Please - Odhikar

Intimidation - whether of an individual or a community -- may involve the following tactics
� physical violence,
� explicit threats of physical violence,
� implicit threats,
� property damage, and
� Courtroom intimidation.
Attempts by gangs or drug dealers to promote community-wide non-cooperation may include
the public humiliation or assault, or even execution of victims or witnesses (or members of their
families), as well as isolated public acts of extreme brutality that, intentionally or
unintentionally, terrify potential witnesses.
Explicit Threats of Physical Violence
A high incidence of threats of physical violence against victims, witnesses, and their families is
present in the society. Threats are much more common than actual violence but the threats were
often just as effective in deterring cooperation because in gang- and drug-dominated
communities these threats are credible. Threats against a victim's or witness's mother, children,
wife or other close family member were cited as being particularly effective forms of
intimidation.
Indirect Intimidation
Another common form of intimidation, reported in almost every jurisdiction, involves indirect
intimidation, such as gang members standing outside a victim's or witness's house, nuisance and
threatening phone calls, scaring the victims or witnesses children and vague verbal warnings by
the defendant or his or her associates.
Property Damage
Only slightly less common than the other types of intimidation described above is intimidation
involving the destruction of property: fire-bombing, burning of houses, hurling bricks through
the window of home, and other types of violence.
Courtroom Intimidation
Another common form of intimidation occurs when friends or relatives of the defendant direct
threatening looks or gestures at a witness in the courtroom or court premises during a
preliminary hearing or a trial. Court packing by supporters of the defendant or gang members is
a particularly effective form of intimidation. Gang members or supporters or friends of the
defendant may demonstrate solidarity with the defendant -- and make clear their readiness and
ability to harm the witness. If judges and prosecutors do not understand the meaning of certain
gestures or other nonverbal threats, they may fail to address these explicit attempts to intimidate
the witness. In other cases, the judge may be aware of what gang members are doing but feel
that ejecting these individuals from the courtroom would violate their right to freedom of
expression or the judiciary's duty to provide an open trial.
158
Report 2005