Strategija suprotstavljanja nasilju u porodici

Abstract

The author deals with the analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of the work of the state bodies of Serbia, above all the police, public prosecutor's office and the court, in countering domestic violence. Namely, by adopting (2016) and implementing (June 2017) the Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence (hereinafter - the Law), the police have a key role to play in this area. Many studies have shown that since the incrimination of the crime of domestic violence into our penal system in 2002, in the official records of the police, public prosecutor's office and court, this socio-negative phenomenon has increased many times. The opposite trend did not follow even after the adoption (2005) and implementation (2006) of the Family Law, and incrimination into our legal system of family legal measures to protect against domestic violence. It is evident that the state was looking for more effective ways to counter this phenomenon. However, it should be borne in mind that, although everyone is aware of the phrase 'the most effective kangaroo court', as such, no matter how fast the issues are resolved, there is nowhere in modern democratic society, nor does anyone consider such a trial. Respect for human rights requires certain procedures and rules that inevitably slow down proceedings and adversely affect efficiency. Public prosecutors and courts play a major role in criminal and civil proceedings in countering domestic violence. The Public Prosecution Service charges and sues, and the court rules. The police take measures as ordered and under the control of the public prosecutor's office and the court. However, the Law gives the police a new role, independently, ex officio, in a time-limited and urgent procedure, to pronounce urgent measures for 48 hours. The court can extend them for another 30 days, but it cannot repeal. The author of this paper looks at the results achieved in combating domestic violence after the new law was passed, and has this socionegative problem been addressed by prescribing urgent measures and leaving a key role in combating domestic violence to the police? In doing so, the author concludes that the Law does not give the police the opportunity to choose when passing orders. I f the risk assessment indicates the least suspicion that domestic violence may occur in the immediate future, then immediate action is taken. That is why more urgent measures have been pronounced in Serbia in a year than in countries with similar population at the five-year level. However, the number of women killed is constant and has not been reduced by the implementation of the Act.