da se ne pridružuju krivičnom gonjenju.

2.5.2. Dokazi U istraživanom uzorku najčešće izvođeni dokazi bili su: uvid u medicinsku doku- mentaciju, sudskomedicinsko veštačenje i veštačenje neurospsihijatra i psihologa, ispi- tivanje okrivljenih, saslušanje svedoka, saslušanje oštećenih kao svedoka, saslušanje profesionalaca iz centra za socijalni rad.

2.5.3. Način okončanja postupka U pravnosnažno okončanim predmetima najviše je doneto osuđujućih presuda 92%. U jednom slučaju je doneta oslobađajuća presuda i to u drugostepenom postupku zbog nedostatka dokaza, a u jednom predmetu je obustavljen postupak zbog odustanka jav- nog tužioca (oštećena nije nastavila krivično gonjenje) (Grafikon 13).

56 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  Grafikon 13

Obustavljen postupak Oslobađajuća presuda 2% 2%

Odluka o meri bezbednosti 4%

Osuđujuća presuda 92%

Iako se u praksi nasilje u porodici, po pravilu, vrši kontinuirano i redovno se ispoljava u dužem vremenskom periodu, pojedinačni akt nasilja prema članu porodici, takođe, sam po sebi, predstavlja dovoljan pravni osnov za kažnjavanje nasilnika. Eventualni propust suda da sankcioniše izvršenje nasilja u porodici, čak i kad je najlakšeg oblika, veoma je opasno jer kod nasilnika može izazvati uverenje da je primena nasilja legalna i legitima, što može uticati da nasilje poprimi drastičniji oblik i izazove teže posledice. Iz obrazlo- ženja sudskih odluka u ispitivanom uzorku može se zaključiti da je došlo do izvesnih pozitivnih pomaka u pogledu razumevanja samog fenomena nasilja u porodici i potrebe da ono bude sankcionisano i u „ranim fazama“, što potvrđuje i činjenica da se kontinuitet u ispoljavanju nasilja uglavnom ne smatra bitnim elementom dela.

2.5.4. Žalba Kad je reč o izjavljivanju žalbe, treba konstatovati da u velikom broju predmeta iz istraživanog uzorka u kojima je doneta prvostepena odluka žalba nije izjavljena – 76%. Žalba je na prvostepene presude je izjavljena u 12 slučajeva (24%). U jednom predmetu je zaključen sporazum o priznanju krivičnog dela.

Prema podacima iz sudskih predmeta, žalba je izjavljivana iz svih razloga iz kojih se, po zakonu, presuda krivičnog suda može pobijati: zbog bitne povrede odredaba krivičnog postupka, zbog povrede krivičnog zakona, zbog pogrešno ili nepotpuno utvrđenog činjeničnog stanja i zbog odluke o krivičnim sankcijama. U žalbama koje su izjavljivali okrivljeni, odnosno njihovi branioci jedan od najčešćih žalbenih razloga bio je pogrešno i nepotpuno utvrđeno činjenično stanje, pri čemu je materijalna neispravnost presude obrazlagana time da je presuda zasnovana samo na iskazu ostećene osobe, koji je, prema navodima iz žalbe, bio protivrečan, nelogičan i nepotpun. Takođe, predmet pobijanja u ovim žalbama bila je i odluka o kazni, za koju su žalioci tvrdili da je pogrešno odmerena.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 57  2.5.5. Trajanje postupka Jedan od značajnih faktora delotvornosti krivičnopravne zaštite od nasilja u porodici jeste efikasnost postupanja u procesuiranju krivičnih dela nasilja u porodici. Zahtev da postupak bude brz i efikasan proističe i iz prava na suđenje u razumnom roku, kao jednog od osnovnih procesnih ljudskih prava garantovanih čl. 6. Evropske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda, koju je naša država ratifikovala.31 Pravo na suđenje u razumnom roku, bazirano na idejama prirodne (fundamentalne) pravde, sastavni je deo prava na pravično suđenje, kao posebnog i autonomnog ljudskog prava,32 čije je ost- varivanje od suštinske važnosti za razvoj demokratije i principa vladavine prava. Etabli- ranje prava na pravično suđenje u nacionalni pravni sistem, kao i njegova standardizacija i internacionalizacija, izraz su potrebe da putem odgovarajućih procesnih garancija obezbedi adekvatna zaštita integriteta pojedinca, kao i pružanje kvalitetne, efektivne i ekspeditivne pravne zaštite.33

Da bismo sagledali efikasnost sudskog postupka, trajanje postupka smo posmatrali kroz pet faza: od podnošenja krivične prijave do podizanja optužnog akta; od podnošenja optužnog akta do donošenja prvostepene presude; od podnošenja krivične prijave do donošenja drugostepene presude; od podnošenja krivične prijave do nastupanja pravosnažnosti; od donošenja prvostepene presude do donošenja drugostepene presude (Tabela 13).

31 Zakon o ratifikaciji Evropske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda, izmenjene u skladu sa Protokolom broj 11, Protokola uz Konvenciju za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda, Protokola broj 4 uz Konvenciju za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda kojim se obezbeđuju izvesna prava i slobode koji nisu uključeni u Konvenciju i Prvi Protokol uz nju, Protokola broj 6 uz Konvenciju za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda o ukidanju smrtne kazne, Protokola broj 7 uz Konvenciju za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda, Protokola broj 12 uz Konvenciju za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda i Protokola broj 13 uz Konvenciju za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda o ukidanju smrtne kazne u svim okolnostima, «Službeni list SCG - Međunarodni ugovori», br. 9/2003 od 26.12.2003. godine. 32 “Right to a fair trial” (engl.), U domaćoj literaturi za označavanje ovog prava koriste se različiti izrazi: “pravo na pravično suđenje”, “pravo na pošteno suđenje”, “pravo na pravično dodeljivanje pravde”, “pravo na prave- dan prosec”, “pravo na pravično i zakonito suđenje” i dr. Pravo na pravično suđenje predviđeno je i u ranije usvojenim dokumentima Ujedinjenih nacija u domenu ljudskih prava. Videti čl. 10. Opšte deklaracije o pravima čoveka, kao i odredbu čl. 14. st. 1. Međunarodnog pakta o građanskim i političkim pravima (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), koja glasi: “Svi su jednaki pred sudovima. Svako ima pravo da zakonom odredeni nadležni, nezavisni i nepristrani sud nepristrano i javno иspita njegov predmet i odluci o opravdanosti svake krivične optužbe koja je protiv njega podignuta ili spora o gradanskopravnim pravima i obavezama.” 33 O pravu na suđenje u razumnom roku i njegovoj zaštiti pred Evropskim sudom za ljudska prava, detaljno: Van Dijk, Van Hoof, 1998; Mole, Harby, 2006: 26-27; Petrušić, 2005: 199-221).

58 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  Tabela 13 Krivična Optužni akt/ Krivična Krivična Prvostepena prijava/ prvostepena prijava/ prijava/ presuda/ optužni akt presuda drugostepena pravnos- drugostepena presuda nažnost presuda

Do 1 19(38%) 7(14%) 0 1(2%) 0 mesec

1-3 1 (2%) 18 (36%) 0 6 (12%) 5(10%) meseca

3-5 6 (12%) 9 (18%) 3(6%) 5 (10%) 3(6%) meseci

5-7 1(2%) 6(12%) 1(2%) 4 (8%) 1(2%) meseci

7-10 7(14%) 5(10%) 0 7 (14%) 1(2%) meseci

10 - 12 1(2%) 0 2 (4%) 6 (12%) 1(2%) meseci

1 godina do 2 10(20%) 3(6%) 1(2%) 10 (20%) 1(2%) godine 2 godine do 4 5 (10%) 1(2%) 3(6%) 7 (14%) 0 godine 4 godine do 5 0 0 1(2%) 2 (4%) 0 godina

Preko 5 0 1(2%) 1(2%) 2 (4%) 0 godina

UKUPNO 50 50 12 50 12

Prema podacima iz tabele, od podnošenje krivične prijave do nastupanja pravosnažnosti protekne prilično dug vremenski period. U poređenju sa podacima iz ranijeg istraživanja, efikasnost u postupanju nije bitno povećana.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 59  Ako se postupak posmatra po fazama, može se videti da je najkraća prva faza, period od podnošenja krivične prijave do podizanja optužnog akta. Prosečno vreme koje je potrebno da se provere navodi krivične prijave i podigne optužni akt, u proseku traje do mesec dana – 38%, što zaista pokazuje izuzetnu efikasnost. Međutim, u jednom broju predmeta 10 (20%), ova etapa postupka trajala je jednu do dve godine i dve do četiri godine – 5 (10%), što je zaista nedopustivo dug period za utvrđivanje odlučujućih čin- jenica za pokretanje krivičnog postupka kada se radi o krivičnom delu nasilja u porodici.

Prema podacima iz ispitivanog uzorka, faza od podnošenja optužnog akta do donošenja prvostepene presude u najvećem broju slučajeva 18 (36%) traje od mesec dana do tri meseca i od tri meseca do pet meseci – 9 (18%), što predstavlja relativno kratak period s obzirom na to da se u ovoj fazi odvija najznačajniji deo krivičnog postupka. Vremenski interval od podnošenja krivične prijave do donošenja drugostepene odluke u 12 pred- meta u kojima je podneta žalba na prvostepenu presudu i doneta drugostepena pre- suda, u tri slučaja (6%) iznosio je čak od dve do četiri godine. Efikasnost postupka se najbolje sagledava praćenjem vremenskog intervala od podnošenja krivične prijave do pravnosnažnosti prvostepene presude. U jednom slučaju ova faza je izuzetno kratko tra- jala samo 23 dana. Najduže trajanje postupka od podnošenja krivične prijave do prav- nosnažnosti zabeleženo je u deset predmeta (20%) od jedne do dve godine i od dve do četiri godine u sedam slučajeva (14%). Manji broj predmeta – 2 (4%) okončan je u inter- valu četiri do pet godina i preko pet godina. U jednom slučaju otac je izvršio krivično delo nasilja u porodici prema svom desetogodišnjem maloletnom sinu i krivični pos- tupak je pokrenut zbog krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici (čl. 194 st. 3, kada je žrtva malo- letno lice) izvršenog 2006. godine, međutim postupak je veoma dugo trajao, tako da je oštećeni sin u međuvremenu postao punoletan (presuda je postala pravnosnažna 2016. godine). Trajanje postupka od donošenja prvostepene presude do donošenja drugoste- pene presude je znatno kraće. Najčešće taj deo postupka traje od 1-3 meseca (10%) i od 3 do 5 meseci (6%).

2.6. Vrsta i visina izrečenih krivičnih sankcija Pregledom pravosnažnih sudskih odluka u okviru istraživanog uzorka, utvrdili smo da su izvršiocima izricane sledeće krivične sankcije: kazna zatvora, kazna zatvora sa primenom elektronskog nadzora, kazna zatvora koju će osuđeni izdržavati u prostorijama u kojima stanuje bez primene elektronskog nadzora, kazna zatvora uz primenu elektronskog nadzora i mera bezbednosti, kazna zatvora i mera bezbednosti, uslovna osuda, oslovna osuda i mera bezbednosti, uslovna osuda sa zaštitnim nadzorom, mera bezbednosti, novčana kazna i uslovna osuda. Najviše je izrečeno uslovnih osuda - 29 ili 63,04%, što je u skladu sa ranijim istraživanjima kada je konstatovano da je uslovna osuda dominan- tan oblik krivične sankcije. Kazna zatvora (svi oblici) bila je izrečena u 36,95% slučajeva.

60 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Najmanje je izrečeno samo mera bezbednosti (2 ili 4% - mere bezbednosti su uglavnom izricane uz kaznu zatvora ili uslovnu osudu). (Tabela 14, Grafikon 14).

Tabela 14

Broj Procenat

Kazna zatvora 5 10,86

Kazna zatvora u prostorijama u kojima okrivljeni stanuje sa primenom 4 8,69 elektronskog nadzora Kazna zatvora u prostorijama u kojima okrivljeni stanuje bez elektronskog 1 2,17 nadzora i mera bezbednosti Kazna zatvora u prostorijama u kojima okrivljeni stanuje uz primenu elektron- 1 2,17 skog nadzora i mera bezbednosti

Kazna zatvora i mera bezbednosti 6 13,04

Uslovna osuda 15 32,60

Uslovna osuda i mera bezbednosti 12 26,08

Uslovna osuda sa zaštitnim nadzorom 1 2,17

Uslovna osuda i novčana kazna 1 2,17

U k u p n o osuđujućih presuda 46 92

Mera bezbednosti 2 4

Obustavljen postupak 1 2

Oslobađajuća presuda 1 2

Ukupno 50 100,0

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 61  Grafikon 14

Zatvor

Kazna rada u javnom interesu i mera bezbedosti obaveznog lečenja alkoholičara na slobodi

Kazna zatvora u prostorijama u kojima okrivljeni stanuje bez primene električnog nadzora

Kazna zatvora, novčana kazna i mera bezbednosti zabrane približavanja i komuniciranja

Zatvor i mera bezbednosti

Uslovna osuda

Uslovna osuda i mera bezbednosti

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ukupan broj mera bezbednosti koje su izrečene samostalno, uz kaznu zatvora i uslovnu osudu je 22. Izricane su mera bezbednosti obaveznog lečenja narkomana u Specijalnoj bolnici za bolesti zavisnosti u Beogradu, mera bezbednosti obaveznog lečenja alkohol- ičara u ustanovi, mera bezbednosti obaveznog lečenja alkoholičara na slobodi, mera bezbednosti obaveznog psihijatrijskog lečenja i čuvanja u zdravstvenoj ustanovi. S obzi- rom na to da je veliki broj krivičnih dela izvršen usled prekomerne upotrebe alkohola i da je veliki broj učinilaca i pre izvršenja krivičnog dela prekomerno konzzumirao alkohol, najviše je izricana mera bezbednosti obaveznog lečanja alkoholičara. Mera zabrane prib- ližavanja i komuniciranja sa oštećenim izrečena je u četiri slučaja.

U pogledu dužine izrečenih kazni zatvora, najkraća je kazna zatvora u trajanju od 48 dana izrečena je u jednom slučaju, a najduže kazna zatvora u trajanju od 6 meseci i godinu dana izrečene su u 29,4% slučajeva. (Tabela 15).

62 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  Tabela 15

Broj Procenat

48 dana 1 5,9

6 meseci 5 29,4

8 meseci 2 11,8

1 godina 5 29,4

1 godina i 4 meseci 1 5,9

1 godina i 6 meseci 1 5,9

2 godine 1 5,9

3 godine i 4 meseci 1 5,9

Ukupno 17 100,0

Analiza vrste i visine odmerenih kazni za izvršena krivična dela nasilja u porodici poka- zuje da su kazne prilično blage, imajući u vidu društvenu opasnost dela, način izvršenja, i činjenicu da je većina učinilaca i ranije ispoljavala nasilničko ponašanje. Ovakvoj kaznenoj politici svakako doprinosi i činjenica da je od samog događaja, odnosno od izvršenja krivičnog dela do donošenja presude i odluke o kazni, u pojedinim slučajevima protekao duži vremenski period i da je za to vreme došlo do znatnih promena u porodičnim odno- sima. Osim toga, u nekim slučajevima, kada je okrivljeni priznao izvršenje dela, bili su ispunjeni zakonski uslovi za zakljućenje sporazuma o priznanju krivičnog dela sa javnim tužiocem, koji je sud prihvatio ili je održano ročište za izricanje krivične sankcije, što je svakako uticalo da sud bude blaži u pogledu kažnjavanja.

Prilikom odmeravanja vrste i visine kazne, veoma je važno koje okolnosti sud uzima kao relevantne i kako procenjuje njihov uticaj. U skoro svim predmetima u kojima su donete prvostepene presude i u kojima je postojalo obrazloženje presude (u 28 presuda nije bilo obrazloženja) bilo je mogućno ispitati koje je okolnosti sud uzeo u obzir prilikom odmer- avanja, kojim se razlozima rukovodio kad je našao da kaznu treba ublažiti, optuženog

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 63  uslovno osuditi, da li i koju meru bezbednosti treba izreći, što je, inače, dužnost suda, predviđena čl.54 ZKP. U analiziranim prvostepenim presudama, kao olakšavajuće okol- nosti, navedene su: okrivljeni je delimično ili potpuno priznao izvršenje krivičnog dela, pokajao se, otac je troje dece od kojih sam čuva dvoje, nije osuđivan, mlad čovek, korektno držanje pred sudom, godine starosti, kajanje zbog izvršenog krivičnog dela, jaka samoinicijativa za lečenje, okrivljeni je bio u stanju bitno smanjene urečunljivosti, fakultetsko obrazovanje – magistar, lične i porodične prilike, protek vremena od posled- njeg izvršenog krivičnog dela, okrivljeni nema imovinu, oštećena se nije pridružila gon- jenju, oštećena nije istakla imovinskopravni zahtev jer se okrivljeni promenio i dobar je prema njoj, zdravstveno stanje, postojanje svesti kod okrivljenog da je pogrešio.

Kao i u ranijem istraživanju i u ovom istraživanju se može konstatovati da za razliku od olakšavajućih okolnosti, koje se u najčešće u velikom broju navode u sudskim presudama, broj otežavajućih okolnosti se znatno manje pominje. U relativno velikom broju predmeta sud uopšte nije navodio otežavajuće okolnosti. U predmetima u kojima je sud našao da postoje otežavajuće okolnosti, kao najčešće, pojavljuju se: ranija osuđivanost za druga krivična dela, ranija osuđivanost za istovrsno krivično delo nasilje u porodici, osuđiva- nost za krivična dela sa elementom nasilja, činjenica da prethodno izrečene kazne nisu korigovale ponašanje okrivljenog, ranije prekršajno kažnjavanje, pojačan stepen krivice, ranije prekršajno kažnjavanje, jačina ugrožavanja ili povrede zaštićenog dobra.

Na osnovu podataka iz obrazloženja sudskih presuda može se zaključiti da je u mnogim predmetima sud sasvim uopšteno navodio različite okolnosti, ne udubljujući se u stvarni efekat njihovog dejstva. Takođe, uočen je automatizam prilikom utvrđivanja olakša- vajućih i otežavajućih okolnosti jer su navođene pojedine okolnosti iz same zakonske odredbe, pri čemu se nije uzimala u obzir činjenica da se radi o nasilnim odnosima u porodici koji imaju viši stepen opasnosti u odnosu na druge oblike nasilničkog ponašanja.

64 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 3. Sudska praksa u Nišu

3.1. Opšti podaci o sudskim predmetima Pregledano je ukupno 25 sudskih predmeta iz nadležnosti Osnovnog suda u Nišu.

3.2. Fenomenologija krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici Oblik izvršenja U istraživanom uzorku od 25 sudskih predmeta, 25 učinilaca je izvršilo ukupno 33 krivičnih dela nasilja u porodici (Grafikon 15). Najveći procenat izvršenih krivičnih dela ima teži oblik krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici (63,6%) i to: 39,4% ima karakteristike drugog oblika kriv- ičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 st. 2 i trećeg oblika iz čl. 194 st. 3 (24,2%). Manje je zastupljeno izvršenje krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl.194 st.1 (33,3%), što se znatno razlikuje od uzorka predmeta iz Beograda i Novog Sada, gde preovlađuje lakši oblik kriv- ičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 st.1. (64% Beograd i 96,6% Novi Sad). Krivično delo nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 st. 5 izvršeno je u jednom slučaju (3,03%).

Grafikon 15

194/5 3% 194/3 194/1 24% 33%

194/2 40%

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 65  Sticaj krivičnih dela Slično uzorku predmeta iz Beograda i Novog Sada, najveći procenat krivičnih dela nije izvršen u sticaju – 60% (Grafikon 16). U sticaju je izvršeno 40% krivičnih dela, što je znatno veći procenat nego u Beogradu (16%) i Novom Sadu (7,7%).

Grafikon 16

Postoji sticaj 40%

Ne postoji sticaj 60%

Saučesništvo

U okviru ispitivanog uzorka nije bilo nijednog oblika saučesništva. Učinioci su sami izvršavali krivično delo nasilja u porodici. Iste rezultate je pokazalo istraživanje u Beogradu.

Interesantno je da je prilikom izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici u 64% predmeta bilo očevidaca prilikom izvršenja krivičnog dela. Najčešće su to bila deca i drugi članovi porodice, ali i susedi, koji su saslušavani kao svedoci u krivičnom postupku (Grafikon 17).

Grafikon 17

Nije bilo očevidaca 36%

Bilo očevidaca 64%

66 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Mesto izvršenja Mesto izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici je u većem procentu grad 76%, selo je zastupljeno sa 24% u uzorku pregledanih predmeta. Kod svih krivičnih dela mesto izvršenja je isto kao i mesto stanovanja izvršioca i žrtve (Grafikon 18).

Grafikon 18

selo 24%

grad 76%

Konkretno mesto (prostor) izvršenja je najčešće zajednički stan/kuća/dvorište žrtve i učinioca – 40%, stan/kuća/dvorište učiniooca – 32% i stan/kuća/dvorište žrtve – 20%. Najmanje krivičnih dela je izvršeno na otvorenom prostoru i u roditeljskoj kući žrtve – 4% (Grafikon 19).

Grafikon 19

park/ulica/otvoren roditeljska kuća žrtve prostor 4% 4% stan/kuća/dvorište učinioca 32%

zajednički stan/kuća/dvorište žrtve i učinioca 40% stan/kuća/dvorište žrtve 20%

Vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela Najviše krivičnih dela nasilja u porodici u okviru uzorka izvršeno je u jesen – 28%, pod- jednako u proleće i leto – 20%, zatim u zimu i u dužem vremenskom periodu – 16%. Ovi podaci se mnogo ne razlikuju u odnosu na vremenske intervale izvršenja krivičnih dela u Beogradu, gde preovlađuju krivična dela nasilja u porodici izvršena u leto (30%) i jesen

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 67  (28%). Razlika postoji u odnosu na Novi Sad gde je u proleće izvršeno najviše krivičnih dela nasilja u porodici – 32%. Posmatrano u odnosu na doba dana kada se izvršava kriv- ično delo nasilja u porodici, u najviše slučajeva gde je konstatovano vreme izvršenja dela (19), krivično delo je izvršeo u popodnevnim ili večernjim časovima - 14 (56%). Možemo da konstatujemo da podaci o vremenu izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici imaju vrednost fenomenološkog sagledavanja ove pojave, ali nisu od uticaja na etiologiju ovog krivičnog dela.

Sredstva izvršenja Sredstva izvršenja krivčnog dela nasilja u porodici u ispitivanom uzorku su različiti pred- meti, počev od korišćenja određenih delova tela (šaka, ruka, pesnica, noga), različitih predmeta (kaiš, cepanica, motka, metalna cev, bejzbol palica, drvena noga od stola) pa do hladnog oružja (nož, sekira, satara). Za razliku od istražćivanja u Beogradu i Novom Sadu gde je bilo najzastupljenije fizičko nasilje bez upotrebe oruđa ili oružja, među kriv- ičnim delima iz istraživanog uzorka u Nišu najveći procenat je krivićnih dela nasilja u porodici izvršenih uz upotrebu oruđa, oružja ili sredstva podobnog da telo teško povredi ili zdravlje teško naruši _ 48%, dok je fizičko nasilje bez upotrebe oruđa ili oružja bilo zas- tupljeno sa 40%. Psihičko nasilje je postojalo samo u jednom slučaju (4%), a kumulativno fizičko i psihičko nasilje u dva slučaja (8%).

Načini izvršenja Načini izvršenja krivičnog dela zavisili su od vrste nasilja (fizičko, psihičko), ali i od sred- stava izvršenja.

Fizičko nasilje vršeno je na različite načine, među kojima su: udaranje drvenim naslonom od fotelje, hvatannje rukama za vrat i stezanje, udarac otvorenom šakom u predelu lica, udaranje pesnicom u glavu, udaranje kajišem po leđima, gađanje vcepanicom, udaranje drvenom motkom, šutiranje, čupanje za kosu, udaranje metalnom šipkom itd.

Psihičko nasilje izvršavano je psovanjem, vređanjem pogrdnim imenima („kurva“, „sel- jančura“ „bezvredna“i dr), pretnjama ubistvom i sl.

