Standing in Solidarity with Women Facing Domestic Abuse in Serbia

March 8, 2015 marks the 101st International Women’s Day. It is a unique occasion to celebrate the economic, political and social accomplishments that women have made towards achieving true equality. However, it is also a time to reflect on the ongoing issues that remain unresolved and to work together to find sustainable solutions towards the common goal of gender equality. Domestic violence is just one such issue that needs to be eliminated in Serbia. In 2014, 95% of all victims of domestic violence were women and the consequences of this crime led to the death of 26 women last year alone. Despite legislation to protect women from abuse, the standards fall short in their practical application, leaving many women without effective recourse and remedy.

Serbia’s Anti-Discrimination Law explicitly cites the illegality of domestic violence. According to Article 20, it is forbidden to practice any physical violence or harassment against an individual on the basis of his or her gender. Article 194 of the Serbian Criminal Code holistically forbids the practice of domestic violence and outlines rigid sentencing for perpetrators. On November 21 2013, Serbia made notable progress in the fight to end domestic violence by ratifying the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women, which became effective on August 1, 2014. This is the most comprehensive legal instrument to protect victims of domestic violence currently in existence.

The nature of the crime makes domestic violence a sensitive issue for all those involved. According to data released by the Autonomous Women’s Center in Belgrade, 98.7% of survivors of domestic abuse in Serbia say that their perpetrator is someone they know and are close to. Additionally, domestic violence usually takes place in the private sphere, which makes it more challenging to monitor and combat. While physical abuse is most common, survivors can also suffer psychological and verbal abuse by their perpetrator. These cases are extremely hard to prosecute since it is difficult to verify the evidence. Court systems do not prioritize these cases nor are they sensitive to the nature of these crimes. As a result, some have had to wait more than three years for a verdict. In 2014, there were 6444 criminal charges for domestic violence. From these charges, only 1740 individuals were actually convicted, 1252 of them received probation and only 442 faced prison sentences.

The issue at hand is a difficult one to address. The various complexities of the domestic violence need to be taken into consideration when developing a plan for its elimination. Prioritizing gender equality throughout society is the first step towards lasting change. International Women’s Day is therefore an importance observance as it provides an opportunity to give a voice to women who face issues such as domestic violence, while also promoting gender equality across the world.  

In the seventh month of a twin pregnancy, H. K, an internally displaced Roma from Kosovo, was forced to wait for more than four hours to be examined at the Department of Gynecology, because she did not possess the unique personal citizen’s number.

On 9 March 2015, H. K. (35) was immediately sent from the village ambulance nearby Pozarevac to the hospital in Pozarevac because of high blood pressure and swollen legs. As her health problems were completely ignored in the hospital, with the excuse that she was not “in the system” for the lack of the unique personal citizen’s number, H. K.’s husband informed Praxis. Only upon Praxis’ intervention, was H. K. examined by a doctor.

Seven days after the examination, H. K.  gave birth to her babies. However, her two newborn daughters are currently in incubators at the Clinic of Gynecology and Obstetrics in Belgrade.

Since this is not a single case, Praxis reminds that emergency medical care is free and it is completely inadmissible that administrative procedure is the obstacle to urgent medical examination. Every citizen of the Republic of Serbia has the right to urgent medical care, regardless of whether he/she has a health booklet or any other document. Moreover, according to the law, children, pregnant women and new mothers enjoy special protection.

In the seventh month of a twin pregnancy, H. K, an internally displaced Roma from Kosovo, was forced to wait for more than four hours to be examined at the Department of Gynecology, because she did not possess the unique personal citizen’s number.

On 9 March 2015, H. K. (35) was immediately sent from the village ambulance nearby Pozarevac to the hospital in Pozarevac because of high blood pressure and swollen legs. As her health problems were completely ignored in the hospital, with the excuse that she was not “in the system” for the lack of the unique personal citizen’s number, H. K.’s husband informed Praxis. Only upon Praxis’ intervention, was H. K. examined by a doctor.

Seven days after the examination, H. K. gave birth to her babies. However, her two newborn daughters are currently in incubators at the Clinic of Gynecology and Obstetrics in Belgrade.

