Recent years have seen significant regress in Polish government policy on the prevention and elimination of violence against women. The recommendations against domestic violence contained in the national Plan of Action for Women have never been implemented, while another governmental program Against Violence - Toward Equal Opportunities has been drastically revised and transformed from an agenda for the protection of victims of domestic violence into family assistance program. The authors of the newly amended penal and civil codes have ignored the recommendations set out in the National Plan of Action and put forward by non-governmental organizations. Similarly, Polish government has taken no account of the recommendations adopted by the UN Human Rights Commission, many of which addressed the need for more effective protection of women's human rights, including prevention and elimination of violence against women. Hopes held out by numerous NGOs that Polish government would have to adopt active policies aimed at strengthening the promotion of gender equality and preventing violence against women have not been, thus far, fulfilled. Gender equality and related issues have been given the lowest priority ranking by government negotiators. Even a brief analysis of government words and policies shows that they do not recognize any need to adopt institutional mechanism for the advancement of women or to combat violence against women.

Polish government mostly refuses to co-operate with international community in matters relating to violence against women. One striking example of such government indifference toward women's human rights was an absence of the representative of Polish government at the conference held in March, 1999, in Cologne, Germany. The conference, organized by German government as a part of European Union's (EU) campaign against violence against women, was an event of high international repute; most national delegations were headed by the ministers of justice. The participants of this and follow-up conferences (in Finland, 1999; and Portugal, 2000) adopted a set of recommendations aimed at developing more effective system to prevent and combat violence against women. One of the most important of them provided that European States should enact legislation to ensure that the perpetrators of violence might be instantly separated from their victims. Although these recommendations are not binding for the governments, it seems that in the light of Polish aspirations to join European Union, Poland should support and take active part in the implementation of EU programs and policies.

Crimes against the family are among the most prevalent in Poland; they occupy the third place on the list of the most frequently reported crimes, after the crimes against property and life.

However, it is difficult to estimate the real incidence of domestic violence and other crimes against women, as Polish system of collecting official statistics is not well developed. Police and court statistics do not report the gender of or the relationship between the victim and perpetrator.

In a study conducted in 1993 and 1996 by Public Opinion Research Center (CBOS) from a representative sample of 1087 adult, married women, 18 per cent of women admitted that they were the victims of domestic violence. The study also found that approx. half of them were frequently abused by their husbands, and another half were battered sporadically during the relationship.

Answers given by divorced women are tellingly different; they admitted abuse far more often: 41% alleged that their husbands had repeatedly beaten them, and 21% said that the abuse had happened sporadically. One may, however, assume that some women keep the abuse secret. This hypothesis can be based on the following facts:

According to the study by CBOS, half of the women in Poland know personally or have heard of women who have been beaten by their husbands. Among the reasons given by the divorced women questioned as to why they had divorced their husbands, 32% cited physical abuse, while only 2% of the divorced men questioned offered the same response. Moreover, most of the women polled responded that the abused women they know came from a wide socio-economic range, although the respondents who reported the largest number of abuses were mainly divorced or unemployed. The women who noticed most violence in their neighborhoods came from both small villages and large cities. Generally, the higher the education level and professional position of the respondents, the greater willingness to talk about wives beaten by their husbands. The women who responded that they noticed violence in their neighborhoods were mostly about 24 years old, often students. This data, however, concerns only physical violence within marriage and does not cover psychological or sexual abuse and non-marital relationships. According to the research, domestic violence occurs more frequently in families living in rural areas and in low-income families, while education level appears to have no impact on abusive behavior.

The main source of information about violence against women is the data on sentencing published by the Ministry of Justice and the statistics issued by the police. The latter are, however, limited in scope. Because of the lack of a computerized system for collecting data, the cases are not well processed and accurate data is difficult to obtain. The police are also not required to keep records by category of offense, records of every phone call, number of interventions or cases dismissed. Thus, the data does not indicate, for example, the number of cases withdrawn by frightened women.

In the Polish Penal Code, the sections dealing with crimes of abuse against family members are found in the chapter entitled "Crimes against Family and Custody". Domestic abuse is defined in Article 207 par. 1, which covers both physical and psychological violence.

§ 1. Whoever abuses physically or psychologically an intimate relation, or any other permanently or temporarily dependent person, or a physically or mentally disabled person, or a juvenile, may be found guilty and sentenced to a minimum of three months and a maximum of five years in jail.

§ 2. If the act of abuse described in Paragraph 1 is committed with extreme cruelty, the perpetrator shall be liable to penalty of 1 to 10 years imprisonment.

§ 3. If - as a result of the abuse - the victim attempts suicide, the perpetrator shall be liable to penalty of 2 to 12 years imprisonment.