Analiza opisa izvršenih krivičnih dela pokazuje da je nasilje po načinu izvršenja i posle- dicama bilo veoma brutalno, da nasilnici primenjuju veoma širok repertoar nasilja i da su posledice nasilja veoma teške,, što ilustruju sledeći primeri:

ii Okrivljeni je suprugu udario drvenim naslonom od fotelje i naneo joj povrede u vidu rasekotine, kada je ušla u sobu gde je on bio sa drugom ženom i zatražila cigaretu. Druga žena je živela sa njima šest meseci, posle ovog događaja oštećena je nastavila da živi sa njima i boravila u drugoj sobi sa decom i majkom okrivljenog. Okrivljeni je ponovo napao i slomio joj ruku. Smeštena je u sigurnu kuću, a deca su odlukom Centra za socijalni rad

68 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  smeštena u hraniteljsku porodicu. Posle razvoda, dece su ostala u hraniteljskoj porodici i pokrenut je postupak za lišenje roditeljskog prava oba roditelja.

ii Posle dolaska kući okrivljeni je u alkoholisanom stanju udario je maloletnu ćerku spoljnim delom šake u predelu čela, oštećena se onesvestila i udarila u sto, od čega je zadobila povrede u vidu magnječenja kože gornje usne – laka telesna povreda, a zatim je i suprugu, koja je prišla da pomgne ćerki, uhvatio rukama za vrat i stegao, usled čega je zadobila laku telesnu povredu u vidu nagnječenja kože vrata obostrana.

ii Okrivljeni je pretio ocu da će da ga zakolje, a zatim ga pesnicom udario u nos od čega je oštećeni pao na pod, a okrivljeni je nastavio da ga udara pesnicama i šutira nogama po glavi i telu usled čega je oštećeni zadobio teške telesne povrede.

ii Okrivljeni je sumnjao u vernost oštećene i hteo je da joj oduzme mobilni telefon da pregleda poruke. U vidno pijanom stanju posle kraće svađe oštećenoj je uputio uvredljive reči da je “svrljiška kurva”., da će da joj pokaže ko je on, da je neodgovorna majka, gurao je rukama, pretio da će je ubiti, zadao udarac otvorenom šakom u predelu lica, što je imalo za posledicu laku telesnu povredu.

ii U pijanom stanju okrivljeni je zahtevao je od oštećenog (svog dede) da mu donese piće, pa kad je on to odbio, okrivljeni je oštećenom i svooj majci uputio više pogrednih reči, bacio mobilni telefon, razbio daljinski upravljač od televizora, prevrnuo stolicu, pa kada je oštećeni prišao da bi ga sprečio da dalje razbija stvari, okrivljeni ga je najpre udario glavom u predelu nosa, a zatvorenim šakama zadao više udaraca u predelu lica i glave, sod kojih udaraca je oštećeni zadobio lake telesne povrede u vidu krvih podliva ispod očiju.

ii Prvi događaj: oštećenu – bivšu suprugu , okrivljeni je nogom je šutnuo u desnu butinu, pa, kada je počela da beži, on je pojurio sustigao ispred ulaznih vrata kuće, pesnicom i nogom je udario u predelu leđa i stomaka i više puta po ramenima u glavi, od kojih udaraca je zadobila lake telesne povrede. Drugi događaj: posle odbijanja oštećene da uđe u automobil okrivljenog, okrivljei je primenom sile ugurao u automobil, odvezao do Vrežine, pa kada je oštećena izašla iz automobil, pesnicom je udario u glavu, od kog udarca je oštećena pala, zatim je vređao i pesnicama udario više puta u predelu glave i ramena. Treći događaj: okrivljeni je došao do ulaznih vrata kuće gde živi njegova maloletna ćerka sa majkom, počeo da šutira vrata pa kad mu je ćerka pitala zašto to radi i šta hoće, psovao je, vređao i pretio da će da je ubije kad je vidi na ulici.

ii Oštećenu – sestru, sa kojom živi u zajedničkom domaćinstvu okrivljeni je udario nogom od stola, pošto je prethodno prevrnuo sto i stolice i polomio dve noge od stola. Oštećenu je udario u desnu nogu u predelu potkolenice, a zatim je šakama obe ruke udario u predelu lica, tako da je oštećena zadobila lake telesne povrede.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 69  ii Okrivljeni je ušao u kuću oca oštećene (vanbračna supruga), sa kuhinjskim nožem i sekirom, pretio oštećenoj da će da je zakolje i izbuši i zamahivao nožem dužine sečiva oko 15cm. Oštećena je pobegla sa detetom u drugu sobu, okrivljeni je pošao za njom i kada je u sobu ušao njen otac, pretio je da će automatskom puškom, koju je doneo sa ratišta, da ga ubije, da ne zaslužuju da žive, da će baciti bombu, da će im polomiti noge, pa kad je oštećena prišla da pomogne ocu, ugrizao je za ruku i naneo joj laku telesnu povredu.

ii Okrivljeni je zahtevao od supruge da uđe u njegov automobil da razgovaraju o razlozima za razvod braka, otvorio je vrata automobila, pomerio prednje sedište, ubacio je na zadnje sedište. Odvezao je do izletišta Čegar, izvukao iz automobile, bacio na zemlju, više puta rukama udarao po glavi i telu, usled čega je oštećena zadobila teške telesne povrede, u vidu potpunog preloma desne lakatne kosti,krvnog podliva kože i potkožnog levog podloipatičnog predela i nagnječenja mekog tkiva obe strane, zatim je odvezao do sela Jelašnice i više puta udario u predelu stomaka.

ii Prvi događaj: okrivljeni je pijan ušao u kuhinju gde se nalazila njegova majka i počeo raspravu oko dokumentacije, pretio je da će je ubiti, zaklati, odrobijati, a zatim je to isto ponovio ocu, uzeo stolicu, podigao je iznad glave i sedalnim delom ga udario u glavu. Uzeo je drugu da opet udari oca, ali mu je majka istrgla stolicu iz ruke. Otišao je u sobu, počeo da lomi stvari po sobi, a zatim je opet došao do oca, uhvatio ga je za revere od košulje i više puta udario pesnicama obeju ruku u grudi i pretio da će da ga ubije, pri čemu ga je izgurao iz stana; Drugi događaj: u večernjim časovima je počeo da psuje i viče najpre na svoju majku, koju je zatim udario u predelu levog ramena, pa, kada je ušao otac i sestra, nastavio je da psuje i preti, sestru je ošamario, uzeo je iz kuhinje sataru dužine sečive 20 cm i držeći je u desnoj ruci mahao njome u pravcu svih oštećenih.

ii Prvi događaj: iznerviran činjenicom da maloletni oštećeni – dete okrivljenog ne može da zapamti gradivo iz geografije, udario je maloletnog oštećenog rukom u potiljačni deo glave i više puta ošamario po licu. Drugog maloletnog oštećenog (drugo maloletno dete) bez ikakvog razloga, dok se nalazio u krevetu, udario više puta kaišem u predelu nogu, ruku i ramena, nanevši mu više lakih telesnih povreda u vidu krvnih podliva. Pri tome je sve vreme vikao na decu a mobilni telefon je bacio i poloio ga, a polomio je i dve fijoke od plakara; Drugi događaj: okrivljeni je više puta rukama udarao maloletnog sina kada mu je saopštio da je dobio trojku iz fizike, naredio mu da ne sme da se pomera, tako da je maloletni oštečeni u strahu mirno stajao u ćošku sobe između 14h tog dana i 7h narednog dana. U toku te noći ga je naterao da iscepa sve svoje udžbenike i sveske što je oštećeni i učinio, zatim ga je kaišem i pesnicama udarao po raznim delovima tela, šutirao, gađao daljinskim upravljačem i flašom od jogurta, zapalio knjigu iz matematike upaljačem i bacio je u kantu za smeće. Pretio je maloletnom ošttećenom da će da ga odvede u šumu, da će tamo da ga ostavi, da će da ga ispiše iz škole, zahtevao je od njega da uđe u perionicu i pita za svoje zaposlenje preteći da će da ga udari i zalepi za zemlju ako to ne učini; Treći

70 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  događaj: u drugom polugođu školske godine, revoltiran što je maloletni oštećeni dobio ocenu 4 na 5 iz geografije naterao ga je da stoji u ćošlu svoje sobe i da se ne pomera 6 sati neprekidno; Četvrti događaj: iznerviran činjenicom što njegov drugi sin mal.ošt.nije mogao da shvati gradivo iz matematike, naredio da ispruži ruke i više puta ga je udario po rukama kaišem, tako da su maloletnom oštećenom ruke sa unutrašnje strane bile potpuno plave do podlaktica, a onda, bez ikakvog razloga počeo je da viče na maloletnog oštećenog drugog sina koji je u istoj sobi sedeo i učio hemiju i zadao mu više udaraca kaišem po leđima; Peti događaj: prišao svom maloletnom sinu ubeđujući ga da on i njegov brat promene iskaz kako okrivljenine bi završio u zatvoru, iako je pravosnažnom i izvršnom presudom Osnovnog suda u Nišu zabranjeno da se približava svojoj bivšoj supruzi i maloletnoj deci, oštećenima, na udaljenost od 100m, pa je tako prekršio i meru zaštite od nasilja u porodici.

ii Oštećenu ćerku, koja je bila u drugom stanju, okrivljeni je vređao i psovao, zatim je uzeo sekiru i pretio da će da je zakolje ako ne ode iz njihove kuće.

ii U porodičnoj kući okrivljeni je psovao i vređao oštećenu – majku, a zatim joj zadao jedan udarac šakom u predelu lica i naneo joj laku telesnu povredu.

ii U dužem vremenskom periodu (februar - decembar 2016.) okrivljeni je fizički i psihički maltretirao vanbračnu suprugu tako što je šamarao u predelu lica, vilice, naredio da skine pantalone i vrhom noža uboo u predelu zadnjeg dela tela; udarao rukama u predelu lica i bubrega, a metalnom šipkom u predelu glave; u toku noći je zaključao ulazna vrata sobe, pesnicama je udarao po licu i bubrezima, pretio nožem, naredio da skine donji veš, uboo je nožem u predelu jajnika, leve prepone i zadnjeg dela tela, makazama je ošišao, uzeo sekiru i tupim delom je udario u glavu zbog čega je izgubila svest, kad se osvestila, ponovo je udarao pesnicama tako da je zadobila lake telesne povrede.

ii Okrivljeni je oštećenu suprugu isterao iz kuće a zatim je gađao cepanicom ali je nije pogodio. Uveče je ponovo došao u kuću gde je oštećena stanovala sa svojim roditeljima, vikao i drmao kapiju tražeći da u otvore i pretio da će da ih pobije i zakolje, vikao je “gde ste mi sakrili decu”. Kada je oštećeni – tast izašao, okrivljeni ga je uhvatio za ruku, udario glavom o glavu a zatim ga i pesnicom udario tako da je oštećeni zadobio laku telesnu povredu na čeonom delu glave i arkadi.

ii Drvenom motkom dužine 30-40 cm debljine 3cm okrivljeni je zamahnuo da oštećenu – suprugu udari po glavi, ona je podigla desnu ruku da se zaštiti, pa je okrivljeni zadao udarac i naneo tešku telesnu povredu u vidu preloma desne lakatne kosti.

ii Oštećenu suprugu dok je sedela na keju, okrivljeni je bez ikakvog povoda šutnuo nogom u levu stranu tela. Kada je otišla u stan gde živi sa okrivljenim, dok je sedela na krevetu, jednom rukom je uhvatio za kosu i vukao po sobi, dok je zatvorenom šakom druge ruke i nogama više puta udarao po glavi i telu, nazivajući je kurvom. Oštećena je zadobila teške

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 71  telesne povrede opasne po život u vidu rascepa slezine sa masivnim krvarenjem u trbušnoj duplji, nagnječenje kože i površno razderno nagnječne rane u predelu grudnog dela i kičmenog stuba. Oštećenaoj je odstranjena slezina jer je bila bukvalno prepolovljena, izvađeno je 1,2l krvi iz trbušne duplje, a granica za smrtni ishod je 1,5l. Kada su je komšije pronašle, nije htela da kaže da je okrivljeni povredio, već je rekla je da je nastradala u saobraćajnoj nesreći.

ii U alkoholisanom stanju bez razloga okrivljeni je pretio oštećenoj rečima “možeš da odeš sa decom, ali ako ikad imaš muškarca pored sebe, obesiću tebe i njega na spomenik za primer”. Mobilnim telefonom uputio pretnje da će da ubije svakog ko je podržava. Oštećena sa decom otišla u stan svojih roditelja gde je on došao i pokušao da uđe u stan.

ii Okrivljeni je svog sina udario motkom u predelu leđa i ruku, a zatim metalnom šipkom više puta po kičmi i desnoj ruci usled čega je oštećeni zadobio lake telesne povrede u vidu nagnječena kože i potkožnih tkiva levog čeonom predela, leđnog dela grudnog koša i desne ruke.

ii Okrivljeni je drvenom palicom (bejzbol palicom) više puta je udario oštećenog – svog oca, po telu i jednom po glavi a zatim napustio kuću.

ii Svojoj bivšoj vanbračnoj supruzi sa kojom ima dete, okrivljeni je pretio da će da je zakolje i izbuši, pri čemu je u obe ruke držao po jedan kuhinjski nož dužine sečiva 15 cm, a za pojasom je imao sekiricu dužine sečiva 8 cm. Zamahivao je u pravcu oštećene nožem u levoj ruci ali je ona uspela da pobegne sa detetom u dvorište. Kada je ostao u sobi izvrnuo je šporet na drva i televizor, polomio stočić.

ii Okrivljeni je vređao suprugu rečima: ti si bezvredna, nisi fakultetski obrazovana i samim tim nisi inteligentna, uhvatio je za nadlakticu desne ruke nanevši joj povredu u vidu podliva, zatim nogom zadao udarac u butinu, nanevši joj povrerdu u vidu podliva butine desne noge. Oštećenom sinu okrivljeni je pretio da će da ga ubije nožem. U prostorijama kuće je držao vatreno oružje – pušku.

ii U fazi opijenosti pod dejstvomm alkohola okrivljeni je počeo najpre da viče na oštećenu – majku, zatim je udario u predelu glave od kog udarca je pala na pod, zatim je udario pesnicom u predelu usne i dok je ležala na podu šutnuo je nogom u predeo leđa i stomaka. Otišao je u kuhinju, uzeo kuhinjski nož, stavio vrh kuhinjskog noža u predeo vrata oštećene preteći da će da je zakolje. Pritisnuo joj je vrat nožem, dok je oštećena molila da je pusti, kojom prilikom je zadobila laku telesnu povredu u vidu nagnječenja u potiljačnom predelu, nagnječenja donje usne, grudnog koša i trbuha.

ii Okrivljeni je ušao u sobu gde se nalazila oštećena – supruga i zadao joj više udaraca u predelu glave nanevši joj laku telesnu povredu.

72 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  ii Okrivljena je u dvorištu kuće oštećenog svog tadašnjeg supruga ošamarila i gurnula tako da je pao i pretgila mu da će da ga ubije. Kada je oštećeni ustao i ušao u sobu, šutnula ga je obema nogama u predelu međunožja I stomaka i nanela mu lake telesne povrede, zatim je uzela bejzbol palicu i pošla da ga i njome udari, u čemu je sprečio otac oštećenog.

3.3. Profil učinilaca Struktura učinilaca po polu Uvid u sudske predmete potvrdio je nalaz iz ranijih istraživanja i istraživanja u Beogradu i Novom Sadu: krivično delo nasilje u porodici u mnogo većem procentu vrše lica muškog pola nego lica ženskog pola (Grafikon 20). U ispitivanom uzorku, među učiniocima je bilo je 24 osobe ili 96% muškaraca i samo jedna osoba ženskog pola (4%).

Grafikon 20

ženski 4%

muški 96%

Uzrast učinilaca Starosna struktura učinilaca krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici pruža sledeću sliku: najveći broj učinilaca (32%) je starosti između 33-40 godina, zatim 28% je starosti između 49-56 godina a 24% izvršilaca je starosti između 41-48 godina. Po dva izvršioca (8%) su bila sta- rosti između 18-25 i 25-32 godine. Interesantno je da izvršilaca starijih od 56 godina nije bilo, za razliku od istraživanja u Beogradu gde je uzrasna kategorija od 57-65 godina zas- tupljena sa 6% i preko 65 godina sa 12% (Grafikon 21).

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 73  Grafikon 21 18-25 8% 25-32 49-56 8% 28%

33-40 32% 41-48 24%

Bračno stanje učinilaca Među učiniocima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici i u ovom uzorku najviše je onih koji su u braku (56%), dok je daleko manji broj onih sa statusom razvedenog supružnika (12%) ili koji žive u vanbračnoj zajednici (4%). Neoženjenih, odnosno neudatih učinilaca je bilo 7 odnosno 28%. Komparacija sa podacima prikupljenim u ranijem istraživanju pokazuje da je smanjen broj izvršilaca krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici koji su sa žrtvom nasilja u van- bračnoj zajednici, u odnosu na period prethodnog istraživanja kada je taj broj bio znatno viši i iznosio 11,85%.Bračno stanje učinilaca je posmatrano u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela jer ovo istraživanje, kao i prethodna istraživanja, pokazuje da se u mnogim slučaje- vima bračni status izvršilaca i žrtava promenio posle izvršenja krivičnog dela (Grafikon 22).

Grafikon 22 neoženjen/neudata 28%

razveden-a 12%

živi u vanbračnoj oženjen/udata zajednici 56% 4%

Broj dece U ispitivanom uzorku od 25 predmeta, učinioci su u većini slučajeva roditelji, bez dece je 24% učinlaca, dok 76% učinilaca ima dece. Najveći procenat učinilaca 56% ima dvoje ili više, jedo dete ima učinlaca (20%). Za razliku od ranijeg istraživanja, kada je konstatovano

74 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi da je u većem broju predmeta izostao podatak o broju dece učinilaca i da se o tome zak- ljučivalo na osnovu okolnosti koje utiču na odmeravanje kazne, kada je činenica da je učinilac roditelj uzimana kao olakšavajuća okolnost, svi predmeti iz ovog istraživanja su sadržali podatak o roditeljstvu učinilaca (Grafikon 23).

Grafikon 23

bez dece 24%

dva i više 56% jedno dete 20%

Obrazovanje učinilaca U pogledu obrazovanja, kao i u dosadašnjim istraživanjima, najviše je učinilaca sa završenom srednjom školom ili gimnazijom (60%). Završenu višu školu ili fakultet ima 8% izvršilaca, samo osnovnu školu ima 32% učinilaca, što pokazuje da je obrazovni nivo učinilaca na zadovoljavajućem nivou (Grafikon 24).

Grafikon 24 viša škola ili fakultet 8% osnovna škola 32%

srednja škola ili gimnazija 60%

Zanimanje učinilaca Manji broj učinilaca iz uzorka (20%) nema nikakvo zanimanje, dok je ubedljiva većina njih (80%) sa određenim zanimanjem, pri čemu su njihova zanimanja veoma različita: radnik, metaloglodač, zavarivač, turistički vodič, elektrotehničar,vozač, mašinobravar, saobraćajni tehničar, pekar, medicinski tehničar, komercijalista, pravnik, major u penziji i dr.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 75  Zaposlenost učinilaca Ranija istraživanja, kao i ova istraživanja u Beogradu i Nišu, potvrđuju da među učinio- cima nezaposleni preovlađuju (40% u Beogradu i 56% u Nišu). Visok procenat nezapos- lenih učinilaca potvrđuje da nepovoljan socio-ekonomski položaj muškaraca, odnosno nestabilnost njihovog društvenog statusa, koji je prevashodno vezan za njihov radno- pravni status, predstavlja jedan od važnih faktora koji utiču na javljanje nasilja u porodici (Grafikon 25).

Grafikon 25

nema stalni posao zemljoradnik zaposlen 4% 4% 12% nepoznato 16%

penzioner 8%

nezaposlen, traži posao 56%

Mesto rođenja i prebivalište učinilaca Mesto rođenja i prebivalište učinilaca je u većem procentu grad (88% je grad mesto rođenja, 68% prebivalište). Samo tri učinioca su rođena u selu (12%), sedam ima pre- bivalište u selu (28%), samo jedan izvršilac (4%) ima prebivalište u prigradskom naselju (Grafikon 26 i 27).

Grafikon 26

selo 12%

grad 88%

76 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  Grafikon 27

prigradsko naselje selo 4% 28%

grad 68%

Ranija osuđivanost učinilaca Prema podacima o ranijoj osuđivanosti učinilaca, može se zaključiti da veliki proce- nat učinilaca iz uzorka ima sklonost ka kriminalnom ponašanju. Naime, od ukupnog broja izvršilaca, ranije je bilo osuđivano 18 izvršilaca (72%), pri čemu su svi oni uglav- nom osuđivani više puta, najčešće dva puta, za različita krivična dela, među kojima su: neovlašćena proizvodnja i stavljanje u promet opojnih droga, ugrožavanje opasnim oruđem pri tuči i svađi, krađa, nasilničko ponašanje, kleveta, nasilje u porodici, uništenje i oštećenje tuđe stvari, teška krađa, napad na službeno lice i dr. Sud je uglavnom u ovim ranijim postupcima izricao kaznu zatvora ili uslovnu zatvorsku kaznu; samo jedan učini- lac je za jedno od izvršenih dela bio osuđen na plaćane novčane kazne i meru bezbedno- sti oduzimanja predmeta. Takođe, jedan broj učinilaca je ranije bio prekršajno kažnjavan zbog remećenja javnog reda i mira. Interesantno je pomenuti da je u jednom predmetu, ranija osuđivanost učinioca nije uzeta kao otežavajuća okolnost zbog dužeg proteka vre- mena od ranije osude iako je ranije takođe izvršeno krivično delo nasilja u porodici.

Jedan od važnih podataka u sagledavanju uzroka nasilja u porodici tiče se posebnih životnih okolnosti vezanih za učinioce: njihov izbeglički status odnosno status rasel- jenog lica, kao i njihovo učešće u ratovima na tlu bivše SFRJ. U okviru uzorka učinioci u najvećem broju slučajeva nemaju izbeglički status (92%), dok je za dva izvršioca (8%) taj podatak nepoznat. Dva izvršioca su izjavila da su povratnici sa ratišta.

Porodična i lična anamneza učinilaca U pregledanim spisima sudskih predmeta ima veoma malo podataka na osnovu kojih se može sagledati ličnost učinilaca i izvesti validni zaključci o načinu njihovog života. Sudeći prema malobrnojnim podacima koji se mogu naći u spisima (u 64% predmeta nema podataka o kompletnosti primarne porodice), 5 učinilaca (20%) je živelo u kom- pletnoj porodici, 3 učinioca (12%) su odrasla bez oca i jedan bez majke (Grafikon 28).

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 77  Takođe, veliki je procenat nepoznatih porodičnih odnosa u primarnoj porodici (76%); sano 2 učinioca su se o svojim odnosima u primarnoj porodici izjasnili kao o „dobrim“, a 4 učinioca su ga okarakterisali kao „loš“. Među učniniocima nema ni jednog za koga postoji podatak da je pokušao samoubistvo ili da se samoupovredio. Takođe, prema podacima iz sudskih predmeta, izvršioci u većini slučajeva nisu ispoljavali devijantno i kriminalno ponašanje u mladosti. Međutim, na osnovu ovoga se ne može zaključiti da izvršioci krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici nisu u maloletstvu vršili krivična dela ili se devi- jantno ponašali zbog toga što sud uopšte nije ispitivao okolnosti koje su postojale pre izvršenja krivičnog dela, a koje se odnose na ličnost izvršioca. Osim toga, u predme- tima nema podataka o porodičnoj anamnezi okrivljenih i odnosima u njihovoj primarnoj porodici. Samo u onim predmetima u kojima je obavljeno psihijatrijsko veštačenje pos- toji više podataka o tome iz kakve porodice potiče okrivljeni, da li su roditelji alkoholičari, da li su vršili krivična dela, kakvi su porodični odnosi sa roditeljima i sl.

Grafikon 28

kompletna 20%

bez oca 12% nepoznato 64% bez majke 4%

Zloupotreba alkohola i droga Među učiniocima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici veliki je procenat onih kod kojih je konstatovano postojanje hroničnog alkoholizma – 44%. Međutim, treba napomenuti da u 12 predmeta nema podataka o zloupotrebi alkohola (48%), tako da postoji mogućnost da je prekomerna upotreba alkohola zastupljena kod većeg broja učinilaca. Posebno zabrinjava činjenica da je 48% učinilaca bilo u alkoholisanom stanju u vreme izvršenja dela: kod dvojice je postojalo lako pijanstvo, kod trojice srednje pijanstvo, kod sedmorice teško pijanstvo. Alkoholisanost u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela uticala je na stepen uračunljivosti izvršilaca i svakako značajno doprinosi ispoljavanju njihovog agresivnog i nasilničkog ponašanja.

