Universal-Womens-accesss-to-justice-Publications-Practitioners-Guide-Series-2016-ENG

V
WOMEN’S ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 223
authorities and not with complainants/survivors of violence,
regardless of the level or type of injury”. 593
Women often know and live in the same community as the
perpetrator, where both the perpetrator and his family and
friends could put either coercive or threatening pressure on the
woman or girl to withdraw a complaint. Where the lead is taken
by authorities, once probative evidence of a crime comes to
their attention, they should persist in investigating and
prosecuting as a matter of the rule of law and the public
interest, even if the victim withdraws her evidence.
In the European Court of Human Rights case of Opuz v Turkey,
the Court observed a lack of consensus amongst States parties
as to how to proceed when a victim withdraws the complaint.
The Court nevertheless noted “an acknowledgement of the duty
on the part of the authorities to strike a balance between a
victim’s Article 2 [right to life] Article 3 [prohibition of torture
and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment] or
Article 8 [right to respect for private and family life] rights in
deciding on a course of action”. 594
The European Court in that case elaborated some areas for
consideration in assessing when it is in the public interest for a
prosecution to continue, even without the participation of the
victim:
How serious was the offence?
Are the victim’s injuries physical or psychological?
Did the defendant use a weapon?
Have any threats been made by the defendant since the
attack?
Did the defendant plan the attack?
What was the effect (including psychological) on any
children living in the household?
What are the chances of the defendant offending again?
593
UN Handbook for Legislation on Violence against Women, above
note 511, page 36.
594
Opuz v Turkey (2009) ECHR 870, paragraphs 138-139.