Basically, the provisions of the new Penal Code are not markedly different from those contained in the Code in force until 1998. It should be noted, however, that in the wording of Paragraph 1, "a family member" has been replaced with "an intimate relation". Another novelty is Paragraph 2, which deals with violence committed with particular cruelty.

It is the family and its proper functioning that is first of all protected by this article. Such values as life and health, freedom, dignity and bodily integrity are, according to the authors of the commentaries to the Penal Code, of secondary importance. Such determination inevitably affects the attitude of the legal system to family violence and shapes the sentencing policy of the courts. In our opinion (formed with a view to more effective human rights protection) the law should primarily protect individual persons whose rights are violated instead of focusing on the family as a whole.

Domestic abuse has been defined as a continuos crime, so the acts of violence must be committed repeatedly to be classed as an offence under Article 207. However, in accordance with the Supreme Court's sentencing policy, a single act of violence may, in exceptional cases, be classed as an offence of domestic abuse if violence is particularly intense.

According to a common understanding and the dictionary of the Polish language, domestic violence is an intentional act or omission that causes physical or moral suffering. Yet, sentencing practices in domestic violence cases have narrowed the meaning of this term. For instance, The Supreme Court, in its ruling of 6 August 1996, stated that the essence of an offence of domestic violence consisted in an act qualitatively different, than ordinary insult or violation of bodily integrity. A judgement as to whether any act causing physical pain or severe moral suffering amounts to domestic abuse should not be based on subjective feelings of the aggrieved person but on objective evaluation. It is sure that no behavior may be recognized as domestic abuse within the meaning of Article 184 (later 207) of the Penal Code, unless it causes severe victim's physical or moral suffering or if abuse is reciprocal. To be classed as an offence under Article 184 (later 207), the scope of the perpetrator's behavior cannot be limited to either systematic or single incident, if it is not accompanied by excessive (beyond measure) intensity, severity, degradation and intent to commit acts violating values protected by law (such as bodily integrity, personal dignity or property). Domestic abuse, within the meaning of Article 184 (later 207),should be understood as an intentional act that constitutes an intense and severe violation of bodily integrity, inflicts moral suffering on the aggrieved person and is intended to torment, degrade, distress or otherwise harm the victim, regardless of the motive of such act.

The requirement that the inflicted suffering must be severe narrows the definition of abuse contained in the dictionary of the Polish language, which describes abuse as any act "causing physical or moral suffering". Moreover, repeated acts of violence, even if they do not cause "severe physical pain", can be more harmful to the victim because of their repetitive character than a single, isolated wrongdoing, even if it causes severe moral or physical pain. It is also not clear, how - on the basis of objective criteria - one can judge whether inflicted pain has been sufficiently severe. People differ in their tolerance for pain. Moreover, the perpetrator, who usually knows the victim, can resort to such forms of abuse, which may objectively seem mild while causing actual severe suffering. It is also strange, that in the opinion of the Supreme Court, a violent act may not amount to the offense of domestic abuse simply on the basis of its repetitive pattern. According to the Court, it is also required that violence is intense, degrading, intentional and causes severe injury, "beyond measure". Ordinary insults or assaults do not constitute domestic abuse and may be prosecuted only privately.

Another aspect of this Supreme Court's ruling that is a cause of our concern is the Court's decision that an act of violence may not be recognized as domestic abuse if it is reciprocal. Although all studies and statistics on domestic violence show that 98% of perpetrators are men, in some exceptional cases women do fight back. Should such reciprocity be considered as a sufficient reason to release both parties from any kind of criminal responsibility? This way of thinking would lead us to the conclusion that the perpetrators of any crime would not be held criminally responsible if they were at the same time the victims of crimes committed by their victims. Such

reasoning is incompatible with the fundamental principle nullum crimen sine poena^¹ (no crime without punishment) and the principle that the police and the prosecutors are legally obligated to investigate when a crime may have been committed. Committing a crime against each other is not tantamount to non-committing a crime at all. Moreover, even in the case of reciprocal violence, the gravity of offences committed by either party may be different and the court must take it into account while passing a judgement on each of the parties. If proving reciprocal pattern of violence could absolve the perpetrator from criminal responsibility, all abusers would try it to do it, which actually is quite often the case. The ruling of the Supreme Court may further encourage them to apply this line of defense.

The above reasoning should be considered dangerous, as it may contribute to more simplified understanding of abuse and, especially, to an increased propensity to justify domestic violence.

According to many legal writers, one of the essential characteristics of domestic abuse is that it may be only committed against persons who are physically weaker and who are not able to defend themselves. Most women and men differ from each other in this respect. Men are usually much stronger than women and they are perfectly able to resist female aggression. Another important factor in domestic violence cases is some degree of dependence on the perpetrator, while few men can be considered dependant on women. It is also worth emphasizing that it is mostly women, who take care of children. These women, because of their physical and psychological characteristics, are usually not able to effectively oppose male abusive behavior.