Zloupotreba opojnih droga se ne može sa sigurnošću konstatovati s obzirom na to da je ovaj podatak ostao nepoznat u velikom procentu – 52%. Samo kod dva izvršioca je konstatovana upotreba opojnih droga. Među učiniocima u ispitivanom uzorku samo je

78 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi dva slučaja konstatovano da okrivljeni uzimaju drogu. Ipak, većina učinilaca nije bila pod dejstvom opijata u vreme izvrđeja krivičnog dela.

Psihopatska struktura ličnosti i duševne bolesti kod učinilaca U pregledanim predmetima ima veoma malo podataka o postojanu psihopatske struk- ture ličnosti učinioca, ovaj podatak je ostao nepoznat u 56% slučajeva. Razlog za malo podataka o duševnom stanju učinilaca svakako je u tome što je bilo malo psihijatrijskih i psiholoških veštačenja učinilaca. Psihopatska struktura ličnosti konstatovana kod osam učinilaca, iako među učiniocima preovlađuju lica koja su u dužem vremenskom periodu prekomerno koristila alkoholna pića i kod kojih je evidentan hronični alkoholizam. U jed- nom slučaju je konstatovano da je usled upotrebe alkohola došlo do poremećaja ličnosti i emocionalne nestabilnosti.

Odnos učinilaca prema izvršenom krivičnom delu i odgovornosti za događaj Prema podacima iz spisa predmeta najveći procenat učinilaca samo verbalno izražava kajanje zbog izvršenog krivičnog dela – 28%, krivično delo ne priznaje 24% učinilaca, stvarno izražava kajanje 20% učinilaca, 16% učinlaca ima neodređen odnos prema izvršenom krivičnom delu, a 8% učinilaca se ne kaje i smatra svoj postupak adekvatnim. Komparacija ovih podataka sa podacima iz ranijeg istraživanja pokazuje da je u porastu broj učinilaca koji delo ne priznaju (sa 15,21% na 24%).

U pogledu odnosa učinioca prema odgovornosti za događaj, najveći broj učinilaca ne daje objašnjenje ili ga nema - 20%, 16% učinilaca ne priznaje krivično delo tj. osporava vezu sa događajem, a 16% učinilaca prebacuje odgovornost na žrtvu. Samo jedan učini- lac krivi i sebe i žrtvu, a sedam učinilaca ili 28%, uglavnom prihvata sopstvenu odgov- ornost. Za ostale izvršioce nije bilo mogućno utvrditi kakav je njihov odnos prema odgovornosti za događaj jer nije bilo relevantnih podataka u spisima predmeta (Grafikon 29). U odnosu na podatke iz ranijih istraživanja, došlo je do relativno velikog povećanja procenta onih koji za učinjeno delo krive žrtvu (sa 11,90% na 16%), dok je smanjen proce- nat onih koji događaj smatraju odgovorne i sebe i žrtvu (sa 16,92% na 4%).

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 79  Grafikon 29

nepoznato 4% da, stvarno žaljenje i ne priznaje delo kajanje 24% 20%

ne kaje neodređeno se/smatra svoj 16% postupak samo verbalno adekvatnim izražava kajanje 8% 28%

U pogledu odnosa učinioca prema odgovornosti za događaj, najveći broj učinilaca ne daje objašnjenje ili ga nema - 20%, 16% učinilaca ne priznaje krivično delo tj. osporava vezu sa događajem, a 16% učinilaca prebacuje odgovornost na žrtvu. Samo jedan učini- lac krivi i sebe i žrtvu, a sedam učinilaca ili 28%, uglavnom prihvata sopstvenu odgov- ornost. Za ostale izvršioce nije bilo mogućno utvrditi kakav je njihov odnos prema odgovornosti za događaj jer nije bilo relevantnih podataka u spisima predmeta. U odnosu na podatke iz ranijih istraživanja, došlo je do relativno velikog povećanja pro- centa onih koji za učinjeno delo krive žrtvu (sa 11,90% na 16%), dok je smanjen procenat onih koji događaj smatraju odgovorne i sebe i žrtvu (sa 16,92% na 4%) (Tabela 16).Tabela 1 6

Broj Procenat

Uglavnom prebacuje odgovornost 4 16 na žrtvu

Krivi i sebe i žrtvu 1 4 Ne krivi ni sebe ni žrtvu/događaj smatra Nesrećnim sticajem 2 8 okolnosti Ne daje objašnjenje ili ga nema 5 20

Uglavnom prihvata sopstvenu 7 28 odgovornost Ne priznaje krivično delo, tj. 4 16 osporava vezu sa događajem

Nepoznato 2 8

Ukupno 25 100,0

80 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Raniji odnos učinioca i žrtve pre izvršenja krivičnog dela Loši i poremećeni odnosi između učinioca i žrtve postojali su pre izvršenja krivičnog dela u skoro svim slučajevima iz ispitivanog uzorka. Različiti su načini na koje se nasilje ispol- javalo i pre prijavljivanja krivičnog dela, ali je karakteristično da je bilo kontinuirano u dužem vremenskom periodu. Navodimo samo neke karakteristične slučajeve:

Okrivljeni je oštećenu pred decom nazivao pogrdnim imenima, ostao je bez posla, počeo je da konzumira alkohol tako da su svađe bile svakodnevne.

Kad se napije, okrivljeni maltretira psihički i fizički sve članove porodice koji žive u istom porodičnom domaćinstvu.

Zbog stalnog psihičkog maltretiranja okrivljeni i oštećena su išli na porodičnu terapiju.

Oštećena je više puta napuštala vanbračnu zajednicu sa okrivljenim, ali se vraćala nada- jući se da će okrivljeni da se promeni.

Da bi došao do novca za nabavku droge i alkohola, okrivljeni je fizički i psihički maltreti- rao roditelje.

Posle razvoda braka okrivljenom su poveena deca na čuvanje i vaspitanje, ali ih je on u dužem vremenskom periodu psihički i fizički maltretirao.

Odnosi između okrivljenog i oštećene bili su toliko poremećeni da nisu mogli pravilno da se brinu o deci, pa su deca smeštena u hraniteljsku porodicu.

Okrivljeni i oštećena su bili u braku petnaest godina, fizičko i psihičko nasilje traje četiri godine.

Okrivljeni i oštećena su bili u braku osamnaest godina, psihičko nasilje je počelo odmah po zaključenju braka , a fizičko pre pet godina.

Stepen uračunljivosti učinilaca U pogledu stepena uračunljivosti učinilaca, sud je konstatovao da nijedan učinilac nije bio neuračunljiv u vreme izvršenja dela, odnosno da postoji uračunljivost kod 56% učin- laca. Kod sedam učinilaca (28%), uračunljivost je bila smanjena, ali ne bitno, bitno sman- jena uračunljivost je postojala kod tri učinioca (12%). (Grafikon 30).

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 81  Grafikon 30 nepoznato 4% bitno smanjena uračunljivost 12%

postoji smanjena ali ne i uračunljivost bitno 56% 28%

Motivi izvršenja krivičnog dela U celokupnom istraživačkom uzorku, pa i u uzorku sudskih predmeta iz Niša nije bilo moguće sa sigurnošću i u svim slučajevima utvrditi motiv izvršenja krivičnog dela jer ovaj psihološki faktor sud gotovo da ne sagledava prilikom utvrđivanja činjeničnog stanja u konkretnom slučaju. Ipak, posredno se može konstatovati da su učinioci vršili krivična dela najčešće zbog ljubomore, dugogodišnje netrpeljivosti prema žrtvi, u uverenju da je primena fizičke sile prema deci najbolji način za njihovo vaspitanje, osvete zbog nemo- gućnosti da viđa dete, svađe zbog novca, rasprave oko podele bračne tekovine i sl.

3.4. Profil žrtava Struktura žrtava prema polu Prema podacima iz pregledanih sudskih predmeta broj žrtava (33) je veći od broja učin- laca (25), što pokazuje da je prilikom izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici povređeno ili ugroženo više lica članova porodice (Grafikon 31).

Grafikon 31 tri 4% dve 24%

jedna 72%

82 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Rezultati ovog istraživanja potvrđuju činjenicu da je među žrtvama nasilja u porodici najviše žena (Grafikon 32). U istraživanom uzorku žene su bile žrtve u 66,7% slučajeva, dok su muškarci bili žrtve u 33%slučajeva. Treba napomenuti da su žrtve partnerskog nasilja u mnogo većem procentu žene od muškaraca. U istraživanom uzorku samo je jedan muškarac bio žrtva partnerskog nasilja.

Grafikon 32

muški 33%

ženski 67%

Prebivalište i mesto rođenja Većina žrtava ima prebivalište u gradu (75,80%), manji broj živi u selu (18,20%), dok se prigradsko naselje kao prebivalište navodi samo u 6,10% predmeta. Grad je mesto rođenja 78,80% žrtava, selo 15,20%, a progradsko naselje u 3% slučajeva. Za jednu žrtvu nije poznato mesto rođenja (Grafikon 33). Ovi podaci bitno ne odstupaju od rezultata iz ranijeg istraživanja.

Grafikon 33

prigradsko selo naselje 18% 6%

grad 76%

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 83  Uzrast žrtava Među žrtvama ima maloletne dece – 4 (12,1%), dok je broj punoletnih lica 29 (87,8%). Među punoletnim žrtvama najviše su zastupljene uzrasne kategorije od 25-32 godine – 18,2%, 33-40 godina – 18,2% i preko 65 godina – 18,2% (Grafikon 34).

Grafikon 34

preko 65 maloletno 18% dete 12% 18-24 9% 57-65 6%

49-56 25-32 9% 19% 41-48 9% 33-40 18%

Bračno stanje žrtava U vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela najveći broj žrtava, kao i učinilaca, bio je u braku (51,5%), 21,2% je neudato/neoženjeno, dok po jedna žrtva živi u vanbračnoj zajednici, razvedena je, rastavljena ili u statusu udovca/udovice. U predmetima neka podataka o bračnom statusu za 5 žrtava (Grafikon 35).

Grafikon 35

nepoznato 15% neoženjen /neudata 21%

udovac/ udovica oženjen/udata 3% 52% rastavljen-a 3% razveden-a živi u vanbračnoj zajednici 3% 3%

84 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Broj dece U ispitivanom uzorku, 30,30% žrtava nema dece, 45,50% ima dvoje ili više dece, dok 18,20% žrtava ima jedno dete. Za ostale žrtave nema podataka o broju dece (Grafikon 36).

Grafikon 36 nepoznato 6% bez dece 30%

dva i više 46%

jedno dete 18%

Obrazovanje žrtava, zanimanje i zaposlenost U sudskim predmetima ima veoma malo podataka o obrazovanju, zanimanju i zaposle- nosti žrtava. Ove okolnosti sud retko utvrđuje i razmatra u toku postupka na glavnom pretresu. Ovi podaci se mogu saznati jedino iz krivične prijave ili zapisnika o saslušanju oštećenog. Nedostatak podataka o obrazovanju žrtava postoji u 51,5% predmeta, o zaposlenosti nema podataka u 30,3% predmeta, zanimanje nije uopšte navedeno u predmetima iz uzorka.

Prema raspoloživim podacima, žrtve su različitog nivoa obrazovanja: Podjednak je proe- nat žrtava koje su završile srednju školu i žrtava sa srednjim obrazovanjem – 21,2%. Bez obrazovanja je samo jedna žrtva (Grafikon 37).

Grafikon 37

učenik bez obrazovanja 3% 3% osnovna škola 21%

nepoznato 52% srednja škola ili gimnazija 21%

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 85  Prilikom sagledavanja razloga zbog kojih žrtve, posebno kod partnerskog nasilja, ostaju dugo vremena u zajednici života iako postoji nasilje, vrlo je važna ekonomska i finan- sijska samostalnost žrtve. Zbog toga je značajno saznati da li su žrtve zaposlene i na taj način ekonomski nezavisne. U ispitivanom uzorku zaposleno je sedam žrtava (21,2%), dok je 16 žrtava bez posla: nezaposlenih 5 (15,2%), domaćica 5 (15,2%), penzionera 4 (12,1%), učenik 2 (6,1%) (Grafikon 38).

Grafikon 38 zaposlen nepoznato 21% 31%

nezaposlen, traži posao učenik 15% 6% penzioner domaćica 12% 15%

Priroda odnosa između učinilaca i žrtava U najvećem broju predmeta (48,5%) između izvršioca i žrtve postojao je bračni odnos – 33,30%. a u 6,10% postojala je vanbračna zajednica ili bivši supružnici i bivša devojka, što znači da je dominantan oblik nasilja u porodici i dalje partnersko nasilje. Za razliku od rani- jih istraživanja, došlo je do povećanja broja krivičnih dela nasilja u porodici izvršenih prema drugim članovima porodice: deca (sin, ćerka) bili su žrtve u 27,3% slučajeva, rroditelji (otac, majka) su bili žrtve u 15,2% slučajeva, u 3,0% slučajeva žrtve su bili brat ili sestra, u 3,0% slučajeva tast/tašta i u takođe 3% slučajeva deda/baba (Grafikon 39).

Grafikon 39

tast/tašta deda/baba brat/sestra 3% 3% suprug/supruga 3% (brak) 34%

sin/ćerka vanbračna 27% zajednica 6% bivši supruzi (bračni ili vanbračni) 6% otac/majka bivši mladić/devojka 15% 3%

86 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Postojanje oružja kod žrtve i alkoholisanost u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela U vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici, žrtve nisu kod sebe imale bilo kakvo oruđe niti oružje. Za razliku od izvršilaca, koji su u 48% bii u alkoholisanom stanju u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela, samo jedna žrtva je bila u alkoholisanom stanju.

Odnos učinioca i žrtve pre podnošenja krvične prijave i reagovanje na ranije akte nasilja U predmetima iz istraživanog uzorka ima vrlo malo podataka na osnovu kojih bi se moglo zaključiti kakav je bio lični odnos učinioca i žrtve pre izvršenog krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici. Takođe, sud je malo pažnje poklonio ispitivanju okolnosti koje su vezane na tzv. cikluse u ispoljavanju nasilja tako da se u spisima predmeta nema poda- taka o tome da li je i kroz koje faze ciklusa nasilja žrtva prošla i koliko su one trajale. Ipak, na osnovu raspoloživih podataka može se zaključiti da su skoro sve žrtve pre izvršenja krivičnog dela u dužem vremenskom periodu bile izložene fizičkom i psihičkom nasilju. Odnosi između članova porodice u većini slučajeva bili su ozbiljno poremećeni zbog toga što su učinioci prekomerno koristili alkohol. Ipak, mali broj žrtava se pre izvršenja krivičnog dela obraćao drugim institucijama za pomoć: samo tri žrtve su bile smeštene u Sigurnu kuću, a samo jedna se obratila Centru za socjalni rad. Čak 57,6% žrtava nije zbog ranije primenjenog nasilja tražilo intervenciju policije. U jednom slučaju oštećena supruga je izjavila da sa okrivljenim živi najpre u vanbračnoj, a zatim u bračnoj zajednici petnaest godina, da je okrivljeni više puta vršio nasilje nad njom, da je jednom podnela krivičnu prijavu, ali je povukla jer joj je bio žao okrivljenog koji je operisao srce. Dalje je izjavila da je okrivljeni dobarčovek kada ne pije, da je maltretira samo pod uticajem alko- hola i da se ne pridružuje krivičnom gonjenju, već da želi da se što pre razvede i da više nikad ne vidi.

3.5. Krivični postupak – sadržina, tok i trajanje Krivični postupak je vođen prema učiniocima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici (25), koji su izvršili ukupno 33 krivičnih dela i to: iz čl. 194 st. 2 39,4%, čl. 194 st. 1 33,3%, čl. 194 st. 3 24,2% i čl. 194 st. 5 3,03%.

3.5.1. Pritvor Zbog težine izvršenih krivičnih dela i ranije osuđivanosti, uz postojanje zakonskih osnova za određivanje pritvora, prema okrivljenima je pritvor određen u 12 slučajeva (48%), što je nešto više nego u uzorku iz Beograda (46%) i znatno više nogo u uzorku iz Novog Sada (23,1%).

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 87  3.5.2. Dokazi U istraživanom uzorku najčešće izvođeni dokazi bili su: ispitivanje okrivljenih, saslušanje svedoka, saslušanje oštećenih kao svedoka, uvid u spise predmeta, uvid u medicinsku dokumentaciju, sudskomedicinsko veštačenje i veštačenje neuropsihijatra i psihologa, uvid u nalaz mobilnih operatera o ostvarenoj komunikaciji mobilnim telefonom, čitanje stručnog nalaza Centra za socijalni rad.

3.5.3. Način okončanja postupka U pravnosnažno okončanim predmetima (25) najviše je doneto osuđujućih presuda 24 (96%). Samo u jednom predmetu je doneta osuđujuća presuda za jedno krivično delo nasilja u porodici i oslobađajuća za drugo krivično delo iz čl. 194 st.2 zbog nedostatka dokaza. U grafikonu je ova presuda predstavljena kao osuđujuća. U drugom predmetu je doneta presuda kojom se optužba odbija. (Grafikon 40).

Sporazum o priznanju krivičnog dela je bio zaključen u tri slučaja i u tri predmeta je održano ročište za izricanje krivične sankcije.

Grafikon 40

doneta presuda kojom se optužba odbija doneta osuđujuća presuda

88 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  3.5.4. Žalba Žalba na prvostepenu presudu izjavljena je u 14 predmeta, dok u 11 predmeta nije izjavl- jena, ukqučujući i 2 predmeta gde je zaključen sporazum o priznanju krivičnog dela i 2 predmeta gde je održano ročište za izricanje krivične sankcije (Grafikon 41). U jednom broju predmeta stranke su na glavnom pretresu izjavile da se neće žaliti.

Grafikon 41

Ne 44% Da 56%

3.5.5. Trajanje postupka Da bismo sagledali efikasnost sudskog postupka, trajanje postupka smo posmatrali kroz pet faza: od podnošenja krivične prijave do podizanja optužnog akta; od podnošenja optužnog akta do donošenja prvostepene presude; od podnošenja krivične prijave do donošenja drugostepene presude; od podnošenja krivične prijave do nastupanja pra- vosnažnosti; od donošenja prvostepene presude do donošenja drugostepene presude (Tabela 17).

Tabela 17 Krivična Prvostepena Krivična Krivična Optužni akt/ prijava/ presuda/ prijava/ prijava/ prvostepena drugo- drugo- pravnos- optužni akt presuda stepena stepena nažnost presuda presuda

Do 1 mesec 8(32%) 4(16%) 0 0 0

1 - 3 meseca 1 (4%) 5 (20%) 0 3(12%) 3(21,4%)

3-5 meseci 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 2(14,2%) 4 (16%) 8(57,1%)

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 89  5-7 meseci 1(4%) 2(8%) 1(7,1%) 1 (4%) 0

7-10 meseci 3(12%) 0 0 0 %)

10 - 12 5(20%) 3(12%) 1 (7,1%) 2 (8%) 1(7,1%) meseci

1 godina do 2 4(16%) 7(28%) 2(14,2%) 7 (28%) 1(7,1%) godine

2 godine do 1 (4%) 3(12%) 7(50%) 6(24%) 1(7.1%) 4 godine

4 godine do 0 0 1(7,1%) 2 (8%) 0 5 godina

Preko 5 0 0 0 0 0 godina

UKUPNO 25 25 14 25 14

Prema podacima iz tabele, od podnošenje krivične prijave do nastupanja pravosnažno- sti protekne veoma dug vremenski period, u najvećem procentu 28% od jedne do dve godine i 24% od dve do četiri godine. Ako se postupak posmatra po fazama, može se videti da je najkraća prva faza, period od podnošenja krivične prijave do podizanja optužnog akta. Prosečno vreme koje je potrebno da se provere navodi krivične prijave i podigne optužni akt, u proseku traje do mesec dana – 32%, ali ima i predmeta (5 ili 20%) kada je ova faza trajala od 10 do 12 meseci, što je za ovu vrstu krivičnih dela zaista dug vremenski period.

Prema podacima iz ispitivanog uzorka, faza od podnošenja optužnog akta do donošenja prvostepene presude u najvećem broju slučajeva 7 (28%) traje od jedne do dve godine, što predstavlja prilično dug vremenski period. Vremenski perid od podnošenja kriv- ične prijave do donošenja drugostepene odluke u 14 predmeta, u kojima je podneta žalba na prvostepenu presudu i doneta drugostepena presuda, iznosio je u 50% pred- meta od dve do četiri godine. Trajanje postupka od donošenja prvostepene presude do

90 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi donošenja drugostepene presude u najvećem broju predmeta bio je od 3-5 meseci (8) i 1-3 meseca (3). Dužina trajanja postupka, posebno od podnošenja optužnog akta do donošenja prvostepene presude bila je svakako uslovljena ispunjenjem procesnih pretp- stavki za održavanje glavnog pretresa. U jednom broju predmeta glavni pretresi su često odlagani zbog nedolaska okrivljenog ili oštećenog, nemogućnosti dostavljanja poziva jer adresa nije bila tačna, nedolaska svedoka i sl.

3.6. Vrsta i visina izrečenih krivičnih sankcija Prema učiniocima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici je izrečena krivična sankcija u 96% slučajeva. Samo u jednom slučaju je doneta presuda kojom se optužba odbija zbog odu- stanka janog tužioca. Oslobađajuća presuda je doneta prema jednom učiniocu za kriv- ično delo izvršeno u sticaju, ali je u istom predmetu osuđen za drugo krivično delo. Za razliku od ranijih istraživanja, u uzorku predmeta u Nišu uslovne osude nisu mnogo zas- tupljene. Uslovno je osuđeno 6 izvršilaca (24%), s tim što je u jednom slučaju izrečena uz uslovnu osudu i mera bezbednosti obaveznog lečenja alkoholičara na slobodi (Tabela 18 i Grafikon 42). S obzirom na to da je manji broj izrečenih uslovnih osuda od kazni zatvora moglo bi se zaključiti da je u slučaju izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici pooštrena kaznena politika. Međutim, treba imati u vidu da se u istraživanim slučajevima radi o težim oblicima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici i da su učinioci ranije već bili osuđivani za isto ili drugo krivično delo.

Tabela 18 Broj Procenat

Kazna zatvora 7 28

Kazna zatvora i mera bezbednosti 7 28

Kazna zatvora u prostorijama u kojima 1 4 okrivljeni stanuje bez elektronskog nadzora

Kazna zatvora, novčana kazna i mera bezbednosti zabrane približavanja i 1 4 komuniciranja

Kazna zatvora i novčana kazna 1 4

Kazna rada u javnom interesu i mera bezbednosti obavezbog lečenja 1 4 alkoholičara na slobodi

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 91  Uslovna osuda 5 20

Uslovna osuda i mera bezbednosti obaveznog lečenja alkoholičara 1 4 na slobodi

Odbija se optužba 1 4

Ukupno 25 100,0

Grafikon 42

Odbija se optužba

Kazna zatvora i novčana kazna

Zatvor

Kazna rada u javnom interesu i mera bezbedosti obaveznog lečenja alkoholičara na slobodi Kazna zatvora u prostorijama u kojima okrivljeni stanuje bez primene električnog nadzora Kazna zatvora, novčana kazna i mera bezbednosti zabrane približavanja i komuniciranja Zatvor i mera bezbednosti

Uslovna osuda

Uslovna osuda i mera bezbednosti

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Trajanje kazne zatvora koje su izrečene uz meru bezbednosti i novčanu kaznu vidi se iz Tabele 19.

Tabela 19

Broj Procenat

6 meseci 4 23,5

7 meseci 1 5,9

92 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  8 meseci 2 47,0

10 meseci 2 47,0

1 godina 3 17,6

2 godine 3 17,6

2 godine i 6 meseci 1 5,9

3 godine i 8 meseci 1 5,9

Ukupno 17 100,0

Mere bezbednosti su izricane uz kaznu zatvora, novčanu kaznu i uslovnu osudu. Izrečeno je osam mera bezbednosti obaveznog lečenja alkoholičara na slobodi ili u zdravstvenoj ili specijalizovanoj ustanovi i jedna mera bezbednosti iz čl. 89a KZ zabrana približavanja i kominikacije sa oštećenim.