Since this is not a single case, Praxis reminds that emergency medical care is free and it is completely inadmissible that administrative procedure is the obstacle to urgent medical examination. Every citizen of the Republic of Serbia has the right to urgent medical care, regardless of whether he/she has a health booklet or any other document. Moreover, according to the law, children, pregnant women and new mothers enjoy special protection.

In March 2015, Praxis representatives conducted four trainings to Roma coordinators on antidiscrimination law. The trainings were conducted in Belgrade, Novi Sad, Cacak and Nis within the project Power of Visibility implemented by the Association of Citizens Epomena and funded by the Office for Human and Minority Rights.

Through discussion and a large number of examples from practice, basic terms related to discrimination, legal framework and types of procedures for protection from discrimination were explained to the participants. Special attention was paid to initiation of procedures before the Commissioner for Protection of Equality, and thus the participants mastered their skills in drafting complaints through practical work. The goal of trainings was that Roma coordinators learn how to recognize discrimination and react adequately, as they work directly with Roma at a local level.

The second part of the training was devoted to public relations and media, and was led by representatives of Epomena. Roma coordinators were instructed on how to adequately communicate with media, how to write press-releases, who to address in media and how to respond to media requests.

The goal of trainings was to enhance the capacities of Roma coordinators in regard to better identification of discrimination and adequate reactions and use of available mechanisms such as the Commissioner for Protection of Equality and Press Council.

Coalition against Discrimination strongly condemns the discriminatory recommendation of the Taxi Association of Serbia stating that taxi drivers should not drive asylum seekers, and reminds that the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, Article 17, recognizes the refusal to provide public services as a form of discrimination.

Aleksandar Bijelic, president of the Taxi Association of Serbia, said for Blic Daily as of 24 March 2015: ”Taxi drivers are recommended not to drive asylum seekers as they can may find themselves in an unpleasant situation. The police which finds asylum seekers in a taxi will temporarily take a taxi away and a court procedure will be initiated.”

Such discriminatory acting of Taxi Association contributes to spreading of xenophobia and intolerance towards asylum seekers. We recall the case of racial segregation in public transportation in America in 1950s and express concern that the same happens 60 years later.

The recommendation to taxi drivers not to drive asylum seekers and explanation of possible problems with the competent authorities clearly indicate the lack of the state’s systemic response to mixed migrations and an efficient system of protection from discrimination.

The members of the Coalition against Discrimination are: Center for Advanced Legal Studies, Civil Rights Defenders, Labris – Organization for Lesbian Human Rights, CHRIS network, Association of Students with Disabilities, Gayten LGBT, PRAXIS and Regional Centre for Minorities.

Coalition against Discrimination strongly condemns the discriminatory recommendation of the Taxi Association of Serbia stating that taxi drivers should not drive asylum seekers, and reminds that the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination, Article 17, recognizes the refusal to provide public services as a form of discrimination.

Aleksandar Bijelic, president of the Taxi Association of Serbia, said for Blic Daily as of 24 March 2015: ”Taxi drivers are recommended not to drive asylum seekers as they can may find themselves in an unpleasant situation. The police which finds asylum seekers in a taxi will temporarily take a taxi away and a court procedure will be initiated.”

Such discriminatory acting of Taxi Association contributes to spreading of xenophobia and intolerance towards asylum seekers. We recall the case of racial segregation in public transportation in America in 1950s and express concern that the same happens 60 years later.

The recommendation to taxi drivers not to drive asylum seekers and explanation of possible problems with the competent authorities clearly indicate the lack of the state’s systemic response to mixed migrations and an efficient system of protection from discrimination.

The members of the Coalition against Discrimination are: Center for Advanced Legal Studies, Civil Rights Defenders, Labris – Organization for Lesbian Human Rights, CHRIS network, Association of Students with Disabilities, Gayten LGBT, PRAXIS and Regional Centre for Minorities.

On 10 February 2015, a working meeting of the representatives of the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Policy and CSOs was held. The meeting was organized as part of the process of drafting the new Law on Amendments to the Law on Social Protection by the Office for Cooperation with Civil Society of the Republic of Serbia. The goal of the meeting was to allow to the representatives of CSOs to contribute with their comments to the improvement of the legal framework in this area.
Praxis attended the meeting and gave proposals the adoption of which would contribute to easier exercise of the right to social protection. Thus, the following was requested:

• to delete the Article 84 of the Law on Social Protection, which envisages the obligation of the submitter of request for cash social assistance to file a lawsuit against a cousin who are obliged to support them in accordance with the Family Law,
• to explicitly envisage the obligation of social welfare centres to collect evidence ex officio.