The WRC's experience shows that judges often justify the acts of domestic violence and their perpetrators. For instance, the Appeal Court in Cracow stated that domestic abuse, to be recognized as a criminal act, cannot be limited to using insulting or vulgar language, violating bodily integrity, restricting personal freedom etc. In some situations such acts may result from the provocative behavior of the alleged victim, in other, victims respond to abuse with similar violence. There are also circumstances, in which an abusive behavior may be recognized as committed through necessity resulting from the desire to preserve marriage or justified by the well-being of children or the alleged victim or any other value protected by law and more important than the dubious dignity of misconducting victims. In such circumstances, even if violence amounts to domestic abuse, it may still be recognized as not meeting the criteria of an offense under Article 184 for the want of malice or any intention to do an injury to the victim, or any harm resulting from the dependent position of the victim or dominant position of the perpetrator. In such circumstances, it may be recommended that the accused should be acquitted of any charges or that the penalty should not be imposed or that the victim should file a private charge against the perpetrator.

The above cited ruling has been clearly based on the premise that a man has the right to use corporal punishment on his wife if - in his opinion - she does not properly fulfill her household duties. According to the court, an abusive partner, who acts from good intentions may, with impunity, use such method of bringing his disobedient wife to hill, which in other circumstances might constitute a criminal offence.

According to this logic, the man, as the head of the family, knows better what is good for his wife and he may forbid her to seek employment and meet her friends or punish her, if she doesn't meet her family duties. The men is given the right to use violence if he shows good intentions, wants to save marriage or is concerned about the well-being of his children. All guarantees of gender equality contained in the constitution as well as in the family law are worthless, if the laws are interpreted and the rulings are passed on the basis of such discriminatory stereotypes.

The most grotesque, however, is the court's recommendation to justify abuse by necessity, as for example, the desire to save marriage, although such a rationale blatantly violates numerous provisions of the constitution, penal and family laws. This attitude clearly resulted from the assumption that it is the family as a whole and not the rights of its individual members that is protected by law. According to the court, protection of human rights is less important that preserving the family.

Equally dangerous are the court's opinions concerning "provocative behavior of the alleged victim" and "reciprocity of violence", which - according to the court - should release the perpetrator from any criminal responsibility. Such reasoning means that women are practically denied the right to self-defense. In court's opinion, physical force used in self-defense amounts to criminal abuse and women who fight back should be considered as perpetrators of "reciprocal abuse".

Domestic violence is publicly prosecuted in Poland; the police and the prosecutors are legally obligated to investigate when domestic violence may have been committed (Art. 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The victim does not need to come forward with the charges. Theoretically, it should be enough that a neighbor or an NGO informs the police or a police officer observes an act of violence, when called to an incident, to produce charges. Upon the request of the victim, the police are also entitled to keep him under arrest for 48 hours, if his presence endangers the victim's life, health, or property. Pursuant to Art. 304 § 1, all state and local government institutions, which obtain information about domestic violence are legally obligated to provide this information to the police or the prosecutor. The new Penal Code (1998) released NGOs from such duty, which seems inconsistent with the fact that NGOs increasingly take on the tasks of the state and local governments, particularly as regards social assistance provided to victims of violence and other crimes. Amended law imposed different duties on public and private institutions. For example, doctors employed in public clinics are obligated to inform the law enforcement or the prosecutors about a crime whereas this is not a duty of doctors in private clinics.

The laws in force are also inconsistent with regard to publicly prosecuted crimes. On the one hand, according to existing laws everyone is obligated to inform about any crime, on the other hand, however, neither a person nor an institution that filed a complaint has any right to monitor the police investigation and other criminal proceedings instituted in consequence of their information. An institution or a person who informed about the crime has the right to file a complaint against the refusal to institute criminal proceedings (Art. 305 § 4) while they are not allowed to file a complaint against a decision to discontinue the proceedings. Such regulation seems baseless and may effectively discourage many persons and organizations from providing the police and the prosecutor with information about crimes.

It should be noted that victims of domestic violence are often afraid to file complaints against the perpetrators because of fear of retaliation. Therefore they often request an NGO to do it in their name, as this solution should diminish the risk that the perpetrator - either by means of threat or blackmail - would try to force the victim to withdraw the complaint. The legislator should support such solution as it serves well the interest of the legal system. Existing law, however, makes it impossible for non-governmental organizations to file a complaint against the decision to discontinue the proceedings which effectively obstructs their work for the benefit of the aggrieved persons.