Na osnovu navoda u presudama u kojima postoji obrazloženje, može se zaključiti da je sud prilikom odmeravanja kazne imao u vidu sledeće okolnosti kao olakšavajuća:

ii lične, porodične i imovinske prilike,

ii loše imovinsko stanje bez posedovanja nepokretne imovine,

ii ponašanje na glavnom pretresu,

ii oženjen,

ii neoženjen,

ii otac dvoje/troje/šestoro maloletne dece,

ii oštećena se ne pridružuje krivičnom gonjenju niti ističe imovinskopravni zahtev,

ii neosuđivanost,

ii držanje posle izvršenja dela,

ii okrivljeni je prestao sa upotrebom alkohola i podvrgao se porodičnoj teraoiji,

ii okrivljeni je priznao delo u potpunosti ili delimično,

ii nezaposlenost,

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 93  ii stepen krivice, s obzirom na to da mu je usled bolesti zavisnosti od alkohola uračunljivost bila smanjena do granice bitnog, ali ne i bitno,

ii krivično delo izvršio u stanju smanjene uračunljivosti zbog zloupotrebe alkohola

ii okrivljeni i oštećena ne žive zajedno pa okrivljeni nije u prilici da sa oštećenom ponovo dođe u sukob i ponovi delo,

ii okrivljeni je mlad čovek,

ii okrivljeni je penzioner, radi se o starijoj osobi koja je vodila uredan život,

ii okrivljeni pokazuje kajanje,

ii okrivljeni je obećao da delo neće ponoviti,

ii držanje posle izvršenog krivičnog dela,

ii raniji život okrivljenog,

ii nastupila je zakonska rehabilitacija,

ii posle kritičnog događaja u dužem vremenskom periodu više nije u kontaktu sa bivšom suprugom,

ii doneta presuda posle održanog ročišta za izricanje krivične sankcije kada je okrivljena priznala delo, izjavila da se kaje i da je saglasna da je sud oglasi krivom.

Postavlja se pitanje da li se sve navedene ookolnosti mogu smatrati olakšavajućim, posebno lične i imoviske prilike, činjenica da okrivljeni i oštećena ne žive više zajedno, obećanje okrivljenog da delo neće ponoviti (pogotovo ako se zna da je za ovu vrstu nasilja karakterističan ciklus u ispoljavanju i proces njegove eskalacije: posle faze izvinja- vanja žrtvi i molbi za oproštaj, nailazi faza još brutalnijeg nasilja), da je okrivljeni mlad čovek ili da je penzioner, da se oštećena ne pridružuje krivičnom gonjenju (defanzivno ponašanje žrtve ne bi trebalo da utiče na odmeravaje kazne okrivljenom).

Ni okolnost da je okrivljeni u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela bio pod uticajem alkohola takođe se bi trebalo smatrati olakšavajućom. Odredbom čl. 24. st. 2. KZ izričito je pred- viđeno da se izvršiocu krivičnog dela koji se upotrebom alkohola doveo u stanje u kome nije mogao da shvati značaj svog dela ili da upravlja svojim postupcima (tzv. skrivljena neuračunljivost), po tom osnovu ne može ublažiti kazna. S obzirom na ovu odredbu koja isključuje mogućnost ublažavanja kazne, jasno je da se stepen krivice okrivljenog, s obzi- rom na to da mu je usled bolesti zavisnosti od alkohola uračunljivost bila smanjena do granice bitnog, ali ne i bitno, ne može ceniti kao olakšavajuća okolnost.

94 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Kao otežavajuće okolnosti navedene su:

ii ranija osuđivanost,

ii ranija osuđivanost za krivično delo nasilja u porodici,

ii okrivljeni je bio u alkoholisanom stanju, iako je znao da upotreba alkohola kod njega izaziva agresivnost,

ii delo je izvršeno prema starijem licu,

ii loši odnosi i pre ovog sukoba,

ii jačina povrede i ugrožavanja zaštićenog dobra i stepen krivice,

ii upornost koju je pokazao prilikom izvršenja dela,

ii činjenica da je delo izvršio prema članu svoje porodice – supruzi sa kojom ima dvoje dece.

Interesantno je da u jednom slučaju prvostepeni sud nije uzeo kao otežavajuću okolnost raniju osuđivanost okrivljenog imajući u vidu protek vremena od osude, a drugostepeni sud po žalbi je naveo kao otežavajuću okolnost činjenicu da je okrivljeni osuđivan. U jed- nom predmetu sud je kao otežavajuću okolnost nije cenio raniju osuđivanost imajući u vidu protek vremena od osude (10 godina) kao i da je u toku postupak zakonske rehabili- tacije, dok u drugom predmetu nije uzeo u obzir raniju osuđivanost jer je od ranije osude prošlo 15 godina te su se stekli uslovi za brisanje osude. Takođe, u jednom predmetu sud je u presudi napomenuo da ranija osuđivanost nije uzeta u obzir kao otežavajuća okol- nost, jer je prošlo dosta vremena od ranije osude. Ipak, okolnost da je okrivljeni za nasilje u porodici bio ranije osuđivan treba da bude uzeta u obzir prilikom odmeravanja kazne bez obzira što je ranija osuda brisana, ali ne kao ranija osuđivanost već u sklopu sagleda- vanja ranijeg ponašanja okrivljenog i njegovog načina života.

4. Sudska praksa u Novom Sadu

4.1. Opšti podaci o sudskim predmetima Predmet razmatranja bilo je ukupno 25 sudskih predmeta u kojima su procesuirana kriv- ična dela kvalifikovana kao nasilje u porodici iz čl. 194. KZ RS pred Osnovnim sudom u Novom Sadu.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 95  4.2. Fenomenologija krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici Oblik izvršenja U istraživanom uzorku od 25 predmeta izvršeno je ukupno 26 krivičnih dela nasilja u porodici. Najveći procenat izvršenih krivičnih dela 96,2% ima karakteristike prvog oblika krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 st. 1., samo jedno krivično delo (3,8%) je iz čl. 194 st.5 (Grafikon 43). Svi ostali oblici ovog krivičnog dela u uzorku nisu zastupljeni, što je razlika u odnosu na istraživanja sudske prakse u Beogradu i Nišu.

Grafikon 43

194/5 4%

194/1 96%

Sticaj U 25 predmeta koje čine uzorak samo u jednom slučaju je krivično delo izvršeno u sti- caju (Tabela 20).

Tabela 20

Broj Procenat

Postoji sticaj 1 4

Ne postoji sticaj 24 96

Ukupno 25 100

Saučesništvo U 24 predmeta saučesništvo nije evidentirano, u jednom predmetu je konstatovano da je krivično delo izvršeno u saizvršilaštvu (Tabela 21). Prilikom izvršenja krivičnih dela u 40% predmeta bilo je posmatrača tj.neposrednih svedoka i očevidaca, uglavnom ostalih članova porodice (Tabela 22).

96 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  Tabela 21

Broj Procenat

Postoji saizvršilaštvo 1 4

Nema saučesništva 24 96

Ukupno 25 100

Tabela 22

Broj Procenat

Postoje očevici 10 40

Ne postoje očevica 15 60

Ukupno 25 100

Mesto izvršenja U svim slučajevima izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici mesto izvršenja je grad (25), nijedno krivično delo nije izvršeno u selu. Mesto izvršenja je u svim slučajevima isto kao mesto stanovanja učinilaca.

U najvećem broju predmeta konstatovano je da je krivičnio delo izvršeno u zajedničkom stanu/kući žrtve i učinioca – 76% i u stanu/kući žrtve – 12%, znatno manje u stanu/kući ućinioca, SMS porukama ili uznemiravanjem telefonom – 4% (Tabela 23).

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 97  Tabela 23

Broj Procenat

Stan/kuća/dvorište učinioca 1 4,0

Stan/kuća/dvorište žrtve 3 12,0

Zajednički stan/kuća/dvorište 19 76,0 žrtve i učinioca

Drugo-uznemiravanje 1 4,0 telefonom

SMS poruke 1 4,0

Ukupno 25 100

Vreme izvršenja Za razliku od vremena izvršenja krivičnih dela u uzorku predmeta u Beogradu i Nišu, u okviru uzorka predmeta u Novom Sadu najviše krivčnih dela nasilja u porodici izvršeno je u proleće – 34,6%, zatim u jesen – 26,9%, u dužem vremenskom periodu tokom godine – 19,2%, u leto – 11,5% i najmanje u zimskom periodu – 7,6%.

Sredstva izvršenja Sredstva izvršenja krivičnih sela su bila različita zavisno od vrste primenjenog nasija. S obzirom na to da je u okviru uzorka zabeležen najveći procenat kombinovanog psi- hičkog i fizičkog nasilja – 38,46%, preovlađuje verbalno nasilje, pretnje i udaranje rukama, šakom, nogom. Fizičko nasilje bez upotrebe oružja, opasnog oruđa ili drugog sredstva podobnog da telo teško povredi ili zdravlje teško naruši postojalo je u 30,7% slučajeva i najveći broj krivičnih dela je kvalifikovan kao lakši oblik krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 192 st.1 KZ RS. Interesantno je da je u jednom slučaju prilikom izvršenja krivičnog dela korišćen drveni štap dužine oko 40 cm , kojim je okrivljeni udario van- bračnu suprugu više puta po leđima i ramenima usled čega se štap izlomio, a ona zadobila laku telesnu povredu, ali je krivično delo kvalifikovano kao lakši oblik nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 st. 1 KZ RS. Presuda u ovom slučaju nema obrazloženje, pa se pret- postavlja da sud nije smatrao da je drveni štap dužine oko 40 cm sredstvo podobno da telo teško povredi ili zdravlje teško naruši.

98 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Način izvršenja Navodimo nekoliko načina izvršenja fizičkog i psihičkog nasilja:

ii Okrivljeni je šakama obe ruke majci zadao više udaraca u predelu glave i tela, pretio da će da je zakolje;

ii Okrivljeni je pretio sinu da će da mu polomi ruke i da će da ga ubije;

ii Okrivljeni je ušao je u sobu gde mu je spavao otac i počeo pijan da preti da će da ga ubije, zakolje, obdobija, da ga psuje; udario ga je šakom desne ruke u predelu lica, gurnuo ga je na krevet, pretio “videćeš šta će da ti se desi”; došla je policija a okrivljeni je oštećenom tad rekao “marš napolje iz kuće, ti nemaš prava da budeš u ovoj kući, to nije tvoje”,

ii Primenom nasilja i pretnji okrivljeni je od majke tražio novac za kocku, a kad je ona odbila da mu da, udarao je pesnicama po leđima, hvatao rukama za šake, stezao ih, vređao je, a kada ga je majka sprečila da pretura po dokumentima i traži novac i da iznese televizor iz kuće kako bi ga prodao, istu više puta udario pesnicama po glavi u predelu potiljka, zavrtao joj ruke, stiskao je za ruke, pretio da će da je ubije, udavi, izbode nožem;

ii Okrivljeni je najpre pretio je oštećenoj da će da je istuče, a zatim joj je udario par šamara u predelu lica;

ii Okrivljeni je od roditelja tražio novac, pa, kada mu novac nisu dali, nasrnuo je na njih uz pretnje i psovke dok nije došla policija. Posle nekoliko dana opet ih je prvo verbalno napao, zatim nasrnuo na majku, a oca uhvatio za vrat i počeo da ga davi,

ii Okrivljeni je psovao oštećenu, vređao pogrdnim izrazima i pretio da će da je zakolje;

ii Okrivljeni je pretio sinu da će da ga ubije i zakolje sekirom, psovao mu majku a zatim čekićem razbio česmu i bunar u dvorištu kuće;

ii Okrivljeni je vređao suprugu, pretio joj“zahvali detetu što si živa”, uhvatio je za vrat, počeo da joj pritiska vrat rukama, podigao je sa zemlje usled čega je pala na pod, nastavio da je udara rukama i nogama u predelu glave i tela;

ii Tokom verbalnog sukoba okrivljeni je oštećenoj govorio da je „drolja“, nesposobna za život, gađao je papučom i tanjirom, uvrtao joj je ruku, pa je oštećena napustila stan u kome su do tada zajedno živeli;

ii Okrivljena je svakodnevno vređala snaju, omalovažavala je, govorila je da je ciganka, da nije vredna njenog sina koji je završio fakultet, dok je bila u drugom stanju oštećenoj je govorila da nosi kopile, da to nije dete njenog sina, a kad se dete rodilo uzimala ga je govoreći oštećenoj da ne zna da postupa sa njim i da je kurva;

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 99  ii U više navrata okrivljeni je pretio oštećenoj supruzi da će sve da ih pobije, misleći na nju i njenu porodicu;

ii Posle kraćeg verbalnog sukoba, okrivljeni je pretio oštećenoj da će da je zakolje, da je baci u Dunav, zavrtao joj je ruku i ogrebao;

ii Okrivljeni je najpre započeo verbalnu raspravu sa oštećenom, zatim je uhvatio za ruke, počeo da vuče, uhvatio je za jaknu, pocepao jaknu i udario tako da joj je naneo laku telesnu povredu u vidu nagnječenja gornje usne;

ii Okrivljeni je suprugu vređao, nazivao je “ustaškom kurvetinom”, kretenom, prišao joj je s leđa i zadao udarac rukom u glavu od koga je izgubila ravnotežu, a zatim joj zadao još jedan udarac u potiljak;

ii Posle verbalne rasprave, vređanja i optuživanja oštećene da ga vara, okrivljeni je oštećenu udario nogom u levu ruku (hematom i otok), naredio joj je da uđe u kola i vozi kod S. (koga je optužio da joj je ljubavnik) kako bi sve raspravili. U toku vožnje joj je zadao više udaraca šakom u lice i glavu (hematom na levom oku i edem, posekotina na kapku, hematom na desnom kapku i nosu);

ii Okrivljeni je oštećenu vređao govorio da je kurva, kučketina, psovao joj majku, zadao joj više udaraca u glavu šakom, naneo joj laku telesnu povredu u predelu kosmatog dela glave i površinsku povredu u predelu nadlaktice;

ii Okrivljena je oštećenoj zadala više udaraca rukama i nogama u predelu glave i tela nanevši joj lake telesne povrede, a pri drugom incidentu zadala joj je više udaraca u predelu glave i tela i nanela joj lake telesne povredeu vidu nagnječena glave i natkolenice sa krvnim podlivima.

Ako uporedimo načine izvršenja krivičnih dela nasilja u porodici u uzorku predmeta u Beogradu i Nišu sa uzorkom predmeta u Novom Sadu možemo da konstatujemo, pored ostalog, da su načini izvršenja krivičnih dela u uzorku predmeta iz Novog Sada znatno lakši, što upućuje na zakqučak da je na području Osnovnog suda u Novom Sadu mnogo niži prag tolerancije na nasilje na područuju izvršenja ovih krivičnih dela.

100 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  4.3. Profil izvršilaca Struktura učinilaca po polu U ispitivanom uzorku od 25 predmeta bilo je 26 izvršilaca (u jednom predmetu je pos- tojalo saizvršilaštvo). Među izvršiocima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici bilo je najviše učinilaca muškog pola 24 (92,3%). Samo u dva slučaja (7,7%) krivično delo su izvršile žene (Grafikon 44).

Grafikon 44

ženski 8%

muški 92%

Uzrast učinilaca U ispitivanom uzorku najviše učinilaca pripada uzrasnoj kategoriji od 41-48 i 49-56 godina (23,1%).Nešto manje učinilaca je u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela imalo 33-40 godina. Podjednako su zastupljeni učinioci od 18-25 i 57-65 godina, dok je najmanja zas- tupljenost učinilaca preko 65 godina i od 25-32 godine – 11,5% (Grafikon 45).

Grafikon 45

preko 65 18-25 8% 11% 57-65 25-32 12% 4%

33-40 19% 49-56 23%

41-48 23%

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 101  Bračno stanje izvršilaca Za razliku od istraživanja u Beogradu i Nišu, u ovom uzorku među izvršiocima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici preovlađuju razvedeni izvršioci – 34,6%. U braku ili vanbračnoj zajednici bilo je 6 izvršilaca (23,1%), dok je neoženjenih, odnosno neudatih izvršilaca 15,4%. Među izvršiocima bilo je jedan udovac/udovica (3,8%) (Grafikon 46).

Grafikon 46

neoženjen/neudata oženjen/udata 15% 23% udovac/ udovica 4%

živi u vanbračnoj zajednici razveden-a 23% 35%

Broj dece

U ispitivanom uzorku izvršioci su u većini slučajeva roditelji. Najveći broj izvršilaca ima dvoje ili više dece (42,3%), sa jednim detetom je 10 izvršilaca (38,5%), dok je samo 5 izvršilaca (19,2%) bez dece (Grafikon 47).

Grafikon 47

bez dece 19%

dva i više 42%

jedno dete 39%

102 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Obrazovanje učinilaca U pogledu obrazovanja, među izvršiocima najviše je sa završenom srednjom stručnom školom ili gimnazijom (61,5%), a najmanje onih bez ikakvog obrazovanja (3,8%). Završenu višu školu ili fakultet ima 15,4% izvršilaca, dok su sa osnovnom školom 15,4% (Grafikon 48).

Grafikon 48

nepoznato 4% nezavršena viša škola ili osnovna škola fakultet 4% 15% osnovna škola 15%

srednja škola ili gimnazija 62%

Zanimanje i zaposlenost

Samo mali broj izvršilaca (13,5%) nema nikakvo zanimanje, dok je ubedljiva većina njih (86,5%) sa određenim zanimanjem, pri čemu su njihova zanimanja veoma različita: novinar, pisac, saobraćajni tehničar, vozač, građevinski tehničar, dekorater, arhitekta, mašinovođa, automehaničar, tesar, bravar, radnik na gradilištu, inženjer master građevinskih nauka, veterinarski tehničar, preduzetnik – vlasnik radnje i dr.

Među izvršiocima preovlađuju zaposlena lica - 46,2%, nezaposlenih je 34,6%, dok je pen- zionera 11,50%. Za 7,70% izvršilaca nema podataka o zaposlenosti (Tabela 24).

Tabela 24

Broj Procenat

Zaposlen 12 46,2

Nezaposlen, traži posao 9 34,6

Penzioner 3 11,5

Nepoznato 2 7,7

Ukupno 26 100,0

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 103  Mesto rođenja i prebivalište učinilaca Mesto rođenja i prebivalište izvršilaca su u većini slučajeva isti, s tim što je veći broj izvrši- laca sa mestom rođenja (76,9%) i prebivalištem u gradu (92,3%). U selu je rođeno 6 izvrši- laca (23,1%), ali nijedan učinilac nema prebivalište u selu. Dva izvršioca imaju prebivaliste u prigradskom naselju (Grafikoni 49 i 50).

Grafikon 49

selo 23%

grad 77%

Grafikon 50

prigradsko naselje 8%

grad 92%

Ranija osuđivanost učinilaca Najviše učinilaca krivičnog dela nasilje u porodici u okviru ispitivanog uzorka ranije nisu bili osuđivani – 61,5%. Ipak, nije zanemarljiv procenat učinilaca koji su ranije bili osuđivani za izvršeno krivično delo – 34,6% i prekršajno osuđivani - 3,8% (ukupno 10 učinilaca ili 38,4%) jer su pojedini učinioci ranije više puta osuđivani (dva ili tri puta). Jedan učinilac je ranije dva puta bio osuđivan za krivično delo nasilja u porodici i oba puta mu je izrečena uslovna osuda. Jedan učinilac je ranije osuđivan prekršajno na osnovu Zakona o javnom redu i miru (Tabela 25).

104 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  Tabela 25

Broj Procenat

Osuđivan 9 34,6

Nije osuđivan 16 61,5

Prekršajno osuđivan 1 3,8

Ukupno 26 100

Porodična i lična anamneza učinilaca U pregledanim spisima sudskih predmeta ima veoma malo podataka o tome u kakvoj su porodici odrastali učinioci, da li su u maloletstvu vršili krivična dela ili se devijantno ponašali. Iako se radi o značajnim kriminogenim faktorima, sud uglavnom ne ispituje okolnosti vezane za raniji porodični život učinilaca, njihovo ponašanje i način života u primarnoj porodici. Za 17 učinilaca (65,4%) nema podataka u predmetima o komplet- nosti primarne porodice i o porodičnim odnosima u primarnoj porodici. U komplet- noj porodici ježivelo sedam učinilaca (26,9%), dok je bez oca bilo dva učinioca (7,7%). U izuzetno lošim porodičnim odnosima živelo je sedam učinilaca (26,9%), loši porodični odnosi su postojali kod dva učinioca (Grafikoni 51 i 52).

Grafikon 51

kompletna 27%

bez oca nepoznato 8% 65%

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 105  Grafikon 52 loši 8% izuzetno loši 27%

nepoznato 65%

U većini sudskih predmeta takođe nema podataka o tome da li su postojali pokušaji samoubistva kod učinilaca i da li je bilo samopovređivanja. Samo je jedan izvršilac izjavio da je imao suicidne ideje.

Zloupotreba alkohola i droga Zloupotreba alkohola postoji kod četiri učinioca (15,4%), ali na osnovu ovog podatka se ne može zaključiti da većina učinilaca ne konzumira alkohol jer je ova čijenica ostala nepoznata u 80,8% slučajeva (Grafikon 53). U vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela osam učini- laca (30,7%) je bilo pod dejstvom alkohola, tako da se može pretpostaviti da veći broj učinilaca od prikazanog prekomerno konzumira alkohol. Posebno je opasno to što je kod 3 učinioca (11,5%) u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela konstatovano komplikovano ili teško pijanstvo (Grafikon 54). Na osnovu opisa događaja i opisa stanja u porodici u onim slučajevima gde je utvrđeno postojanje pijanstva u vreme izvršenja dela, može se kon- statovati da je lošim porodičnim odnosima i povećanoj agresivnosti prema članovima porodice znatno doprinela upotreba alkohola.

Grafikon 53 da 15%

ne 4%

nepoznato 81%

106 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  Grafikon 54

srednje pijanstvo 8% teško pijanstvo 11%

nepoznato 50% komplikovano ili teško pijanstvo 12%

ne 19%

Zavisnost od droga nije zapažena u ispitivanom uzorku. U 88,5% slučajeva ostalo je nepoznato da li su učnioci koristili drogu pre izvršenja krivičnog dela. Izvršenje krivičnog dela pod dejstvom droge takođe nije zapaženo u ispitivanom uzorku.

Psihopatska struktura ličnosti, duševna bolest i stepen uračunljivosti Psihopatska struktura ličnosti nije konstatovana kod učinilaca iz ispitivanog uzorka. O psihopatskoj strukturi ličnosti ili postojanju psihičkog obolenja saznaje se iz nalaza neu- ropsihijatra u onim slučajevima gde je obavljeno psihijatrijsko veštačenje i gde postoji nalaz i mišljenje veštaka neurospihijatra. Izveštaja neurospihijatra o duševnom zdavlju učinilaca bilo je sasvim malo u ispitivanom uzorku jer je većina izvršilaca osuđena za lakši oblik krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici, a u tim slučajevima sud ne određuje ili vrlo retko određuje veštačenje. U jednom slučaju konstatovan je depresivni poremećaj kod okrivljenog, dok se u dva slučaja radilo o poremećenom ponašanju usled prekomerne upotrebe alkohola.

U vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela 50% okrivljenih je bilo uračunljivo, kod jednog učinioca je uračunljivost bila smanjena ali ne bitno, bitno smanjenu uračunljivost imala su dva učinioca, dok je za deset učinilaca ovaj podatak ostao nepoznat.

Odnos učinilaca prema izvršenom krivičnom delu Odnos učinioca prema izvršenom krivičnom delu sagledan je u 21 predmetu, iz pet predmeta se ne može zaključiti kakav je bio odnos učinilaca preme krivičnom delu koje s izvršili. Najveći broj učinilaca ne priznaje izvršenje krivičnog dela – 38,5%, žaljenje i kajanje izražavaju četiri učinioca (15,4%), neodređen odnos prema izvršenom krivičnom delu imaju tri učinioca (11,5%), dva učinioca samo verbalno izražava kajanje (7,7%) i dva učinioca smatraju da je njihov postupak bio adekvatan (7,7%) ( Tabela 26).

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 107  Tabela 26

Broj Procenat

Da, stvarno žaljenje i kajanje 4 15,4

Neodređeno 3 11,5

Samo verbalno izražava 2 7,7 kajanje Ne kaje se/smatra svoj 2 7,7 postupak adekvatnim

Ne priznaje delo 10 38,5

Nepoznato 5 19,2

Ukupno 26 100,0

U pogledu odnosa izvršioca prema odgovornosti za događaj, slično kao kod odnosa prema izvršenom krivičnom delu, najveći broj učinilaca ne priznaje svoju odgovornost i osporava vezu sa događajem – 26,9%. Takođe, u velikom procentu kod učinilaca nije moglo da se ustanovi kakav je njihov odnos prema odgovornosti za događaj – 23,1%. Ostali učinioci su različito reagovali: uglavnom prihvata sopstvenu odgovornost četiri izvršioca (15,4%), racionalizuje sopstvenu odgovornost tri učinioca – 11,5%, prebacuje odgovornost na žrtvu dva učinoca – 7,7%, ne krivi ni sebe nižrtvu dva učinioca (7,7%) i ne daje objašnjenje ili ga nema dva učinioca – 7,7% (Grafikon 55).