The endeavor to ensure an easier access to rights is evident also in the proposals that came from representatives of many other CSOs. However, it remains to see to what extent the amendments of the Law on Social Protection will reflect the proposals presented at the working meeting. It was announced in the report from the meeting that following the first working Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Social Protection, the Ministry will explain why certain comments, fully or partially, are not integrated in the text of the Draft, and additional delivery or refining of comments will be later possible.

Praxis will continue monitoring the process of amendments to the Law on Social Protection and advocate for adoption of solutions that would facilitate the access to the right to social protection.

For more information, see the announcement: Praxis at Working Meeting on the Occasion of the Amendments to the Law on Social Protection

On 10 February 2015, a working meeting of the representatives of the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Policy and CSOs was held. The meeting was organized as part of the process of drafting the new Law on Amendments to the Law on Social Protection by the Office for Cooperation with Civil Society of the Republic of Serbia. The goal of the meeting was to allow to the representatives of CSOs to contribute with their comments to the improvement of the legal framework in this area.

Praxis attended the meeting and gave proposals the adoption of which would contribute to easier exercise of the right to social protection. Thus, the following was requested:

•    to delete the Article 84 of the Law on Social Protection, which envisages the obligation of the submitter of request for cash social assistance to file a lawsuit against a cousin who are obliged to support them in accordance with the Family Law,
•    to explicitly envisage the obligation of social welfare centres to collect evidence ex officio.

The endeavor to ensure an easier access to rights is evident also in the proposals that came from representatives of many other CSOs. One of the proposed measures referred to the need to limit the authorisations of social welfare centre when determining the amount of lost income in the procedure of acknowledgment of the right to cash social assistance. It has been proposed to leave out the time limitation that envisages that the right to cash social assistance belongs to individuals fit to work in the period of nine months within a calendar year.

Since many proposals given by CSOs are aimed at enabling the easier way of exercising the right to social protection, including the right to financial support, it is necessary to consider Decree on Measures of Social Inclusion of Beneficiaries of Cash Social Assistance whose abolition was requested by numerous CSOs. Leaving this Decree in force would mean that participation of CSOs in the process of change of the Law on Social Protection in its very important part would boil down to formal participation of the representatives of civil society organizations, without crucial respect for their proposals.

However, it remains to see to what extent the amendments of the Law on Social Protection will reflect the proposals presented at the working meeting. It was announced in the report from the meeting that following the first working Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Social Protection, the Ministry will explain why certain comments, fully or partially, are not integrated in the text of the Draft, and additional delivery or refining of comments will be later possible.

Praxis will continue monitoring the amending of the Law on Social Protection and advocate for adoption of solutions that would facilitate the access to the right to social protection.

On the occasion of 21 March, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Praxis and Liceulice draw attention to the fact that many of our fellow-citizens are exposed to racism and different forms of discrimination which we should all fight against together.

With an aim to raise awareness of the public about the necessity to combat racism and discrimination, Praxis and Liceulice are marking the European Action Week against Racism in the period from 16-22 March 2015 with a series of activities.

Within the stated activities, we asked our beneficiaries and associates of the magazine Liceulice and other citizens how they perceive discrimination and racism and with their consent we post their answers on social media. Some of the answers include: “Racism is when my child comes back from school with bruises and torn clothes because other kids have beaten him just because he is Roma, and the teacher puts the blame on him” (Sanja, 29), “Racism is when we are chased away from the playground just because we are Roma” (Marijan, 19), “I have to be quite honest. For a long time now, I have no answers and can’t do it any other way. I feel like a fool. This feeling is driven by the fact that in the 21st century you still need to explain to people why racism is harmful, pointless and backward, and finally, how stupid it is. Let’s call the thing by its right name: racism is nonsense” (Marko Tomas, a poet). The collected answers will be written on postcards and sent to relevant institutions and media. Also, in cooperation with IPAK.centar and Initiative Do not be narrow-minded. Think and a street-art artist Inspector Yoda, we painted over the hate graffiti and turned them into graffiti with tolerance and equality messages.

