1. DV in Criminal Law in Hungary: a case in worst practice or just a long beginning of the road? Regional Conference on Domestic Violence Legal Reform February 12-14, 2008 Judit Wirth Sofia, 13 February 2008

2. NANE Women’s Rights Association Hungary Internet: www.nane.huwww.nane.hu E-mail: info@nane.huinfo@nane.hu Mail: 1447 Bp. Pf. 502.

3. Advocacy for legislation  Public awareness raising (1994  )  Learning in an international environment (Sofia 1997 –>)  Targeting decision-makers (Baden Conference Report 1998  Min. of Social Affairs; CEDAW Shadow report 2002 and letters to Min. of Social Affairs; position papers to Min. of Justice 2002, 2004, 2006 and on; Silent Witness Marches from Supreme Court to Parliament, from Min. of Justice to Parliament, etc.; NGO statistics)  Signature collection campaign (2002-2003)

4. Fora of the debate  Ministries (Justice, Social Affairs, Interior)  Police  Parliament  Constitutional Court (mostly „infortmally”)  Conferences (sites of backlash and of progress)  Media Politically loaded, gender blind and biased „legal arguments”, WHR standards disregarded, international results selected according to needs of backlash (mediation, family group conf.) – grim scene

5. Legal changes „Soft law”  34/2002 Ministry of Interior Order  13/2003 (III. 27.) Chief of Police Provision  45/2003 (IV. 16.) Parliament Decree on the creation of a national strategy to prevent and effectively combat DV „Hard law”  Code of Penal Procedure: Restraining Order (effective as of July 1, 2006, drafts in 2004, 2005)  Penal Code: Harassment (effective January 1, 2008)

6. A law limited by legislators: ignorance, indifference or cynicism?  Court decision  Well founded suspicion of crime punishable by prison sentence if there is reason to believe that accused would  interfere w/ the criminal procedure by intimidating the victim  complete the crime, or commit another (punishable by prison) agst victim (language presupposes a kind of pre-judgement – lack of training!)  In case of private motion crime, the motion is required for the application for restr. order  Issued for 10-30 days  Court sends the decision to victim and prosecution  „If the accused deliberately breaches the rules of restraining and fails to supply adequate reasons for that later, his/her pre-trial detention may be ordered or – if the latter is not necessary – a disciplinary penalty may be imposed on the accused”

7. „Reported missing”  DV not defined, not even mentioned  Not immediate (no deadline for court)  Private motion-crime catch 22 (+ no remedy in case of offences)  Non-renewable, no extension  Inadequate in case of violation of the order  Non-coordinated „response”, no victim-support  Safety of victim(s) lost (rather, „safety” of procedure)  Non-response for cases where parties never lived together Result in effect: restraining order is used, instead of arrest

8. Harassment (stalking) in the Criminal Code Art. 176/A (1) Who, with the goal of intimidating (terrifying) another person, or in order to arbitrarily intrude upon another person’s private life, or everyday routines, regularly or for a lengthy period perturbs that person, especially (not exclusively) by contacting them through means of telecommunication or in person, if no graver crime is committed, commits a misdemeanour punishable by an imprisonment of up to one year, public service, or a fine. (2) Who, with the goal of intimidation (terrifying) threatens another person, or a relative of the target person, with the act of violence against person or an act causing public danger commits a misdemeanour and is punishable by imprisonment of up to two years, public service, or a fine. (3) Who commits the stalking against a) an ex-spouse or ex-common law partner, b) a person under his/her education, supervision, care or medical care, in case of section (1) above will be punishable by imprisonment of up to two years, public service or a fine, in case of section (2) above will commit a crime and will be punishable by imprisonment of up to three years. In effect as of January 01, 2008.

9. Still missing  Result vs. „goal” of perpetrator  Threatening non-relatives  Ex-officio procedure – linking w/ restr. order  Fine in cases when parties live together?! Some of the recommendations of NGOs were implemented... but may be useless because of the formulation „goal” How many more victims will have to suffer for the legislator to take a stand?