Grafikon 55

uglavnom prebacuje odgovornost na žrtvu 8% 23% 8% ne krivi ni sebe ni žrtvu/događaj smatra nesrećnim 11% sticajem okolnosti racionalizuje svoju odgovornost "bezizlaznošću 8% situacije" ("nije bilo izbora") 27% ne daje objašnjenje ili ga nema 15%

uglavnom prihvata sopstvenu odgovornost

ne priznaje krivično delo, tj. osporava vezu sa događajem nepoznato

108 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Raniji odnos učinioca i žrtve pre izvršenja krivičnog dela Odnos učinioca i žrtve pre izvršenja krivičnog dela u većini slučajeva iz uzorka bio je loš. Skoro u svim slučajevima postojalo je maltretiranje, netrpeljivost, neslaganje, vređanje, omalovažavaje, pretnje, sukobi, fizički napadi:

ii Okrivljeni je u dužem vremenskom periodu maltretirao oca i majku fizički, primenjivao silu, pretio, psovao;

ii Zbog konstantne primene nasilja u dužem vremenskom periodu, okrivljenom je izrečena mera zabrane prilaska i iseljenje iz stana u parničnom postupku;

ii Okrivljeni i oštećena su se razveli posle dve godine braka, posle razvoda okrivljeni je slao SMS poruke uvredljive sadržine;

ii Psihičko maltretiranje je postojalo od početka bračne zajednice, zatim se nastavilo fizičko nasilje niz godina kada je okrivljeni oštećenu tukao pesnicama, vođen je prekršajni postupak;

ii Fizičko i psihičko maltretiranje postojalo je svakodnevno od venčanja pa do razvoda, trajalo je šesnaest godina.

ii Kontinuirano fizičko i psihičko maltretiranje počelo je kada se oštećena porodila. Zbog svakodnevnih udaraca i šamara, oštećena je sa bebom od mesec dana morala da napusti stan. Pokušala je da se pomiri sa okrivljenim i vratila se, ali je maltretiranje nastavljeno ako da je opet morala da napusti stan.

ii Okrivljeni i oštećena su nekoliko godina imali bračne probleme zbog toga što je okrivljeni veoma ljubomoran i konzumira prekomerno alkohol, pa je oštećenu maltretirao fizički i psihički, da bi je zatim izbacio iz kuće;

ii U dužem vremenskom periodu okrivljeni je oštećenu svakodnevno maltretirao, pretio da če da je ubije, zakolje.

Motivi izvršenja krivičnog dela Najveći broj krivičnih dela izvršen je zbog postojanja netrpeljivosti između učinilaca i žrtava, usled prekomerne upotrebe alkohola, osvete, ljubomore, nedobijanja novca i sl. O motivima izvršnja krivičnog dela posredno se zaključuje na osnovu izjava okrivljenih i oštećenih, kao i iskaza svedoka. Sud posebno ne utvrđuje motive izvršenja krivičnih dela.

4.4. Profil žrtava Struktura žrtava po polu Prema podacima iz pregledanih sudskih predmeta, broj žrtava je veći od broja učinilaca jer su u tri slučaja postojale dve žrtve, tako da je broj žrtava 28 (Tabela 27).

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 109  Tabela 27

Broj predmeta Procenat

Jedna žrtva 22 88,0

Dve žrtve 3 12,0

Ukupno 28 100,0

Podaci iz ovog istraživanja potvrdili su da žene čine najveći broj žrtava nasilja u porodici. Među žrtvama je najviše žena (78,6%), dok muškarci čine 21,4% od ukupnog broja žrtava (Grafikon 56).

Grafikon 56

muški 21%

ženski 79%

Prebivalište i mesto rođenja žrtava Kao i učinioci tako i žrtve imaju uglavnom prebivalište u gradu - 92,9%, dok u prigrads- kom naselju žive dve žrtve (7,1%). Grad je mesto rođenja 67,90%, žrtava, a selo 32,10%.

Uzrast žrtava Među žrtvama nema maloletnih lica, a najveći broj žrtava bio je među starijom popu- lacijom: šest žrtava bilo je starosti između 57-65 godina (21,4%) i šest žrtava je bilo staro- sti preko 65 godina (21,4%). Tri izvršioca su uzrasta od 33-40 godina (17,9%), po tri žrtve su uzrasta od 25-32 godine (10,7%) i 41-48 godina (10,7%), dve žrtve su uzrasta 49-56 godina (7,1%) i jedna žrtva od 18-25 godina (3,6%) (Grafikon 57).

110 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  Grafikon 57 nepoznato 25-32 7% 11% preko 65 21% 33-40 18%

41-48 57-65 11% 49-56 21% 7%

Bračno stanje žrtava Najveći broj žrtava je oženjeno/udato (32,10%), 25% žrtava su u vanbračnoj zajednici, 21,40% žrtava su razvedene, jedna žrtva je lice koje nije u braku ni vanbračnoj zajednici, dok bračni status ostalih 5 žrtava nije poznat (Grafikon 58).

Grafikon 58 nepoznato neoženjen/neudata 18% oženjen/udata 4% 32%

razveden-a živi u vanbračnoj 21% zajednici 25%

Najveći broj žrtava ima status bivšeg bračnog ili vanbračnog supruga ili supruge izvršioca – 28,60% i roditelja izvršioca dela - 35,70%; 14,30% su u vanbračnoj zajednici sa izvršio- cem, a broj žrtava koje su deca izvršioca je 3, što čini 10,70% od ukupnog broj žrtava. Tri žrtve su i dalje u bračnoj zajednici sa izvršiocem (10,70%).

Obrazovanje žrtava Žrtve su različitog nivoa obrazovanja i zanimanja. Nezavršenu osnovnu školu imaju 2 žrtve, srednješkolsko ili gimnazijsko obrazovanje ima 7 žrtava, 3 žrtve imaju završenu visoku školu ili fakultet, a za 14 žrtava nije poznat stepen obrazovanja. Zanimanje žrtava,

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 111  kao i zanimanje izvršilaca, veoma je različito, što opet ukazuje na činjenicu da i izvršioci i žrtve mogu biti obrazovani i neobrazovani i da mogućnost da neko postane žrtva porodičnog nasilja ne zavisi u velikoj meri od stepena obrazovanja ni žrtve ni izvršioca.

Zaposlenost žrtava Prilikom sagledavanja uslova života žrtve nasilja u porodici, od značaja su njene ekon- omske prilike, koje su prevashodno uslovljene njenom (ne)zaposlenošću. Podaci o zapos- lenju žrtava u ispitivanom uzorku pružaju sledeću sliku: najviše je penzionera (39,30%), zaposlenih je 17,90%, domaćica je jedna, kao i jedno nezaposleno lice. Za ostale žrtve (35,70%) nema podataka o zaposlenju.

Priroda odnosa između izvršilaca i žrtava Krivično delo nasilja u porodici izvršeno je u najvećem procentu – 35,7% prema roditel- jima, ocu ili majci. Odmah posle nasilja prema roditeljima je nasilje izvršeno prema bivšem bračnom ili vanbračnom partneru - 28,6% U 14,3% predmeta između izvršioca i žrtve je postojao vanbračni odnos. Tri žrtve su bile sin/ćerka - 10,7% , a izvršioci roditelji (Tabela 28).

Tabela 28

Broj Procenat

suprug/supruga (brak) 3 10,7

vanbračna zajednica 4 14,3

bivši supruzi (bračni ili 8 28,6 vanbračni)

otac/majka 10 35,7

sin/ćerka 3 10,7

Ukupno 28 100,0

Postojanje oružja kod žrtve i alkoholisanost u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela U vreme izvršenja dela nasilja u porodici, nijedna žrtva kod sebe nije imala oruđe niti ga je upotrebila.

Za razliku od izvršilaca, od kojih je znatno veći broj prilikom izvršenja dela bio pod dejst- vom alkohola, jedna žrtva je u vreme izvršenja dela bila u alkoholisanom stanju.

112 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Odnos učinioca i žrtve pre podnošenja krivične prijave i reagovanje na akte nasilja Kao što smo već napomenuli, nijedno procesuirano krivično delo nasilja u porodici nije nastalo odjednom, već je proces fizičkog i psihičkog zlostavljanja postojao mnogo pre procesuiranja i ispoljavao se najčešće u kontinuiranom trajanju. Odnosi između učini- laca i žrtava su bili veoma loši i pre izvršenja krivičnog dela. Prema utvrđenim činjeni- cama žrtve su bile u dužem vremenskom periodu izložene fizičkom i/ili psihičkom nasilju, okrivljeni su, najčešće pod dejstvom alkohola, bili veoma agresivni, svađali su se sa oštećenima, vikali, vređali, tukli, šamarali. Interesanto je da je u jednom predmetu utvrđeno da su sinovi maltretirali oca da bi mu se osvetili zbog toga što ih je mnogo tukao u detinjstvu. Samo u dva slučaja pre izvršenja krivičnog dela nije bilo sukoba, a u jednom slučaju iz spisa predmeta i donete presude nije moglo da se zaključi kakvi su odnosi između učinioca i žrtve bili pre izvršenja krivičnog dela.

Iako se nasilje ispoljavalo i pre prijavljivanja krivičnog dela, jedanaest žrtava (39,2%) se nije nikome obratilo i zatražilo zaštitu od nasilja. Ostale žrtve su se obraćale Centru za socijalni rad, dve su žrtve bile smeštene u Sigurnu kuću. U jednom slučaju žrtve je izjavila da ima loše iskustvo sa Centrom za socijalni rad. Od 28 žrtava policiji se obratilo deset žrtava.

4.5. Krivični postupak – sadržina, tok i trajanje Krivični postupak se vodio u najvećem broju slučajeva u okviru uzorka prema izvršio- cima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 st. 1 – 96,2/% i čl. 194 st. 5 – 3,8%.

Prema podacima koje je ovaj sud dostavio postupajući po zahtevu za pristup informaci- jama od javnog značaja, u praksi ovog suda dominiraju krivična dela nasilja u porodici koja su kvalifikovana kao osnovni oblik ovog dela (Tabela 29).

Tabela 29 Osnovni sud u Novom Sadu

Član 194. Član 194. Član 194. Član 194. Član 194. Oblik dela st. 1. KZ st. 2. KZ st. 3. KZ st. 4. KZ st. 5. KZ

2014. 65 11 13 / 1

2015. 90 14 17 / 4

4.5.1. Pritvor Za razliku od predmeta iz Beograda i Niša, gde je prema učiniocima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici mnogo češće određivan pritvor, u ovom uzorku je samo šest učinilaca bilo u

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 113  prtvoru (23,10%). Pritvor prema okrivljenima nije određivan jer, po oceni suda, nisu pos- tojali zakonski uslovi za određivanje pritvora (Tabela 30).

Tabela 30

Broj Procenat

Određen pritvor 6 23,1

Nije određen pritvor 20 76,9

Ukupno 26 100

4.5.2. Dokazi U istraživanom uzorku najčešće izvođeni dokazi bili su: ispitivanje okrivljenih, saslušanje sve- doka, saslušanje oštećenih kao svedoka, uvid u spise predmeta, uvid u medicinsku doku- mentaciju, uvid u nalaz mobilnih operatera o ostvarenoj komunikaciji mobilnim telefonom.

4.5.3. Način okončavanja postupka U pravnosnažno okončanim predmetima (25) prema učiniocima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici (26) najviše je doneto osuđujućih presuda 22 (84,6%). Samo u četiri predmeta (15,4%) doneta je presuda kojom se optužba odbija na osnovu čl. 422 st. 1 tač. 1 ZKP zbog odustanka javnog tužioca i nepreuzimanja gonjenja od strane oštećenih (Grafikon 59).

Grafikon 59 doneta presuda kojom se optužba odbija 15%

doneta osuđujuća presuda 85%

4.5.4. Žalba Protiv prvostepenih presuda u najvećem procentu (96%) žalbe nisu izjavljivane. Žalba je izjavljena Samo u jednom slučaju zbog porešno utvrđenog činjeničnog stanja, bitne povrede odredaba krivičnog postupka, špvrede krivičnog zakona i odluke o kazni. U drugostepenom postupku žalba je odbijena kao neosnovana.Veliki broj prvostepenih

114 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi presuda postao je pravnosnažan na glavnom pretresu jer su se stranke odrekle prava na žalbu. Zbog toga mnoge presude nisu sadržale obrazloženja. Sporazum o priznanju kriv- ičnog dela bio je zaključen u jednom slučaju, pa i u tom predmetu nije bilo žalbe.

4.5.5. Trajanje postupka Jedan od osnovnih ciljeva istraživanja bio je da se utvrdi da li je u odnosu na raniji period došlo do promena u pogledu efikasnosti rada pravosudnih organa. Naime, rezultati rani- jeg istraživanja pokazali su da postupci procesuiranja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici, po pravilu, veoma dugo traju i da krivičnopravna zaštita od nasilja u porodici nije dovol- jno efikasna. U predmetima koji su bili predmet ranijeg istraživanja javnom tužiocu je za podizanje optužnog akta u proseku bilo potrebno 2,8 meseci, Da bismo sagledali efikasnost sudskog postupka, trajanje postupka smo posmatrali kroz pet faza: od pod- nošenja krivične prijave do podizanja optužnog akta; od podnošenja optužnog akta do donošenja prvostepene presude; od podnošenja krivične prijave do donošenja dru- gostepene presude; od podnošenja krivične prijave do nastupanja pravosnažnosti; od donošenja prvostepene presude do donošenja drugostepene presude (Tabela 31).

Tabela 31

Prvoste- Krivična pri- Krivična Optužni akt/ Krivična pri- pena pre- java/ dru- prijava/ prvostepena java/ prav- suda/ Dru- gostepena optužni akt presuda nosnažnost gostepena odluka presuda

Do 1 5 (20%) 4(16%) 0 0 0 mesec

1-3 0 10 (40%) 0 1 (4%) 1(4%) meseca

3-5 meseci 1(4%) 2 (8%) 0 2 (8%) 0

5-7 meseci 1(4%) 4(16%) 0 2 (8%) 0

7-10 5 (20%) 3(12%) 0 2 (8%) 0 meseci

10 - 12 3 (12%) 1 (4%) 0 3 (12%) 0 meseci

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 115  1 godina do 2 6 (24%) 0 0 10 (40%) 0 godine 2 godine do 4 3 (12%) 1 (4%) 0 2 (8%) 0 godine 4 godine do 5 1 (4%) 0 1(4%) 2 (8%) 0 godina

Preko 5 0 0 0 1(4%) 0 godina

UKUPNO 25 25 1 25 1

U dosadašnjim istraživanjima bilo je utvrđeno da je postupak pred tužilaštvom najefi- kasniji jer je za podnošenje optužnog akta u većini slučajeva bilo potrebno 1-3 meseca i da je znatno manji broj predmeta u kojima je optužni akt podnet posle sedam meseci, odnosno godinu dana. U ovm uzorku istraživanih predmeta vremenski period od pod- nošenja krivične prijave do podizanja optužnog akta je u većini predmeta duži. Za pod- izanje optužnog akta u šest predmeta (24%) bilo je potrebno od jedne do dve godine, u pet predmeta (20%) taj period je iznosio do mesec dana, što je svakako veoma brzo i efikasno, ali takođe od sedam do deset meseci. U tri predmeta (12%) ovaj deo pos- tupka je trajao od 10 do 12 meseci, u tri predmeta 2 do četiri godine, u jednom pred- metu 3-5 meseci, u jednom predmetu 5 do sedam meseci i u jednom predmetu četiri do pet godine. Svakako da ovde treba imati u vidu složenost predmeta i vreme potrebno za prikupljanje dokaza. Kada se radi o krivičnim delima nasilja u porodici, istraživanja poka- zuju da je najčešće dokazno sredstvo lekarsko uverenje i/ili iskaz oštećenog saslušanog kao svedoka. Za prikupljanje ovih dokaza potrebno je relativno kratko vreme, što znatno skraćuje postupak od podnošenja krivične prijave do optužnog akta. Stoga je neopra- vdano da ova faza postupka traje više od godinu dana.

Prema podacima iz tabele, efikasnost rada suda je bila veća nego efikasnost rada tužilaštva. Naime, najviše prvostepenih presuda – 10 (40%) doneto je u vremenskom periodu od 1 do 3 meseca od podnošenja optužnog akta. Podaci o broju održanih glanih pretresa takođe ukazuju na efikasan rad suda jer je u najvećem broju predmeta održano jedan ili dva glavna pretresa. Samo je u jednom predmetu bilo dvanaest održanih glavnih pretresa. Međutim, interesantno je da je prilično dug vremenski period od pod- nošenja krivične prijave do pravnosnažnosti presude, deset presuda (40%) je postalo pravnosnažno u periodu od jedne do dve godine od podnošenja krivične prijave. S obzi- rom na to da je samo u jednom slučaju vođen drugostepeni postupak po žalbi, protek vremena od podnošenja krivčne prijave do optužnog akta produžio je trajanje postupka.

116 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  4.6. Vrsta i visina izrečenih krivičnih sankcija Prema učiniocima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici je izrečena krivična sankcija u 96% slučajeva. Samo u četiri slučaja (15,4%) doneta je presuda kojom se optužba odbija zbog odustanka javnog tužioca (Grafikon 60).

Grafikon 60

odbija se zatvor optužba 11% 15% zatvor i mere bezbednosti 8% uslovna osuda i mera bezbednosti 4%

uslovna osuda 62%

Kazna zatvora samostalno i uz meru bezbednosti bila je izrečena u 5 slučajeva u različitom vremenskom trajanju. Najkraća kazna zatvora u trajanju od tri meseca bila je izrečena u jednom slučaju, kazna zatvora u trajanju od četiri meseca u jednom slučaju, u dva slučaja je izrečena kazna zatvora u trajanju od šest meseci i u jednom slučaju u tra- janju od sedam meseci. Iz ovih podataka se može zaključiti da su učinocima uglavnom izricane kratke kazne zatvora (Tabela 32).

Tabela 32

Broj Procenat

3 meseca 1

4 meseca 1

6 meseci 2

7 meseci 1

Ukupno 5 100,0

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 117  Mere bezbednosti su izricane uz kaznu zatvora i uslovnu osudu. Ukupno je izrečeno tri mere bezbednosti i to u dva slučaja mera bezbednosti lečenja alkoholičara i u jednom slučaju mera bezbednosti oduzimanja predmeta kojim je izvršeno krivično delo.

Prilikom odmeravanja kazne sud je uzimao u obzir olakšavajuće i otežavajuće okolnosti, ali one nisu navedene u svim presudama. U 16 presuda nema obrazloženja u skladu sa čl.429 st 1 tač.1 ZKP, pa samim tim nisu navedene olakšavajuće i otežavajuće okolnosti. U presudama u kojima ima obrazloženja kao olakšavajuće okolnosti navedene su: lične prlike okrivljenog, mladost, držanje posle učinjenog dela, priznanje i kajanje, oštećena nije istakla imovinskopravni zahtev i izjavila je da je ovaj incident bio „jedan jedini“, ranija neosuđivanost, „ozbiljna životna dob“, okrivljeni je otac maloletnog deteta, alkoholisa- nost u vreme izvršenja dela, činjenično stanje vezano za delo, slabo imovinsko stanje. Vrlo malo otežavajućih okolnosti je navedeno u presudama: recidivizam, alkoholisanost (u nekim presudama je ovo olakšavajuća okolnost), društvena opasnost krivičnog dela, prekršena mera zabrane prilaska, prekršena uslovna osuda.

5. Sumirani nalazi iz celokupnog uzorka

5.1. Oblici izvršenja krivičnih dela U ispitivanom uzorku od 100 sudskih predmeta broj izvršenih krivičnih dela nasilja u porodici iznosio je 109. Najviše je izvršeno krivičnih dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 st. 1 (62,38%), a najmanje krivičnih dela iz čl. 194 st. 5 (2,75%). Teži oblici krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 st. 2 i čl 194 st.3 bili su zastupljeni u manjem broju – 22,00% i 62,38%.Ovi podaci pokazuju da u celokupnom uzorku pregledanih sudskih predmeta preovlađuje lakši oblik izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici (Grafikon 61).

Grafikon 61

194/3 194/5 12.8% 2.8%

194/2 22.0% 194/1 62.4%

118 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  5.2. Sticaj, saučesništvo, mesto izvršenja krivičnog dela Vršenje krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici u sticaju sa istim ili drugim krivičnim delima zastupljeno je u malom broju. Samo u 19 predmeta je konstatovano da su krivična dela izvršena u sticaju – 19%. Kod krivičnih dela izvršenih u sticaju uglavnom se radilo o sti- caju krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici sa drugim krivičnim delima, kao što je ugrožavanje sigurnosti iz čl. 138 KZ RS i oduzimanje maloletnog lica iz čl. 191 KZ. U jednom slučaju postojao je sticaj krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici i kriivčnog dela napad na službeno lice u vršenju službene dužnosti iz čl. 323 KZ RS.

U većini predmeta krivična dela su izvršena samostalno – 95%. Samo u jednom pred- metu krivično delo nasilja u porodici je izvršeno u saučesništvu, odnosno saizvršilašvu kao obliku saučesništva.

Prilikom izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici često ima prisutnih drugih lica, čla- nova porodice, najčešće dece, koja se mogu smatrati takođe viktimiziranim. U ispitiva- nom uzorku u 50% predmeta je bilo očevidaca, koji su se na glavnom pretresu u nekim slučajevima pojavljivali kao svedoci događaja.

Prema rezultatima istraživanja grad, kao mesto izvršenja dominira kod krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici. Od ukupnog broja predmeta grad kao mest izvršenja bio zastupljen u 94,00% slučajeva, dok je selo bilo zastupljeno sa samo 6%. Mesto izvršenja kriivičnog dela isto je kao mesto stanovanja u 99,00% slučajeva, van mesta stanovanja zastupljeno je sa samo 1%. U najvećem broju slučajeva krivično delo je izvršeno u zajedničkom stanu/kući izvršioca i žrtve – 65%, zatim u stanu/kući žrtve – 15% i stanu/kući izvršioca – 13%. Ostala mesta događaja bila su manje zastupljena: roditeljska kuća žrtve – 1%, park i otvoren prostor – 1%.

5.3. Profil učinilaca Pol U ispitivanom uzorku od 100 sudskih predmeta krivična dela nasilja u porodici izvršio je 101 učinilac (u jednom predmetu su bila dva učinioca). Najveći broj učinilaca je muškog pola – 96 (95,05), znatno manje je učešće žena – 5 (4,95%) (Grafikon 62). Interesantno je da j samo jedna žena izvršila krivično delo nasilja u porodici prema suprugu (partner- sko nasilje) dok su ostale izvršile krivično delo prema ostalim članovima porodice (snaja, majka, unuka).

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 119  Grafikon 62

ženski 4.95%

muški 95.05%

Uzrast Ako posmatramo uzrast učinilaca, možemo da konstatujemo da je dominatna uzrasna kategorija izvršilaca od 33-56 godina – 77,22%. Primetna je zastupljenost starijeg uzrasta preko 65 godina – 7,92%. Mlađih izvršilaca ima manje: od 18-24 godine 4,95 i od 25-32 godine 3,96% (Grafikon 63).

Grafikon 63

preko 65 18-24 25-32 57-65 7.92% 4.95% 3.96% 5.94%

49-56 33-40 22.77% 33.66%

41-48 20.79%

Bračno stanje Najveći broj učinilaca, kao i žrtava, je oženjen/udata – 38,61%. Već smo naglasili da je bračni status učinilaca posmatran u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela. Zbog toga što je nasilje postojalo u većini slučajeva u dužem vremenskom periodu pre prijavlji­ vanja i vođenja sudskog postupka, zastupljenost neoženjenih/neudatih i razvedenih je primetan: 20,79% i 19,80%. U vanbračnoj zajednici je živelo 17 izvršilaca – 16,83%. (Grafikon 64).

120 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  Grafikon 64

nepoznato neoženjen/neudata 0.99% 20.79% oženjen/udata 38.61%

udovac/udovica 1.98%

rastavljen-a 0.99% živi u razveden-a vanbračnoj 19.80% zajednici 16.83%

Broj dece Dvoje i više dece imalo je 47,52% učinilaca, dok je sa jednim detetom bilo 28,72% učini­ oca i nešto manje učinilaca je bilo bez dece 23,76%.