We remind the public in Serbia of the high level of discrimination and racism that permeate all spheres of our society and find it necessary to fight for tolerance and equality.

There is no doubt that the procedure for determining the time and place of birth established by the Law on Amendments to the Law on Non-Contentious Procedure, constitutes great progress towards solving the problem of legally invisible persons in Serbia. In addition to its positive impact on birth registration in registry books, the envisaged non-contentious procedure very often allows individuals access to citizenship. However, only those individuals who possess evidence of their origin and proof of citizenship of their parents are able to benefit from these amendments. The procedure for determining the time and place of birth has left persons who cannot prove these facts in an uncertain situation and at a high risk of statelessness.

The situation described above clearly illustrates the position of Praxis’ client, Zoja. Zoja is a 34-year-old Roma woman originally from Kosovo. Before the adoption of the new law, which provides for a non-contentious court procedure of determining the time and place of birth, her birth could not be entered in registry books through an administrative procedure because Zoja did not have the personal documents of her parents.

According to Zoja, sometime in 1996 she left Kosovo and moved to Serbia, where she entered into a common-law marriage and later gave birth to nine children. After leaving Kosovo, she lost almost all contact with her parents. After 1999, her parents and siblings went to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and then to Canada. Except for their names, Zoja has no information about her parents, which makes it impossible to find records of their identity documents.

As a legally invisible person, Zoja did not have a health card. Wanting to secure a safe delivery for her children, Zoja used someone else’s health card each time she gave birth. Unfortunately, this meant that her children were registered as the children of the women whose health cards she had borrowed. Resolving this situation involves lengthy, exhausting and uncertain court procedures for determining motherhood.

Thanks to the non-contentious procedure, Zoja is allowed in these circumstances to be registered in birth registry books and to finally obtain a birth certificate, but the issue of her citizenship remains unresolved. Because she is unable to provide proof of her parents’ citizenship, Zoja cannot acquire citizenship on the basis of her origin and birth in the Republic of Serbia since she is required to establish that one or both of her parents were Serbian nationals at the time of her birth.

Zoja’s last option for exercising the right to citizenship is naturalisation. According to Serbian legislation, the requirement for acquiring citizenship in this way is that the person concerned was born in the territory of Serbia and that he or she had two years of uninterrupted residence in Serbia before applying for naturalisation. Zoja has been residing in Serbia de facto since the time of her birth, but she cannot obtain a certificate of residence because she could not register her residence in Serbia due to the lack of documents. She would have to prove her residence in Serbia for at least two years by indirect evidence such as witness statements, the fact she gave birth to her children in Serbia and so on. If we take into account that the authority responsible for citizenship has significant discretion in decision-making, it is clear that Zoja's chances of becoming a citizen are very small. Moreover, naturalisation procedures last several months or even several years and require the payment of a fee that Zoja, without documents and thus without the possibility of obtaining an income, cannot afford.

Being stateless, Zoja does not enjoy even the minimum protection of fundamental rights in the country where she lives. If we start with the understanding that citizenship includes entitlement to rights, then it is quite logical that Zoja is confused about which rights she can exercise in her present situation. Without citizenship, Zoja cannot obtain an identity card, a document that is required in Serbia for exercising almost every socio-economic right. Her financial situation, living without any income, cannot be improved without external financial support. However, until she obtains an ID card, which she can only get if she solves the issue of citizenship, Zoja and her children cannot be included in the welfare and health care system.

Zoja’s case proves once again the need to streamline and simplify the procedure for birth registration. Her case clearly illustrates the scope of the problem caused by the multigenerational lack of documentation. Additionally, this case demonstrates the inadequacy of efficient prevention of statelessness among children and the violation of the child’s right to acquire a nationality. Efficient protection would involve a simple procedure of registration of children at birth, regardless of whether the parents have identity documents. In this case, it would mean that today Zoja's children are Serbian citizens and have access to all rights. However, because this is not the case, Zoja will have to prove that she is the mother of her children and then undergo the procedure of acquiring citizenship for them and for herself.