Obrazovanje Podaci o obrazovanju učinilaca pokazuju da najveći broj učinilaca ima srednje obrazo- vanje – 63,36%. Sa završenom osnovom školom je 17,82% učinilaca, sa višom školom ili fakultetom je 12,87% učinilaca, najmanje učinilaca je sa nezavršenom osnovom školom – 2,97 i magistraturom – 1,98%.

Zaposlenost Siromaštvo usled lošeg materijalnog stanja predstavlja važan faktor kriminalnog ponašanja. Zbog toga je pilikom sagledavanja uzroka kriminaliteta neophodno saznati kakav je ekonomski status učinilaca, odnosno da li su zaposleni i ekonomski stabilni. U ispitivanom uzorku mnogo je manje zaposlenih učinilaca – 29,70% od nezapslenih – 42,57%, što znači da je njihovo materijalno stanje nezadovoljavajuće. Među učiniocima ima i 13,86% penzionera, ali, s obzirom na visinu penzija, ova činjenica ne povećava materijalne mogućnosti većine učinilaca.

Mesto rođenja i prebivalište Grad je mesto rođenja učinilaca u najvećem procentu – 79,20%, 21 učinilac je rođen u selu – 20,80%. Takođe, mnogo veći broj učinilaca ima prebivalište u gradu – 82,18%, samo osam učinilaca ima prebivalište u selu – 8 (7,92%). Ovi podaci su u skladu sa mes- tom izvršenja krivičnih dela jer je najveći broj krivičnih dela izvršen u gradu – 94%.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 121  Ranija osuđivanost Podaci o ranijoj osuđivanosti učinilaca pokazuju da je zastupljenost recidivista u većem procentu – 51,48%, što svakako povećava njihovu društvenu opasnost, pogotovo ako su ranije takođe vršili krivična dela nasilja u porodici. Manje su zastupljena nesuđivana lica među izvršiocima - 44,55% (Grafikon 65).

Grafikon 65

nepoznato prekršajno kažnjavano 2.97% 0.99%

ne da 44.55% 51,48%

Porodična i lična anamneza učinilaca O kompletnosti primarne porodice učinilaca i porodičnim odnosima u primarnoj porodici uglavnom nema podataka u sudskim predmetima, čak za 64,35% učinilaca je nepoznato da li je njihova porodica bila kompletna, a za 78,21% učinilaca nije moglo da se utvrdi iz pregledanih predmeta kakvi su bili porodični odnosi u primarnoj porodici. Kompletnu porodicu je imalo 25 učinilaca (24,75%), bez oca je odraslo 10 učinilaca (9,90%), bez majke jedan učinilaca. U porodicama najvećeg broja učinilaca – 10 (9,90%) odnosi su bili loši ili izuzetno loši – 7(6,93%), dobri odnosi su postojali u pet porodica učinilaca (4,95%).

Kao što ima malo podataka u sudskim predmetima o primarnoj porodici učinilaca, tako nedostaju podaci o ranijem devijantnom ponašanju učinilaca u detinjstvu i mladosti, koji obuhvataju eventualne pokušaje samoubistva, samopovređivanja, postojanju ranog zlostavljanja, bežanja od kuće, bežanja iz škola i vršenje krivičnih dela u maloletstvu. Navedeni podaci postoje samo u onim predmetima gde pstoji nalaz i mišljenje veštaka neuropsihijatra.

O pokušajima samoubistva nema podataka za 71 učinioca (70,30%), kod 26 učinilaca (25,74%) takvih pokušaja nije bilo, kod četiri učinioca (3,96%) postojale su samo suicidne ideje.

Da li je bilo sampovređivanja učinilaca nije moglo da se sazna u najvećem broju sluča- jeva - 76 (75,25%). Kod 25 učinilaca (24,75%) samopovređivanja nije bilo.

122 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Rano zlostavljanje ili zlostavljanje u detinjstvo i ranoj mladosti može biti indikator kasni­ jeg delinkventnog ponašanja i transgeneracijskog prenošenja nasilnog ponašanja. Međutim, u pregledanim predmetima samo kod 12 učinilaca (11,88%) je konstatovano da nije bilo zlostavljanja. Kod ostalih učinilaca ovaj podatak je ostao nepoznat – 89 (88,12%).

Bežanje od kuće i bežanje iz škole značajno je sagledati zbog toga što pokazuje odnos nekog lica prema porodici i školskom obrazovanju, kao i prema prihvatanju društvenih vrednosti i postulata. Kod istog broja učinilaca – 7 (6,93%) nije bilo ovih devijantnih ponašanja, a kod 94 učinilaca ostalo je nepoznato da li je bilo bežanja od kuće ili/i škole.

Za sagledavanje lične anamneze učinilaca značajno je da se utvrdi da li su vršili krivična dela u maloletstvu.U ispitivanom uzorku nije bilo podataka o vršenju krivičnih dela u malo- letstvu za 86 učinilaca (85,13%). Kod 15 učinilaca (14,85%) ovakvo ponašanje se nije ispoljilo.

Zloupotreba alkohola i droga Podaci o zloupotrebi alkohola i opojnih droga kod učinilaca ostali su nepoznati u 53 (52,48%), odnosno u 57 (56,44%) slučajeva. Prekomerno konzumiranje alkohola, koje se često od strane žrtava navodi kao odlučujući faktor za neslaganje i porodično nasilje, postojalo je kod 36 učinilaca (35,64%). Zavisnost od droga javlja se kod osam učinilaca (7,92%). Akoholizam i narkomanija kod učinilaca uticali su da prema njima budu izricane uz kaznu i mere bezbednosti obaveznog lečenja.

Alkolisanost u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela postojala je kod 43 (42,57%) učinilaca u obliku lakog pijanstva – 7(6,93%), srednjeg pijanstva – 15 (14,85%), teškog pijanstva – 15 (14,85%) i komplikovanog pijanstva – 6 (5,94%). Pod dejstvom droga u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela bilo je tri učinioca (2,97%).

Psihopatska struktura ličnosti i duševna bolest kod učinilaca O postojanju psihopatske strukture ličnosti I duševnih obolenja ne može se sa sigurnošću zaključivati jer u najvećem broju sudskih predmeta nema podataka – 64 (63,36%). Ove podatke je bilo moguće saznati iz nalaza i mišljenja neuropsihijatra. Tako je kod 11 učini- laca (10,90%) postojala psihopatska struktura ličnosti, a kod 26 učinilaca nije (25,74%).

Odnos učinilaca prema izvršenom krivičnom delu Učinioci krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz ispitivanog uzorka najčešće ne priznaju da su izvršili krivično delo koje im se stavlja na teret – 39 (38,61%). Samo verbalno izražava kajanje osamnaest učinilaca (17,82%), ne kaje se I smatra svoj postupak adekvatnim pet- naest učinilaca (14,85%), neodređen odnos ima dvanaest učinilaca (11,88%), samo jeda­ naest učinilaca (10,90%) izražava stvarno žaljenje i kajanje (Grafikon 66).

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 123  Grafikon 66

da, stvarno nepoznato žaljenje i kajanje 5.94% 10,90% ne priznaje delo 38.61% neodređeno 11.88%

samo verbalno izražava kajanje 17.82% ne kaje se/smatra svoj postupak adekvatnim 14.85%

Ponašanje učinioca posle izvršenog krivičnog dela sagledava se i kroz odnos učinioca prema odgovornosti za događaj. Takvu odgovornost učinioci uglavnom ne pokazuju jer u najvećem broju – 31 (30,69%) ne priznaju izvršenje krivičnog dela. Mnogi učinioci ne daju objašnjenje ili ga nemaju – 20 (19,80%). Uglavnom prihvata sopstvenu odgovornost šesnaest učinilaca (15,89%), a petnaest učinilaca ( 14,85%) uglavnom prebacuje odgovor- nost na žrtvu (Tabela 33).

Tabela 33

Broj Procenat

Uglavnom prebacuje 15 14,85 odgovornost na žrtvu

Ne krivi ni sebe ni žrtvu/ događaj smatra nesrećnim 6 5,94 sticajem okolnosti

Racionalizuje svoju odgovornost “bezizlaznošću 4 3,96 situacije” (“nije bilo izbora”)

Ne daje objašnjenje ili ga 20 19,80 nema

Uglavnom prihvata 16 15,84 sopstvenu odgovornost

124 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  Ne priznaje krivično delo, tj. osporava vezu sa 31 30,69 događajem

Krivi sebe i žrtvu 1 0,99

Nepoznato 8 7,92

Ukupno 101 100,00

Uračunljivost učinilaca u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela Učinioci su bili u većem procentu uračunljivi u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela – 54 (53.47%). Iako je kod petnaest učinilaca konstatovano da je ovaj podatak nepoznat, svakako se radi o uračunljivim učiniocima, samo što sud to nije posebno konstatovao jer je izostalo obrazloženje presude ili je prihvaćen sporazum o priznanju krivičnog dela. Uračunljivost je bila smanjena, ali ne bitno, kod devetnaest učinilaca (18,81%), bitno smanjena uračunljivost postojala je kod jedanaest učinilaca (10,89%), samo dva učinioca (1,98%) su bila neuračunljiva.

5.4. Profil žrtava U ispitivanom uzorku od 100 sudskih predmeta bilo je 122 žrtve izvršenih krivičnih dela nasilja u porodici. U najviše predmeta bila je jedna žrtva – 81 (66,39) (Grafikon 67). Treba konstatovati da u većini sudskih predmeta ima veoma malo podataka o oštećenom ili žrtvi krivičnog dela.

Grafikon 67

tri 7.38%

dve 26.23%

jedna 66.39%

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 125  Struktura žrtava po polu Najveći broj žrtava nasilja u prodici je ženskog pola – 75,41%, muškaraca je znatno manje – 24,59% (Grafikon 68).

Grafikon 68

muški 24.59%

ženski 75.41%

Prebivalište i mesto rođenja žrtava Prebivalište i mesto rođenja žrtava je, kao i učinilaca, u najvećem procentu grad 85,24% mesto rođenja i 70,49% prebivalište. U selu je rođeno manje žrtava – 19,67% i ima pre- bivalište u selu 7,38%.

Uzrast žrtava U istraživanom uzorku najviše je žrtava starijeg uzrasta – preko 65 godina je 24 žrtve (19,67%), od 33 – 40 godina je 21 žrtva (17,21%), od 57-65 godina 20 žrtava (16,39%); od 57 – 65 godina 16 žrtava (13,11%), od 49 – 56 godina 13 žrtava (10,65%), od 41-48 godina 12 žrtava (9,84%). Najmanje je maloletnih žrtava – 8 (6,56%) i od 18-24 godina (3,28%) (Grafikon 69).

Grafikon 69

maloletno nepoznato dete 18-24 3.28% preko 65 6.56% 3.28% 19.67% 25-32 13.11%

57-65 33-40 16.39% 17.21%

49-56 41-48 10.66% 9.84%

126 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Bračno stanje žrtava Prema podacima o bračnom stanju žrtve, kojih nema u svim predmetima (u 18 pred- meta nije postojao podatak o tome) žrtve su, kao i učinioci, u najvećem broju oženjeni/ udati – 57 (46,72%). Razvedeno je 17 žrtava (13,93%), dok u vanbračnoj zajednici živi četr- naest žrtava (11,48%). Neoženjenih/neudatih žrtava je dvanaest (9,84%), rastavljene su dve žrtve(1,64%) i status udovice/udovca imaju dve žrtve (1,64%) (Tabela 34). abela 34

Broj Procenat

Oženjen/udata 57 46,72

Živi u vanbračnoj zajednici 14 11,48

Razveden/na 17 13,93

Rastavljen/na 2 1,64

Udovac/udovica 2 1,64

Neoženjen/neudata 12 9,84

Nepoznato 18 14,75

Ukupno 122 100,00

Broj dece Najviše žrtava ima dvoje ili više dece – 51 (41,80%), jedno dete ima 41 žrtva (33,61%), dok je bez dece 21 žrtva (17,21%).

Obrazovanje i zaposlenost žrtava O obrazovanju, zaposlenosti i zanimanju žrtava ima veoma malo podataka u sudskim predmetima. Prema raspoloživim podacima o obrazovanju žrtava (u 67 predmeta nije sadržan ovaj podatak) najviše žrtava, kao i izvršilaca ima srednje obrazovanje – 27 (22,13%), završenu osnovnu školu ima 12 žrtava (9,84%), višu školu ili fakultet ima sedam žrtava (5,74%), a bez obrazovanja su četiri žrtve (3,28%) i sa nezavršenom osnovnom ško- lom tri žrtve (2,46%).

O zaposlenosti žrtava nije bilo podataka u 43 predmeta (35,25%). Prema raspoloživim podacima veći broj žrtava je bio zaposlen – 24 (19,67%). Među žrtvama ima dosta pen- zionera – 31 ( 25,41%), domaćica je deset (8,20%), učenika je pet (4,10%). Nezaposlenih žrtava je devet (7,38%).

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 127  Odnos žrtve i učinoca Za razliku od dosadašnjih istraživanja u kojima je konstatovano da je partersko nasilje dominatan oblik nasilja u porodici, u ovom istraživanju partersko nasilje je zastupljeno u nešto manjem procentu. Naime, među žrtvama krivičnog dela nasilja u pordici najčešće žrtve su otac I majka učinioca – 33 žrtve (27,05%), a zatim suprug/supruga – 30 žrtava (24,59%). Zastupljeno je i nasilje prema deci – 21 žrtva (17,21%) su sinovi i ćerke (Tabela 35).

Tabela 35

Broj Procenat

Suprug/supruga (brak) 30 24,59

Vanbračna zajednica 13 10,66 Bivši supružnici (bračni ili 18 14,75 vanbračni) Otac/majka 33 27,05

Sin/ćerka 21 17,21

Unuk/unuka 1 0,82

zet/snaja 1 0,82

tast/tašta 2 1,64

deda/baba 1 0,82

bivši mladić / devojka 1 0,82

brat/sestra 1 0,82

Ukupno 122 100,00

Na osnovu poznatih podataka može se zaključiti da nijedna žrtva u ispitivanom uzorku nije posedovala oružje (97,54%) niti ga je upotrebila (95,08%).

U vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela 108 žrtava (88,52%) nije bilo pod uticajem alkohola, dok je sedam žrtava je bilo pod dejstvom alkohola – 7 (5,74%). Za sedam žrtava (5,74%) nije bilo podataka da li su bile pod dejstvom alkohola u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela.

5.5. Krivični postupak – sadržina, tok, trajanje Krivični postupak se u 100 sudskih predmeta iz uzorka vodio u najvećem broju slučajeva prema izvršiocima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 st. 1 – 62,38/%, zatim prema

128 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi izvršiocima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici iz čl. 194 st. 2 – 22,00%, čl. 194 st.3 – 12,84% i čl. 194 st. 5 – 2,75%. Većini učinilaca nije određen pritvor – 60 (59,41%).

5.5.1. Pritvor Pritvor je određen prema 41 učiniocu (40,59%) (Grafikon 70).

Grafikon 70

Određen pritvor 40.59%

Nije određen pritvor 59.41%

5.5.2. Dokazi U istraživanom uzorku najčešće izvođeni dokazi bili su: ispitivanje okrivljenih, saslušanje svedoka, saslušanje oštećenih kao svedoka, uvid u spise predmeta, uvid u medicinsku dokumentaciju, sudskomedicinsko veštačenje i veštačenje neuropsihijatra i psihologa, uvid u nalaz mobilnih operatera o ostvarenoj komunikaciji mobilnim telefonom, čitanje stručnog nalaza centra za socijalni rad.

5.5.3. Način okončanja postupka Najveći broj postupaka okončan je donošenjem osuđujućih presuda (92). Mere bezbed- nosti su samostalno izrečene u dva slučaja (1,98%). Ostali načini okončanja krivičnog pos- tupka bili su: odbijena optužba – 5 (4,95%), oslobađajuća presuda – 1 (0,99%), obustavlje postupak – 1 (0,99%)(Tabela 36).

Tabela 36

Broj Procenat

Oslobađajuća presuda 1 0.99

Obustavljen postupak 1 0.99

Osuđujuća presuda 92 91.09

Izrečena mera bezbednosti 2 1.98

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 129  Presuda kojom se optužba 5 4.95 odbija

Ukupno 101 100,00

Sporazum o priznanju krivičnog dela bio je zaključen u pet slučajeva: po jedan u Beo- gradu i Novom Sadu i tri u NIšu. U Nišu je održano tri ročišta za izricanje krivične sankcije.

5.5.4. Žalba Žalba nije bila izjavljena u 73 predmeta, na prvostepenu presudu uloženo je 27 žalbi.

5.5.5. Trajanje postupka Da bismo sagledali efikasnost sudskog postupka, trajanje postupka smo posmatrali kroz pet faza: od podnošenja krivične prijave do podizanja optužnog akta; od podnošenja optužnog akta do donošenja prvostepene presude; od podnošenja krivične prijave do donošenja drugostepene presude; od podnošenja krivične prijave do nastupanja pra- vosnažnosti; od donošenja prvostepene presude do donošenja drugostepene presude (Tabela 37).

Tabela 37 Krivična Prvostepena Krivična Optužni akt/ Krivična prijava/ dru- presuda/ prijava/ prvostepena prijava/ prav- gostepena drugostepena optužni akt presuda nosnažnost presuda presuda

Do 1 32 15 0 1 0 mesec

1-3 2 33 0 10 9 meseca

3-5 9 12 5 11 11 meseci

5-7 3 12 2 7 1 meseci

7-10 15 8 0 9 1 meseci

10 - 12 9 4 3 11 2 meseci

130 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  1 godina do 2 20 10 3 27 2 godine 2 godine do 4 9 5 10 15 1 godine 4 godine do 5 1 0 3 6 0 godina

Preko 5 0 1 1 3 0 godina

UKUPNO 100 100 27 100 27

Prema podacima iz tabele, u najvećem broju predmeta – 32 (32%) vreme od podnošenja krivične prijave do optužnog akta bilo je do mesec dana, što pokazuje da je tužilaštvo bilo veoma efikasno,što se i očekuje kada se radi o ovoj vrsti krivičnih dela. Ipak, u dvade- set predmeta (20%) od podnošenja krivične prijave do optužnog akta je prošlo od jedne do dve godine, u petnaest predmeta (15%) od 7 do 10 meseci, u devet predmeta (9%) od dve do četiri godine, što pokazuje da efikasnost rada tužilaštva nije bila ista u svim pred- metima. Sud je bio mnogo efikasniji jer je od podnošenja optužnog akta do donošenja prvostepene presude u najvećem broju predmeta - 33 (33%) prošlo jedan do tri meseca. U deset predmeta (10%) ova faza postupka je trajala od jedne do dve godine, a samo u pet predmeta (5%) postupak pred sudom je trajao od dve do četiri godine i u jednom slučaju preko pet godina. Interesantno je da, iako nije bilo žalbi u većem broju predmeta (žalba je izjavljena u 27 predmeta), što bi svakako produžilo trajanje postupka, u znatnom broju predmeta – 27(27%) od podnošenja krivične prijave do pravnosnažnosti proteklo je od jedne do dve godine. Drugostepeni postupak traje znatno kraće, u najvećem broju predmeta – 11 (40,74%) od donošenja prvostepene presude do donošenja drugostep- ene presude proteklo je tri do pet meseci.

5.6. Vrsta i visina izrečene krivične sankcije

5.6.1. Vrste krivičnih sankcija Prema učiniocima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici bilo je izrečeno ukupno 92 osuđu- juće presude. Najviše je izrečeno uslovnih osuda - 36 (35,64%), što potvrđuje da je uslovna osuda i dalje dominantna krivična sankcija kada se radi o krivičnom delu nasilja u porodici. Podjednak je broj izrečenih kazni zatvora i kazni zatvora i mera bezbednosti – 15 (14,85%), dok je nešto manji broj izrečenih uslovinih osuda sa merom bezbednosti – 14 (13,86%). (Tabela 38).

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 131  Tabela 38

Broj Procenat

Kazna zatvora 15 14,85

Kazna zatvora u prostorijama u kojima okrivljeni stanuje sa pri- 4 3,96 menom elektronskog nadzora

Kazna zatvora u prostorijama u kojima okrivljeni stanuje bez 1 0,99 elektronskog nadzora

Kazna zatvora u prostorijama u kojima okrivljeni stanuje bez 1 0,99 elektronskog nadzora i mera bezbednosti

Kazna zatvora u prostorijama u kojima okrivljeni stanuje uz pri- 1 0,99 menu električnog nadzora i mera bezbednosti

Kazna zatvora i mera bezbednosti 15 14,85

Kazna zatvora i novčana kazna 1 0,99

Kazna zatvora, novčana kazna i mera bezbednosti zabrane 1 0,99 približavanja i komuniciranja

Kazna rada u javnom interesu i mera bezbednosti obaveznog 1 0,99 lečenja alkoholičara na slobodi

Uslovna osuda 36 35,64

Uslovna osuda i mera bezbednosti 14 13,86

Uslovna osuda sa zaštitnim nadzorom 1 0,99

Uslovna osuda i novčana kazna 1 0,99

U k u p n o osuđujućih presuda 92 91,08

Mera bezbednosti 2 1,98

Obustavljen postupak / odbija se optužba 6 5,9

Oslobađajuća presuda 1 0,99

Ukupno 101 100,00

132 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  5.6.2. Visina krivične sankcije Prema učiniocima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici izricana je kazna zatvora u različitom vremenskom trajanju. Ukupno je izrečeno 39 kazni zatvora, kazni zatvora i mera bez- bednosti, kazni zatvora koje se izdržavaju u prostorijama u kojima okrivljeni stanuje sa primenom elektronskog nadzora, kazni zatvora koje se izdržavaju u prostorijama u kojima okrivljeni stanuje bez primene elektronskog nadzora, kazni zatvora uz novčanu kaznu. Najkraća kazna zatvora je trajala 48 dana, najduža 3 godine i osam meseci. Najviše je izrečeno kazni zatvora u trajanju od šest meseci – 11 (28,20%) i jedne godine – 8 (20,51%) (Tabela 39).

Tabela 39

Broj Procenat

48 dana 1 2,56

3 meseca 1 2,56

4 meseca 1 2,56

6 meseci 11 28,20

7 meseci 2 6,89

8 meseci 4 10,25

10 meseci 2 6,89

1 godina 8 20,51

1 godina i 4 meseca 1 2,56

1 godina i 6 meseci 1 2,56

2 godine 4 10,25

2 godine i 6 meseci 1 2,56

3 godine i 4 meseci 1 2,56

3 godine i 8 meseci 1 2,56

Ukupno 39 100,00

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 133  5.6.3. Olakšavajuće i otežavajuće okolnosti Prikom odmeravanja vrste i visine kazne sudovi su kao relevantne uzimali različite okol- nosti i procenjivali njihov uticaj na učinioca i izvršenje krivičnog dela. Te okolnosti je bilo moguće saznati iz obrazloženja sudskih presuda. Primećuje se da su u pojedinim sud- skim presudama olakšavajuće i otežavajuće okolnosti sud sasvim uopšteno navodio ne udubljujući se u stvarni efekat njihovog dejstva. Takođe, uočen je automatizam prilikom utvrđivanja koje će biti olakšavajuće i otežavajuće okolnosti jer su navođene pojedine okolnosti iz same zakonske odredbe, pri čemu se nije uzimala u obzir činjenica da se radi o nasilnim odnosima u porodici koji imaju viši stepen opasnosti u odnosu na druge oblike nasilničkog ponašanja.

Najčešće su kao olakšavajuće okolnosti navedene: priznanje krivičnog dela, kajanje zbog izvršenog krivičnog dela, loše materijalne prilike, neosuđivanost, da je otac maloletnog deteta (jednog ili više dece), činjenica da se oštećeni ne pridružuje krivičnom gonjenju i ne ističe imovinskoprvani zahtev, protek vremena od poslednjeg izvršenog krivičnog dela, okrivljeni je prestao sa upotrebom alkohola i podvrgao se porodičnoj teraoiji i sl. Neujednačenost u proceni pojedinih okolnosti kao olakšavajućih zapažena je u sudskim presudama sva tri suda. Tako je, na primer, kao olakšavajuća okolnost ocenjena činjen- ica da je okrivljeni mlad čovek, dok je u drugoj sudskoj presudi olakšavajuća okolnost to što je okrivljeni penzioner. U jednom obrazloženju presude kao olakšavajuća okol- nost su navedene lične i porodične prilike okrivljenog, pri čemu ne postoji nikakvo objašnjenje kakve su to “prilike” i zbog čega se smatraju olakšavajućom okolnošću. Ili zbog čega je fakultetsko obrazovanje (okrivljeni je magistar) olakšavajuća okolnost pri- likom izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici. Kao olakšavajuća okolnost navedeno je ponašanje okrivljenog prema oštećenoj jer se okrivljeni izvinio i, prema izjavi oštećene, promenio, postao “dobar prema njoj” U drugom slučaju olakšavajuća okolnost je to što okrivljeni i oštećena ne žive zajedno pa okrivljeni nije u prilici da sa oštećenom ponovo dođe u sukob i ponovi delo. Pri tome, sud nije imao u vidu prirodu krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici, koje se odlikuje postojanjem “ciklusa nasilja”, kada se dobro i loše ponašanje smanjuju u fazama (posle faze izvinjavanja žrtvi i molbi za oproštaj, nailazi faza još bru- talnijeg nasilja).

Za razliku od olakšavajućih okolnosti, koje su u velikom broju navedene u obrazložen- jima sudskih presuda, otežavajuće okolnosti se znatno manje pominju. U relativno veli- kom broju predmeta sud uopšte nije navodio otežavajuće okolnosti. U predmetima u kojima je sud našao da postoje otežavajuće okolnosti, kao najčešće, pojavljuju se: ranija osuđivanost za druga krivična dela, ranija osuđivanost za istovrsno krivično delo nasilje u porodici, osuđivanost za krivična dela sa elementom nasilja, činjenica da prethodno izrečene kazne nisu korigovale ponašanje okrivljenog, ranije prekršajno kažnjavanje, pojačan stepen krivice, jačina ugrožavanja ili povrede zaštićenog dobra, okrivljeni je

134 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi bio u alkoholisanom stanju, iako je znao da upotreba alkohola kod njega izaziva agre- sivnost, delo je izvršeno prema starijem licu, upornost prilikom izvršenja krivičnog dela, prekršena mera zabrane prilaska, prekršena uslovna osuda i sl. Interesantno je da se alko- holisanost smatra i olakšavajućom i otežavajućom okolnošću. U obrazloženjima nekih presuda kao olakšavajuća okolnost je naveden stepen krivice okrivljenog, s obzirom na to da mu je usled bolesti zavisnosti od alkohola uračunljivost bila smanjena do granice bitnog, ali ne i bitno, dok je u drugom slučaju olakšavajuća okolnost to što je okrivljeni krivično delo izvršio u stanju smanjene uračunljivosti zbog zloupotrebe alkohola.

Ranija osuđivanost okrivljenog različito je procenjivana od strane sudova. U jednom slučaju prvostepeni sud nije uzeo kao otežavajuću okolnost raniju osuđivanost okrivl- jenog imajući u vidu protek vremena od osude, a drugostepeni sud po žalbi je naveo kao otežavajuću okolnost činjenicu da je okrivljeni osuđivan. Sudovi ne smatraju da je ranija osuđivanost otežavajuća okolnost ukoliko je od ranije osude prošao duži vremenski perod (10 ili 15 godina) ili ako je u toku postupak zakonske rehabilitacije ili su se stekli uslovi za brisanje osude, bez obzira na to za koje krivično delo je okrivljeni ranije osuđivan.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 135  Treći deo

Zaključci 1. Podaci prikupljeni iz spisa sudskih predmeta pokazuju da u sudskoj praksi preovladava lakši oblik izvršenja krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici, tj. dela koja se kvalifikuju kao osnovni oblik krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici (62,38%). Mnogo se manje procesuiraju kvalifikovani oblici dela nasilja u porodici (22,00%), a ona koja su procesuirana odnose se na izuzetno brutalne akte fizičkog nasilja ili krivična dela nasilja u porodici izvršena prama maloletnim licima (12,8%). Izuzetno retko se procesuiraju akti kršenja zabrana izrečenih u parničnom postupku (2,75%), što navodi na zaključak da se kršenje izrečenih mera zabrane retko prijavljuje radi krivičnog sankcionisanja.

2. Među procesuranim delima nasilja u porodici najzastupljeniji oblik nasilja jeste fizičko nasilje (78%), i to: fizičko nasilje bez upotrebe oruđa ili oružja (44%) i uz upotrebu oruđa/oružja (34%). Psihičko nasilje češće se vrši kumulativno sa fizičkim (16%), a znatno ređe kao samostalno krivično delo (6%).

3. Načini izvršenja krivičnog dela zavise od vrste nasilja, kao i od sredstava izvršenja. Fizičko nasilje najčešće se vrši udaranjem pesnicama u glavu i lice, čupanjem kose, šutiranjm, šamaranjem, stavljanjem noža pod grlo, davljenjem, ujedanjem za ruke i sl. Psihičko nasilje najčešće se vrši psovanjem, vređanjem pogrdnim imenima, pljuvanjem, uznemiravanjem SMS porukama, pretnjama, ubistvom i sl. Analiza opisa izvršenih krivičnih dela pokazuje da je nasilje često veoma brutalno i da nanosi veliku patnju žrtvama.

4. Krivično delo nasilja u porodici najčešće se vrše samostalno, po pravilu, bez sticaja sa drugim delima, a kada sticaj postoji, krivično delo nasilja u porodici najčešće

136 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  se vrši zajedno sa krivičnim delom ugrožavanje sigurnosti i krivičnim delom oduzimanje maloletnog lica.

5. Nasilje u porodici često se vrši u prisustvu članova porodice, uglavnom dece. Najveći broj procesuiranih dela izvršen je u gradu, u mestu prebivališta žrtve i učinioca, najčešće u njihovom zajedničkom stanu/kući.

6. Nije moguće sa sigurnošću utvrditi motiv izvršenja krivičnog dela jer ovaj psihološki faktor sud gotovo da ne sagledava prilikom utvrđivanja činjeničnog stanja, ali se iz spisa predmeta posredno može zaključiti da učinioci vrše krivično delo nasilja u porodici najčešće zbog ljubomore, dugogodišnje netrpeljivosti prema žrtvi, kao osvete zbog nemogućnosti da viđaju zajedničko dete, usled rasprave oko novca i podele bračne tekovine i dr.

7. U spisima predmeta uglavnom nema podataka na osnovu kojih bi se moglo zaključiti kakav je bio lični odnos učinioca i žrtve pre izvršenog krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici. To je pokazatelj da sud veoma malo pažnje poklonja ispitivanju okolnosti koje su vezane na tzv. cikluse u ispoljavanju nasilja: da li je i kroz koje faze ciklusa nasilja žrtva prošla i koliko su one trajale. Ipak, na osnovu prikupljenih podataka može se zaključiti da su skoro sve žrtve pre izvršenja krivičnog dela u dužem vremenskom periodu bile izložene fizičkom i psihičkom nasilju, maltretiranju, vređanje, pretnjama i omalovažavaju. Kod partnerskog nasilja, malteretiranje je veoma često počinjalo odmah po zasnivanju zajednice života i obično je dugo trajalo. Relativno je mali broj žrtava koje su se ranije obraćale za pomoć nadležnim institucijama, što je, pored ostalog, indikator niskog stepena poverenja žrtve nasilja u institucije sistema.

8. Učinioci krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici najčešće su muškarci (preko 95%). Među 5% žena koje se javljaju kao učinioci krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici samo je jedna izvršila delo partnerskog nasilja, a ostale su izvršile nasilje prema drugim članovima porodice. Ovi podaci potvrđuju rodnu zasnovanost nasilja u porodici.

9. Dominatno starosno doba izvršilaca je od 33-56 godina (77,22%), ali je primetna relativno velika zastupljenost ulinilaca starijih od 65 godina ( 7,92%). Mlađih izvršilaca ima nešto manje (18-24 godine – 4,95 i 25-32 – 3,96%. Komparacija ovih podataka sa podacima iz ranijih istraživanja pokazuje da se starosno doba učinilaca krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici blago pomerilo ka starijoj uzrasnoj kategoriji.

10. Učinioci su većinom oženjeni, roditelji dvoje i više dece, srednjeg obrazovanja i nezaposleni. Najveći broj učinilaca rođen je i živi u gradu. Više od polovine su recidivisti, a uglavnom su nepoznate okolnosti u pogledu njihove primarne porodice i ponašanja u mladosti. Skoro trećina učinioca prekomerno konzumira

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 137  alkohol, a manje od 10 odsto je zavisno od droga. Više od 40% učinilaca bilo je alkoholisano u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela, a nešto više od 10% učinilaca ima psihopatsku strukturu ličnosti. Učinioci su uglavnom uračunljivi: krivično delo nasilja u porodici je u stanju neuračunljivosti izvišilo je manje od 2% učinilaca. Učinici najčešće ne priznaju izvršenje dela, niti prihvataju svoju odgovornost – samo nešto više od 15% prihvata svoju odgovornost, a tek 10% izražava stvarno žaljenje i kajanje.

11. Dominantne žrtve krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici jesu žene (preko 75%), što je još jedna od jasnih pokazatelja njegove rodne zasnovanosti.

12. Žrtve su najčešće rođene i žive u gradu i različitog su uzrasta. Najviše je žrtava starosti od 25-65 godina (67,21), ali je znatan broj žrtva stariji od 65 godina (19,67%). Najmanje je maloletnih žrtava – 6,56%) i žrtava starosti 18-24 godina (3,28%).U odnosu na ranije stanje, povećan je broj žrtava starijeg životnog doba.

13. Žrtve nasilja u porodici najčešće su udate ili razvedene, sa dvoje ili više dece. Preovlađuju žrtve koje su sa učiniocem u braku/vanbračnoj zajednici, ali je relativno veliki broj razvedenih i rastavljenih, što pokazuje da se partnersko nasilje nastavlja i kada brak, odnosno zajednica života prestane da postoji. Nedostaju podaci o obrazovanju žrtava, a one za koje podaci postoje najčešće su sa srednjim obrazovanjem. U više od trećine premeta nedostaju podaci o zaposlenosti žrtava, a među žrtvama za koje ovi podaci postoje preovlađuju zaposlene osobe (19%) i korisnici penzije (26%), s tim što je, u odnosu na period obuhvaćen ranijim istraživanjima, smanjen broj zaposlenih žrtava, a povećen broj korisnika penzije. Većina žrtava ne poseduje oružje, niti ga je upotrebila, a samo nešto manje od 5% žrtva bilo je pod dejstvom alkohola u vreme izvršenja dela.

14. Za razliku od ranijih istraživanja, prema čijim je nalazima partnersko nasilje bilo dominantno (preko 65%), novo istraživanje pokazuje da je ovaj oblik nasilja u porodici zastupljen u manjem obimu (oko 50%), ali da i dalje preovlađuje u odnosu na druge vidove nasilja u porodici. U odnosu na raniji period, došlo je do povećanja broja krivičnih dela izvršenih prema drugim članovima porodice: deci (oko 27%) i roditeljima (oko 15%). Povećan je broj slučajeva nasilja u porodici prema tazbinskim srodnicima (3%) i dedama i babama (3%).

15. U procesuiranju dela nasilja u porodici uočavaju se izvesne pozitivne promene u odnosu na raniji period. Pre svega, mnogo je češće određivanje: prema nalazima istraživanja iz 2007. godine, pritvor je bio određen samo u 13% slučajeva, najčešće zbog postojanja opasnosti da će izvršilac ponoviti izvršenje krivičnog dela, odnosno izvršiti delo kojim preti. Prema podacima prikupljenim novim istraživanjem, pritvor je određen u oko 40% predmeta, i to: Niš (48%), Beograd (46%) i Novi Sad

138 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  (23,1%). Češće određivanje pritvora pokazuje da se prilikom procesuiranja od strane sudova problemu nasilja u porodici prilazi na mnogo odgovorniji način, uz pravilno sagledavanje opasnosti od izvršenja, odnosno ponavljanja nasilja. Međutim, učiniocima nasilja u porodici retko se određuje pritvor zbog mogućeg uticaja učinioca na svedoke, iako praksa pokazuje da izvršioci nasilja itekako imaju uticaj na svedoke, posebno na žrtve, o čemu svedoči veliki broj žrtava koje kasnije odbijaju da svedoče na glavnom pretresu i izjavljuju da se ne pridružuju krivičnom gonjenju.

16. Ne postoje razlike u pogledu dokaznih sredstava koja su korišćena za utvrđivanje istinitosti činjenica, izuzev što je češće nego ranije kao dokaz korišćen uvid u nalaz mobilnih operatera o ostvarenoj komunikaciji mobilnim telefonom. Korišćeni su sledeći dokazi: ispitivanje okrivljenih, saslušanje svedoka, saslušanje oštećenih kao svedoka, uvid u spise predmeta, uvid u medicinsku dokumentaciju, sudskomedicinsko veštačenje i veštačenje neuropsihijatra i psihologa, uvid u nalaz mobilnih operatera o ostvarenoj komunikaciji mobilnim telefonom, čitanje stručnog nalaza centra za socijalni rad i dr.

17. U pravnosnažno okončanim predmetima prema učiniocima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici najviše je doneto osuđujućih presuda – 92 (91%). Doneto je samo 5 (4,9%) presuda kojima se optužba odbija i samo jedna oslobađajuća presuda (0,9%).

18. Počinicima su izrečene sledeće krivične sankcije: kazna zatvora, kazna zatvora sa primenom elektronskog nadzora, kazna zatvora koju će osuđeni izdržavati u prostorijama u kojima stanuje bez primene elektronskog nadzora, kazna zatvora uz primenu elektronskog nadzora i mera bezbednosti, kazna zatvora i mera bezbednosti, uslovna osuda, oslovna osuda i mera bezbednosti, uslovna osuda sa zaštitnim nadzorom, mera bezbednosti, novčana kazna i uslovna osuda.

19. Sklapanje sporazuma o priznanju krivičnog dela nije šire zastupljeno: sporazum je zaključen samo u pet slučajeva, od toga su tri sporazuma sklopljena u Nišu. Ni u jednom slučaju predmet sporazuma nije bio imovinskopravni zahtev žrtve, jer žrtve takav zahtev nisu ni isticale. U Nišu su održana i dva ročišta za izricanje krivične sankcije, dok u drugim gradovima ovaj institut nije primenjivan.

20. Među osuđujućim presudama najviše je uslovnih osuda – 36 (35,6%), koje su i dalje dominantna krivična sankcija za krivična dela nasilja u porodici. Zapaža se, međutim, da je u odnosu na raniji period znatno manji udeo uslovnih osuda. Naime, prema istraživanju iz 2008. godine, procenat uslovnih osuda bio je 66,60%, što je za skoro polovinu više u odnosu na podatke iz novog istraživanja. Ovaj pozitivan pomak je pokazatelj promene stava pravnih profesionalaca u pravosudnim organima u pogledu stepena društvene opasnosti krivičnog dela

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 139  nasilja u porodici, što je rezultat sveukupne promene odnosa društva prema ovom obliku kriminaliteta. Stanje, međutim, nije sasvim zadovoljavajuće, jer su u mnogim slučajevima uslovne osude neprimerene težini i načinu izvršenja dala.

21. Prema učiniocima krivičnog dela nasilja u porodici izricana je kazna zatvora u različitom vremenskom trajanju. Najviše je izrečeno kazni zatvora u trajanju od šest meseci – 11 (28,20%) i jedne godine – 8 (20,51%). Najkraća kazna zatvora je trajala 48 dana, a najduža 3 godine i osam meseci.

22. Analiza vrste i visine odmerenih kazni za izvršena krivična dela nasilja u porodici pokazuje da su one prilično blage, imajući u vidu društvenu opasnost dela, način izvršenja, i činjenicu da je većina učinilaca i ranije ispoljavala nasilničko ponašanje. Trend blagog kažnjavanja, koji je evidentiran i ranijim istraživanjem, nije se promenio. Ovakvoj kaznenoj politici svakako doprinosi i činjenica da u mnogim slučajevima od samog događaja, odnosno od izvršenja krivičnog dela do donošenja presude i odluke o kazni protekne duži period, a za to vreme dolazi do znatnih promena u porodičnim odnosima, uključujući i promenu odnosa same žrtve prema nasilju.

23. Novo istraživanje, kao i ranije istraživanja, pokazuje da se olakšavajuće okolnosti, kao faktor koji utiče na odmeravanje kazne, obilato navode. Među olakšavajućim okolnostima najčešće su: delimično ili potpuno priznanje izvršenja krivičnog dela, kajanje učinioca, neosuđivanost, roditeljstvo, loše lične i porodične prilike, zdravstveno stanje, postojanje svesti kod okrivljenog da je pogrešio, akademska titula, i dr. Otežavajuće okolnosti se znatno manje pominju, a ima i predmeta u kojima se one uopšte ne navode. U predmetima u kojima je sud našao da postoje otežavajuće okolnosti, kao najčešće, pojavljuju se: ranija osuđivanost za druga krivična dela, ranija osuđivanost za istovrsno krivično delo nasilje u porodici, osuđivanost za krivična dela sa elementom nasilja, činjenica da prethodno izrečene kazne nisu korigovale ponašanje okrivljenog, ranije prekršajno kažnjavanje, pojačan stepen krivice, ranije prekršajno kažnjavanje, jačina ugrožavanja ili povrede zaštićenog dobra. S druge strane, uočava se izvestan automatizam prilikom utvrđivanja olakšavajućih i otežavajućih okolnosti jer se navode okolnosti pripisane samim zakonom, pri čemu se ne uzima u obzir činjenica da se radi o nasilnim odnosima u porodici koji imaju viši stepen opasnosti u odnosu na druge oblike nasilničkog ponašanja. U mnogim predmetima sud sasvim uopšteno navodi različite okolnosti, ne udubljujući se u stvarni efekat njihovog dejstva.

24. Iz obrazloženja sudskih odluka u ispitivanom uzorku može se zaključiti da je došlo do izvesnih pozitivnih pomaka u pogledu razumevanja samog fenomena nasilja u porodici i potrebe da ono bude sankcionisano, što potvrđuje i činjenica da se

140 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  kontinuitet u ispoljavanju nasilja uglavnom ne smatra bitnim elementom dela, što je u početnom periodu primene krivičnopravne zaštite od nasilja to bio dominantan stav.

25. Protiv prvostepenih presuda žalbe se retko izjavljuju. U žalbama koje izjavljuju optuženi, odnosno njihovi branioci kao žalbeni razlozi najčešće se navodi pogrešno i nepotpuno utvrđeno činjenično stanje, pri čemu se materijalna neispravnost presude obrazlaže time da je zasnovana samo na iskazu ostećene, za koji se u žalbi tvrdi da je protivrečan, nelogičan i nepotpun. Predmet žalbe je i odluka o kazni, za koju žalioci tvrde da je pogrešno odmerena.

26. Evidentno je smanjenje dužine trajanja postupka u odnosu na raniji period, što je rezultat efikasnijeg rada pravosudnih organa. U najvećem broju predmeta (32%) od podnošenja krivične prijave do optužnog akta protekne do mesec dana. Veliki je, međutim, broj predmeta (20%) u kojima su od podnošenja krivične prijave do optužnog akta prošle 1-2 godine. U (15%) predmeta 7-10 meseci, a u (9%) predmeta čak 2-4 godine, što pokazuje da efikasnost u radu tužilaštva nije bila ista u svim predmetima, ali i da još uvek nije na zadovoljavajućem nivou, iako je u odnosu na raniji perid došlo do izvesnog unapređenja efikasnosti. Rad suda je znatno efikasniji: u najvećem broju predmeta prvostepeni postupak je okončan do tri meseca (33%). U 10% predmeta ova faza postupka trajala je 1- 2 godine, a u 5% predmeta prvostepeni postupak trajao je 2-4 godine, u jednom čak i preko pet godina. Iako je u odnosu na raniji period došlo do povećanja brzine u postupanju, stepen efikasnosti nije ujednačen, niti je dostigao onaj nivo kakav se očekuje kod procesuiranja krivičnih dela nasilja u porodici.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 141  Prilog

Upitnik za prikupljanje podataka iz sudskih predmeta: Istraživačica: Datum: Grad:

Sud: 1. opštinski 2. okružni Broj krivičnog predmeta: Krivično delo (naziv, član, stav, zakon)

Podaci o izvršiocu: (iz presude) Napomena: ako ima više izvršilaca, onda se za svakog popunjava poseban upitnik!

1) Ime i prezime izvršioca 2) Pol: 1. muški 2. ženski 3) Starost: 1. 18-25 2. 25-32 3. 33-40 4. 41-48 5. 49-56 6. 57-65 7. preko 65

142 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 4) Bračno stanje: 1. oženjen/udata 2. živi u vanbračnoj zajednici 3. razveden-a 4. rastavljen-a 5. udovac/udovica 6. neoženjen/neudata 7. u toku je brakorazvodna parnica 8. nepoznato 5) Broj dece: 6) Zanimanje: 7) Obrazovanje: 1. bez obrazovanja 2. nezavršena osnovna škola 3. osnovna škola 4. srednja škola ili gimnazija 5. viša škola ili fakultet 6. magistratura ili doktorat 8) Zaposlenost 1. zaposlen 2. nezaposlen, traži posao 3. na prinudnom odmoru, tehnološki višak 4. domaćica (ako je izvršilac žena) 5. penzioner 6. student 7. drugo (specifikovati) 9) Ako je nezaposlen, da li je nekada radio i, ako jeste, zbog čega je i kada prestao da radi?

10) Državljanstvo:

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 143  11) Mesto rođenja: 1. selo 2. grad 12) Prebivalište: 1. selo 2. grad 3. prigradsko naselje 13) Ranija osuđivanost: 1. da 2. ne 3. nepoznato 14) Ako je osuđivan, koliko puta i za koja krivična dela (naziv krivičnog dela, član, stav)

Porodična anamneza za izvršioca: 15) Kompletnost primarne porodice: 1. kompletna 2. bez oca 3. bez majke 4. nepoznato 16) Porodični odnosi u primarnoj porodici 1. dobri 2. loši 3. izuzetno loši 4. nepoznato 17) Zanimanje oca: 18) Zanimanje majke: 19) Alkoholizam oca: 20) Alkoholizam majke: 21) Osuđivanost oca (navesti za koja krivična dela, ukoliko se vidi iz predmeta): 22) Osuđivanost majke (navesti za koja krivična dela, ukoliko se vidi iz predmeta):

Lična anamneza izvršioca: 23) Pokušaj samoubistva: 1. da 2. ne 3. samo suicidne ideje 4. nepoznato 24) Samopovređivanje: 1. da 2. ne 3. nepoznato

144 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 25) Rano zlostavljanje: 1. da 2. ne 3. nepoznato Napomena: ako je bilo ranog zlostavljanja učinioca, navesti na koji način, kada, ko ga je zlostavljao i slično, ukoliko se vidi iz predmeta.

26) Bežanje od kuće: 1. da 2. ne 3. nepoznato 27) Bežanje iz škole: 1. da 2. ne 3. nepoznato 28) Vršenje krivičnih dela u maloletstvu: 1. da, ali nisu izricane vaspitne mere niti maloletnički zatvor 2. da, izricane su vaspitne mere ili maloletnički zatvor 3. ne 4. nepoznato 29) Da li izvršilac izražava kajanje za preduzetu radnju (po oceni suda)? 1. da, stvarno žaljenje i kajanje 2. neodređeno 3. samo verbalno izražava kajanje 4. ne kaje se/smatra svoj postupak adekvatnim 5. ne priznaje delo 6. nepoznato 30) Odnos izvršioca prema odgovornosti za događaj: 1. uglavnom prebacuje odgovornost na žrtvu 2. krivi i sebe i žrtvu 3. ne krivi ni sebe ni žrtvu/događaj smatra nesrećnim sticajem okolnosti 4. racionalizuje svoju odgovornost „bezizlaznošću situacije“ („nije bilo izbora“) 5. ne daje objašnjenje ili ga nema 6. uglavnom prihvata sopstvenu odgovornost 7. ne priznaje krivično delo, tj. osporava vezu sa događajem 8. nepoznato

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 145  Psihijatrijsko-psihološko veštačenje: 31) Psihopatska struktura ličnosti: 1. da 2. ne 3. nepoznato 32) Alkoholizam: 1. da 2. ne 3. nepoznato 33) Zavisnost od droga: 1. da 2. uzimao droge, ali nije zavisan 3. ne 4. nepoznato 34) Postojanje psihoza: 1. boluje od 2. ne boluje 3. nepoznato 35) Uračunljivost u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela: 1. postoji uračunljivost 2. smanjena ali ne i bitno 3. bitno smanjena uračunljivost 4. neuračunljivost 5. nepoznato 36) Alkoholisanost izvršioca u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela: 1. lako pijanstvo 2. srednje pijanstvo 3. teško pijanstvo 4. komplikovano ili teško pijanstvo 5. ne 6. nepoznato 37) U vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela izvršilac je bio pod dejstvom droga? 1. da 2. ne 3. nepoznato

Podaci o žrtvi: (iz zapisnika o saslušanju i presudi) Napomena: ako ima više žrtava, onda se za svaku popunjava poseban list sa ovom gru- pom pitanja! 38) Ime i prezime žrtve 39) Broj žrtava:

146 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 40) Pol: 1. muški 2. ženski 41) Prebivalište: 1. selo 2. grad 3. prigradsko naselje 42) Mesto rođenja : 1. selo 2. grad 3. prigradsko naselje 43) Državljanstvo: 44) Starost : 1. 18-25 2. 25-32 3. 33-40 4. 41-48 5. 49-56 6. 57-65 7. preko 65 45) Bračno stanje: 1. oženjen/udata 2. živi u vanbračnoj zajednici 3. razveden/a 4. rastavljen/a 5. udovac/udovica 6. neoženjen/neudata 7. u toku je brakorazvodna parnica 8. nepoznato 46) Broj dece: 47) Zanimanje: 48) Obrazovanje: 1. bez obrazovanja 2. nezavršena osnovna škola 3. osnovna škola 4. srednja škola 5. viša škola ili fakultet 6. magistratura ili doktorat 49) Zaposlenost: 1. zaposlen 2. nezaposlen, traži posao

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 147  3. na prinudnom odmoru, tehnološki višak 4. domaćica 5. penzioner 6. student 7. drugo (specifikovati) 50) U kakvom je odnosu žrtva sa izvršiocem? 1. suprug/supruga (brak) 2. vanbračna zajednica 2. bivši supruzi (bračni ili vanbračni) 3. mladić/devojka 4. bivši mladić/devojka 5. otac/majka 6. sin/ćerka 7. brat/sestra 8. drugo (navesti šta) 51) Da li je žrtvu izvršilac i ranije fizički, ili na drugi način maltretirao i, ako jeste, kako?

52) Ako je izvršilac ranije maltretirao žrtvu, da li se žrtva obraćala za pomoć nekoj insti- tuciji (na primer centru za socijalni rad), nevladinoj organizaciji (SOS telefon i sl.) ili pojedincu (psiholog, psihijatar, lekar)?

53) Ako je izvršilac ranije maltretirao žrtvu, da li je žrtva to prijavljivala i, ako jeste, da li je vođen krivični postupak, za koje krivično delo (naziv krivičnog dela, član, stav, zakon) i kako je okončan?

148 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 54) Postojanje oružja kod žrtve: 1. da 2. ne 3. nepoznato 55) Ako je žrtva imala oružje, da li ga je upotrebila? 1. da 2. ne 3. imala ga je, ali ga nije upotrebila 4. nepoznato 56) Alkoholisanost žrtve u vreme izvršenja krivičnog dela: 1. da 2. ne 3. nepoznato

Podaci o krivičnom delu: 57) Pravna kvalifikacija u presudi 58) Mesto izvršenja: 1. selo 2. grad 3. nepoznato 59) Mesto izvršenja: 1. isto kao i mesto stanovanja 2. van mesta stanovanja, a u istoj zemlji 3. van mesta i zemlje stanovanja 4. nepoznato 60) Konkretno mesto (prostor) izvršenja: 1. stan/kuća/dvorište izvršioca 2. stan/kuća/dvorište žrtve 3. zajednički stan/kuća/dvorište žrtve i izvršioca 4. kafana/restoran/diskoteka 5. park/ulica/otvoren prostor 6. radno mesto žrtve (apoteka, pošta, prodavnica, benzinska pumpa i slično)

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 149  7. drugo (specifikuj) 8. nepoznato 61) Vreme izvršenja (tačan datum i čas iz dispozitiva presude): 62) Sredstvo izvršenja: 63) Da li je bilo posmatrača (neposrednih svedoka, očevidaca)? 1. da 2. ne 3. nepoznato 64) Da li postoji sticaj krivičnih dela? 1. da 2. ne 3. nepoznato 65) Ako postoji sticaj, vrsta krivičnog dela u sticaju: 66) Saučesništvo: 1. postoji saizvršilaštvo 2. saučesnici odgovaraju kao podstrekači 3. saučesnici odgovaraju kao pomagači 4. nema saučesništva 5. nepoznato 67) Motiv izvršenja krivičnog dela (ukoliko se vidi iz predmeta)

68) Detaljan opis načina i sredstava izvršenja krivičnog dela (prema izreci i obrazlože- nju presude, ako presuda nije doneta, dati kratak opis imajući u vidu postojeće spise predmeta)

69) Odnosi između izvršioca i žrtve pre izvršenja krivičnog dela i druge okolnosti koje su prethodile delu (obrazloženje presude: iskaz žrtve i šta je sud utvrdio,

150 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi Napomena: posebno voditi računa o svemu što ukazuje na uticaj rata, nacionalizma, eko- nomske krize, posebno uticaj na njihove međusobne odnose, pogoršanje ili drugu pro- menu odnosa, odnosno ponašanje svakog od njih i slično.

70) Olakšavajuće i otežavajuće okolnosti koje je sud uzeo u obzir prilikom odmeravanja kazne:

71) Krivična sankcija koju je sud izrekao u prvom stepenu (vrsta, iznos novčane kazne, odnosno dužina kazne zatvora):

72) Okolnosti koje je sud uzeo u obzir prilikom odmeravanja kazne: olakšavajuće okolnosti:

otežavajuće okolnosti:

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 151  Krivični postupak: 73) Trajanje krivičnog postupka (navoditi mesec i godinu): 1. datum izvršenja krivičnog dela (iz krivične prijave) 2. datum podnošenja krivične prijave: 3. datum podnošenja zahteva za pokretanje istrage: 4. datum pokretanja istrage: 5. datum podizanja optužnice: 5. donošenje prvostepene presude: 6. donošenje drugostepene odluke: 7. nastupanje pravnosnažnosti: 74) Broj održanih glavnih pretresa 75) Koji su dokazi izvedeni u toku istražnog postupka

76) Koji su dokazi izvedeni na glavnom pretresu?

77) Da li je primenjen postupak za kažnjavanje pre glavnog pretresa?

78) Da li optuženom određen pritvor? Ako jeste, koliko je trajao?

79) Da li je prema okrivljenom bila određena mera dovođenja?

152 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 80) Uporediti kvalifikaciju krivičnog dela 1. u krivičnoj prijavi 2. u optužnici 3. u presudi 81) Kako je okončan prvostepeni postupak? 1. doneto rešenje o odbacivanju krivične prijave - navesti razlog

2. doneto rešenje o obustavi postupka - navesti razlog

3. doneta presuda kojom se optužba odbija - navesti razlog

4. doneta oslobađajuća presuda 5. doneta osuđujuća presuda 82) Da li su izjavljeni pravni lekovi i koji?

83) Koji su razlozi navedeni u pravnom leku?

84) Kakva je odluka doneta po pravnom leku?

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 153  Literatura QQ Ajduković, M., (2000). Određenje i oblici nasilja u obitelji. Nasilje nad ženom u obitelji. Zagreb: Društvo za psihološku pomoć.

QQ Babović, M. Ginić, K. Vuković, O. (2010). Mapiranje porodičnog nasilja prema ženama u Centralnoj Srbiji. Beograd: SeConS.

QQ Blagojević, M. Žene i muškarci u Srbiji 1990-2000, Urodnjavanje cene haosa. U: Bolčić, S., Milić, A. (Pr.), (2002). Srbija krajem milenijuma: Razaranje društva, promene i svakodnevni život. Beograd: ISFF.

QQ Branković, B. (2013), Vesti iz budućnosti: Istanbulska konvencija i odgovornost države za borbu protiv nasilja nad ženama. Funkcionisanje opštih servisa - operacionalizacija dužne prilježnosti, Beograd, UNDP.

QQ Ćopić, S. (2002). Institucije i nevladine organizacije u odgovoru na porodično nasilje u Srbiji. U: Pravom protiv nasilja u porodici. Niš: Ženski istraživački centar za edukaciju i komunikaciju.

QQ European Commission, Eurobarometer on gender- based violence November 2017. Dostupno na: www. ec.europa.eu/justice/saynostopvaw

QQ Gomien, D. Harris, D. Zwaak, L. (1996). Law and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg.

QQ Hasellbacher, L. (2010) State Obligations Regarding Domestic Violence: The European Court of Human Rights, Due Diligence and International Minimums of Protection, https:// scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google. rs/&httpsredir=1&article=1098&context=njihr

QQ Ignjatović, T. (Pr.), (2005). Nasilje prema ženama - prepreka razvoju Beograd: Autonomni ženski centar.

154 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  QQ Ignjatović, T. (2011). Nasilje prema ženama u intimnom partnerskom odnosu: model koordiniranog odgovora zajednice. Beograd: Rekonstrukcija ženski fond.

QQ Ignjatović, T. Pavlović Babić, D., Lukić, M. (2015). Delotvornost sistemskih mehanizama za sprečavanje nasilja prema ženama i nasilja u porodici. Beograd : Autonomni ženski centar.

QQ Inter-Balkan Conference on Legal Strategies to Combat Domestic Violence (1997). Sofia: Bulgaria.

QQ Janis, M. W. Kay, R.S. Bradley, A.W.(2000). European Human Rights Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

QQ Jovanović, S. (2010). Pravna zaštita od nasilja u porodici. Beograd: Institut za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja

QQ Jovanović, N. Višnjić, J. Ignjatović, T. Macanović, B. (2009). Mapiranje praznine – Nezavisni nadzor nad sprovođenjem Zaključnih komentara i preporuka UN Komiteta za eliminaciju diskriminacije žena državi Srbiji, Beograd: Autonomni ženski centar

QQ Jovanović, S. Simeunović-Patić, B. Macanović, V. (2012), Krivičnopravni odgovor na nasilje u porodici u Vojvodini, Novi Sad: Pokrajinski sekretarijat za rad, zapošljavanje i ravnopravnost polova.

QQ Mole N. Harby, C. (2006) Guide to the implementation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights The right to a fair trial, Human rights handbooks, No. 3, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

QQ Milić, A. Dobitnici i gubitnici u procesu tranzicije iz ugla porodične svakodnevnice (1991- 2001). U: Bolčić, S., Milić, A. (Prir.), (2002). Srbija krajem milenijuma: Razaranje društva, promene i svakodnevni život. Beograd: ISFF.

QQ Mršević, Z. (2000). Ženska prava u međunarodnom pravu. Banja Luka: Helsinški parlament građana. Banja Luka: Udružene žene Banja Luka.

QQ Konstantinović Vilić, S. (2004). „Pravo žena na zaštitu od nasilja u porodici“. Ljudska prava za žene. Niš: Odbor za građansku inicijativu

QQ Konstantinović Vilić, S. Petrušić, N., Žunić, N. (1999). Evropski standardi o eliminaciji nasilja nad ženama. Usklađivanje prava SR Jugoslavije sa pravom Evropske unije. Zbornik radova. Niš: Centar za publikacije Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu.

QQ Konstantinović-Vilić,S. Nikolić-Ristanović,V. (2003). Kriminologija. Niš: Centar za publikacije Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu.

QQ Konstantinović Vilić, S. Petrušić, N. (2004). Krivično delo nasilja u porodici pravna praksa u Republici Srbiji. Niš: Ženski istraživački centar za edukaciju i komunikaciju.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 155  QQ Konstantinović Vilić, S., Petrušić, N. (2007). Krivično delo nasilja u porodici aktuelna pravosudna praksa u Beogradu i Nišu. Beograd: Autonomni ženski centar Beograd. Niš: Ženski istraživački centar za edukaciju i komunikaciju.

QQ Konstantinović Vilić, S., Petrušić, N. (2010). Žene, zakoni i društvena stvarnost. Knjiga 1. Niš: Ženski istraživački centar. Niš: Sven.

QQ Lukić, M. Jovanović, S. (2001). Drugo je porodica, nasilje u porodici – nasilje u prisustvu vlasti. Beograd: Institut za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja.

QQ Lukić, M. (2003). Kriminološka analiza nasilja u porodici, Niš: Pravni fakultet u Nišu.

QQ Petrušić, N. (2003). Zaštita od nasilja u porodici − porodičnopravni i procesnopravni aspekt. Dvadeset godina Zakona o vanparničnom postupku. Zbornik radova. Niš: Centar za publikacije Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu.

QQ Petrušić, N. (2005). Jurisprudencija Evropskog suda za ljudska prava u zaštiti prava na rešavanje građanskopravne stvari u razumnom roku. Evropski mehanizmi zaštite ljudskih prava. Niš: Centar za publikacije Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu.

QQ Petrušić, N. Konstantinović Vilić, S. (2012). Vodič kroz sistem porodičnopravne zaštite od nasilja u porodici. Beograd: Autonomni ženski centar. Niš: Ženski istraživački centar za edukaciju I komunikaciju.

QQ Nasilje nad ženama: istraživanje provedeno diljem Europske unije. Kratki pregled rezultata. (2014). Luxembourg: FRA. European Union Agency For Fundamental Rights. Ured za publikacije Europske unije.

QQ Nikolić-Ristanović V. ur. (2002). Porodično nasilje u Srbiji. Beograd: Viktimološko društvo Srbije.

QQ Nikolić-Ristanović, V. (1994). Nasilje nad ženama u uslovima rata i ekonomske krize. Sociološki pregled. 3. 411-412.

QQ Nikolić-Ristanović, V. ur. (2010). Nasilje u porodici u Vojvodini. Novi Sad: Pokrajinski sekretarijat za rad, zapošljavanje i ravnopravnost polova.

QQ Nikolić-Ristanović V. (2013). Praćenje primene zakonskih rešenja o nasilju u porodici u Srbiji: nalazi pilot istraživanja, Beograd: UN Women.

QQ Mršević, Z. (2014) Intervjui u sudovima, javnim tužilaštvima, policiji, centru za socijalni rad vođeni tokom 2013. godine, u: Pravna regulativa tretmana žrtava domaćeg nasilja u Republici Srpskoj, www.zenskicentar.org/images/publikacije/studija/STUDIJA/doc.

QQ Stošić, M. (2012). Transakciona analiza i žene žrtve nasilja u porodici. Beograd: Uprava za rodnu ravnopravnost. Ministarstvo rada i socijalne politike.

156 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  QQ Van Dijk, P. Van Hoof, G. J. H. (1998). Theory and Practice of European Convention on Human Rights, Deventer: Kluwer.

QQ Walsh, M. R. (1997). Women, Man & Gender. Ongoing Debates. New Haven & London: Yale Universty Press.

QQ www.zeneprotivnasilja.net/vesti/89 femicid-u-srbiji. Pristup 15.12.2010, www. zeneprotivnasilja.net/femicid-u-srbiji. Pristup 27.10.2017.

PRAVNI IZVORI

QQ Konvencija o eliminisanju svih oblika diskriminacije žena. CEDAW. Službeni list SFRJ – Međunarodni ugovori. br. 11/1981.

QQ Konvencija Saveta Evrope o sprečavanju i borbi protiv nasilja nad ženama i nasilja u porodici. Istambulska konvencija. Službeni glasnik RS – Međunarodni ugovori. br.12/2013.

QQ Krivični zakonik Republike Srbije. Službeni glasnik RS. br. 85/2005, 88/2005 – ispr. 107/2005 ispr.72/2009, 111/2009, 121/2012, 104/2013, 108/2014, 94/2016.

QQ Medunarodni pakt o gradanskim i političkim pravima. Službeni list SFRJ. Br. 7 (1971)

QQ Opšta deklaracija o pravima čoveka. Službeni list. br. 7 (1971)

QQ Opšti protokol o postupanju i saradnji ustanova, organa i organizacija u situacijama nasilja nad ženama u porodici i u partnerskim odnosima Vlade Republike Srbije, 2011godina. Dostupno na: https://www.praxis.org.rs/index.php/sr/praxis-watch/ item/559-special-protocols-on-proceeding-in-cases-of-violence-against-women-adopted

QQ Nacionalna strategija za sprečavanje i suzbijanje nasilja nad žena u porodici i u partnerskim odnosima. Službeni glasnik RS, br. 27/2011.

QQ Nacionalna strategija za poboljšanje položaja žena i unapređivanje rodne ravnopravnosti 2009 - 2015. Dostupno na: https://www.minrzs.gov.rs/files/doc/porodica/strategije/Nacionalna%20 strategija%20rodna%20ravnopravnost.pdf

QQ Nacionalna strategija za poboljšanje položaja žena i unapređivanje rodne ravnopravnosti 2016 - 2020. Dostupno na: https://www.minrzs.gov.rs/files/doc/porodica/strategije/ Nacionalna%20strategija%20rodna%20ravnopravnost.pdf

QQ Pekinška deklaracija i platformu za akcija. Dostupno na: http://www.sigurnakuca.net/ znanja_o_nasilju_nad_zenama/medjunarodni_dokumenti.203.html

QQ Porodični zakon Republike Srbije. Službeni glasnik RS, br. 18/2005, 72/2011 - dr. zakon i 6/2015.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 157  QQ Posebni protokol Ministarstva rada, zapošljavanja i socijalne politike Vlade Republike Srbije o postupanju centara za socijalni rad - organa starateljstva u slučajevima nasilja u porodici i ženama u partnerskim odnosima (2013). Dostupno na: https://www.minrzs.gov.rs/files/doc/ porodica/nasilje/Posebni%20protokol%20MRZSP%20nasilje%20u%20porodici.pdf

QQ Posebni protokol Ministarstva unutrašnjih poslova Vlade Republike Srbije o postupanju policijskih službenika u slučajevima nasilja nad ženama u porodici i u partnerskim odnosima (2013). Dostupno na: https://www.minrzs.gov.rs/files/doc/porodica/nasilje/Posebni%20 protokol%20MRZSP%20nasilje%20u%20porodici.pdf

QQ Posebni protokol Ministarstva zdravlja Vlade Republike Srbije o postupanju u slučajevima nasilja nad ženama u porodici i u partnerskim odnosima (2010). Dostupno na: https://www.minrzs. gov.rs/files/doc/porodica/nasilje/Posebni%20protokol%20MRZSP%20nasilje%20u%20 porodici.pdf

QQ Posebni protokol za pravosuđe u slučajevima nasilja nad ženama u porodici i partnerskim odnosima (2014) Dostupno na: https://www.mpravde.gov.rs/.../Protokol%20p14.%201.%20 2014.

QQ Preporuka odbora ministara Veća Evrope zemljama članicama za zaštitu žena od nasilja (Rec2002/5). Dostupno na: https://ravnopravnost.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/arhiva/ preuzimanje/dokumenti/ve/Preporuka%20Rec%20(2002)%205%20Odbora%20 ministara%20VE%20dr%C5%BEavama%20%C4%8Dlanicama%20o%20za%C5%A1titi%20 %C5%BEena%20od%20nasilja%20i%20Memorandum%20s%20obja%C5%A1njenjima.pdf

QQ Program za zaštitu žena od nasilja u porodici i partnerskim odnosima i drugih oblika rodno zasnovanog nasilja u AP Vojvodini za period od 2015. do 2020.

QQ Dostupno na: https://www.paragraf.rs/dnevne-vesti/251214/251214-vest2.html

QQ Strategija za zaštitu od nasilja u porodici i drugih oblika rodno zasnovanog nasilja u AP Vojvodini za period od 2008. do 2012. godine. Dostupno na: http://www.potpisujem.org/srb/285/ strategija-za-zastitu-od-nasilja-u-porodici-i-drugih-oblika-rodno-zasnovanog-nasilja-u-ap- vojvodina-koraci-dalje

QQ Zakonik o krivičnom postupku Republike Srbije. Službeni glasnik RS. br. 72//2011, 101/2011, 121/2012, 32/2013, 45/2013 i 55/2014.

QQ Zakon o ratifikaciji Evropske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda. Službeni list SCG – Međunarodni ugovori. br. 9/2003, 5/2005, 7/2005 – ispravka; Službeni glasnik RS –Međunarodni ugovori. br. 12 (2010).

QQ Zakon o izmenama i dopunama Krivičnog zakona Republike Srbije. Službeni glasnik RS, br.10/2002.

158 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  QQ Zakon o potvrđivanju Konvencije Saveta Evrope o sprečavanju i borbi protiv nasilja nad ženama i nasilja u porodici. Službeni glasnik RS – Međunarodni ugovori, br. 012/2013

QQ Zakon o zaštiti od nasilja u obitelji Hrvatske. Narodne novine, br.116/2003.

QQ Zakon o zaštiti od nasilja u obitelji Federacije BIH. Službene novine Federacije BIH, br. 2/2005.

QQ Zaključna zapažanja o kombinovanom Drugom i trećem periodičnom izveštaju Republike Srbije, Komitet za eliminaciju diskriminacije žena, CEDAW, /C/SRB/CO/2-3, od 22. 07. 2013. godine. Dostupno na: http://www.ljudskaprava.gov.rs/sites/default/files/dokument_file/ cedaw_zakljucna_zapazanja_sr.pdf

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 159  Biografije autorki QQ Dr Nevena Petrušić je redovna profesorka Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Nišu i šefica Katedre za građanskopravne nauke. Izvodi nastavu na predmetima Gradjansko procesno pravo, Vansudsko rešavanje sporova, Rodna ravnopravnost i rodno zasnovano nasilje, Prava deteta i dr. Autorka je većeg broja monografija, udžbenika, komentara zakona i članaka iz domena civilne procedure, ljudskih prava, rodnih odnosa, nasilja u porodici i zaštite od diskriminacije. Učestvovala je u brojnim naučnim istraživanjima iz ovih oblasti. Bila je koordinatorka Pravne klinike za zaštitu prava žena, a sada koordinira radom Pravne klinike za zaštitu od diskriminacije. Aktivna je učesnica ženskog pokreta u Srbiji od 1993. godine. Jedna je od osnivačica je S.O.S. telefona za žene i decu žrtve nasilja iz Niša (1993), Ženskog istraživačkog centra iz Niša (1997) i Viktimološkog društva Srbije (1997). Učestvovala je u pripremi niza nacionalnih strateških dokumenata i modela zakona, kao i u brojnim edukativnim programima. Angažovana je kao konsultantkinja na projektima UNDP, OSCE, UNICEF i SE. Bila je prva Poverenica za zaštitu ravnopravnosti u Srbiji. Dobitnica je priznanja OEBS „Ličnost“ godine“ za 2009. i 2011. godinu i Zlatne plakete niške opštine Madijana.

QQ Dr Natalija Žunić je docentkinja Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Nišu. Predaje Sociologiju sa Sociologijom prava i Pravne studije roda, a bila je uključena u rad Pravne klinike za zaštitu prava žena. Napisala je veći broj članaka, publikacija i monografija i učestvovala na brojnim domaćim i međunarodnim naučniim konferencijama. Pored naučno-istraživačkog rada, ona je angažovana i u civilnom sektoru i aktivno radi na promociji ljudskih prava i unapređivanju ljudskih prava žena. Učestvovala je kao predavačica i voditeljka na velikim broju seminara i radionica iz oblasti ljudskih prava i rodne ravnopravnosti. Uključena je u rad većeg broja naučno-istraživačkih projekata. Članica je Sociološkog društva Srbije, Viktimološkog društva Srbije i Američkog udruženja za političke nauke. Jedna je od osnivačica je S.O.S. telefona za žene i decu žrtve nasilja iz Niša (1993) i Ženskog istraživačkog centra iz Niša (1997). Jedna je od koordinatorki i predavačica na multidisciplinarnim Ženskim studijama u Nišu. Članica je Redakcije naučnog časopisa “Temida”.

160 Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi  QQ Dr Vida Vilić je pomoćnica direktora za pravne poslove Klinike za stomatologiju u Nišu. Doktorirala je 2016. godine, na Pravnom fakultetu Univrziteta u Nišu. Objavila je veći broj naučnih radova i učestvovala na mnogim naučnim konferencijama i seminarima. Članica je Ženskog istraživačkog centra za edukaciju i komunikaciju iz Niša od njegovog osnivanja, a bila je i jedna od volonterki na SOS telefonu za žene i decu žrtve nasilja u Nišu. Kao članica Viktimološkog društva Srbije. godine učestvovala u istraživanju na projektu “Porodično nasilje u Srbiji”. Jedna je od osnivačica niškog ogranka organizacije „Mladi pravnici Srbije“. Pored ostalog, bila je koordinatorka i jedna od moderatorki na seminaru „Kliničko obrazovanje o ženskim ljudskim pravima – iskustva, izazovi i perspektive” i glavna koordinatorka projekta „Ka rodno osetljivoj strategiji bezbednosti Grada Niša“. Nagrađena je od strane Viktimološkog društva Srbije kao najbolji mladi istraživač u 2017. godini.

Krivično delo nasilja u porodici u sudskoj praksi – nove tendencije i izazovi 161