In practice, the cases of domestic abuse are often treated as offences prosecuted only at the request of the victim. Temporary arrests are seldom used, even in the most serious cases. Women are often required to deliver well-documented complaints if they want the police to proceed. Sometimes, investigation reports by women are not initiated because police or prosecution standards do not consider the evidence. The Women's Rights Center has been informed that the police often refuse to intervene in the cases of domestic violence when the police has been called to an incident by third persons, e.g. neighbors. Police officers often inform the callers that they are not entitled to intervene without a complaint brought by the victim of abuse. Such illegal practices have been reinforced by the introduction of the so called "blue cards" (exemplary forms of domestic incident reports) in the whole territory of Poland. The cards were designed to be used by police officers during interventions in the cases of domestic violence.

One of the cards, "Request for Help", which should be filled out by a woman victim of violence suggests that domestic violence is prosecuted upon the request of a victim, which is blatantly incompatible with existing law. Moreover, it may strengthen the false but widespread belief held by many police that they are not obligated to proceed without a victim's request. In Poland, however, domestic violence is publicly prosecuted and no request of a victim is required to initiate legal proceedings, while, pursuant to the principle nullum crimen sine poena, the police are obligated to take legal action in each and every case when a well justified suspicion arises that a crime has been committed.

Implementation of the "blue cards" system shifts the responsibility for initiating prosecution to the victim, thus, giving the police a pretext to abandon legally required proceedings.

In the cases in which it is difficult to provide evidence that abuse has been continuous or if violence has been used only once, the victims may sue under general provisions prohibiting the use of violence against any person. Applicable provisions are contained in Chapter XIX of the Penal Code "Crimes against Life and Health", Chapter XXIII "Crimes against Freedom", Chapter XXV "Crimes against Sexual Freedom and Public Morality" and in minor cases in Chapter XXVII concerning crimes against dignity and bodily integrity.

The new Penal Code, in force since September 1998, established new principles governing prosecution of crimes against life and health. Under the current law, even if medical certificate indicates that the bodily harm results in the impaired functioning of an organ or in health disorder lasting 7 days or more and an aggrieved person is a close relation, the case may be prosecuted only at the request of the victim. The new law is clearly unfavorable to women who have been made responsible for the initiation of legal proceeding thus being exposed to further violence and perpetrator's pressure. The new law has also made the legal system incoherent. Domestic (repeated) abuse is a publicly prosecuted crime even if it does not result in grave bodily injuries, while grave bodily harm is prosecuted only at the victims' request. Moreover, the law that differentiates between the crimes committed against close relatives and unknown persons shows that the crimes against family members are not considered equally serious and that the lawmakers do not find public prosecution of such cases necessary.

Causing bodily harm resulting in health disorder lasting less than 7 days is privately prosecuted, although the prosecutor, if he finds it to be in public interest, may initiate criminal proceeding or join privately initiated prosecution. These regulations are often used against abused women. In the cases of lesser bodily harm (health disorder lasting less than 7 days), the police usually refuse to take action and inform the victim that the only possibility is to file a private suit against the perpetrator, which entails considerable expenses and is far more difficult for women who often can't afford hiring a lawyer. The WRC's experience shows that prosecutors initiate or join privately initiated proceeding only in exceptional cases.

The law on the police give the officers the right to arrest an abuser for 48 hours if they find that his behavior may endanger the life, health or property of other people (Art. 15). Arrest provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Art. 244) allow the police to arrest the suspect, if there is a well-founded ground to suspect that a crime may have been committed or a reason to believe that a perpetrator would go into hiding, or that evidence would be destroyed or if the identity of a person cannot be establihed. The period of detention may not exceed 48 hours. Arrested persons must be released, if within 24 hours following arrest, a pre-trial detention order is not issued by the court and charges are not brought.

According to available information, the perpetrators of domestic abuse are practically never arrested, even in exceptional cases, when the life of a victim has been endangered. Law enforcement officers are often afraid to make a groundless arrest, police stations often lack detention centers on the premises and the transportation of arrested persons to distant facilities is too expensive to seriously underfinanced police.

The only category of abusers who are being detained on a regular basis are those who have been found to act under influence of alcohol. According to Polish law, intoxicated persons may be detained in special sobering-up centers, if they behave in a way, which may cause public outrage or if they put at risk their own or other people's health or life. The stay in such a center is payable in the amount which may not exceed 20 per cent of an average income in a three months period immediately preceding the period for which such payment is established.

The legal status and practical value of such centers has been recently questioned by human rights NGO's. Many believe that they should be closed down.

In domestic violence cases the police may use various measures to secure the proper course of criminal proceedings and - in exceptional cases - the measures intended to prevent the reoccurrence of an offence. These measures may be used if collected evidence shows the high probability that the accused has committed a crime.

The alleged perpetrator who has been put under police surveillance may be ordered not to leave his place of abode, to call the surveying organ on a regular basis or inform the police about his plans to leave or return to the town where he lives. In practice, however, perpetrators are usually obligated to come to the police precinct and put his signature on a list, to prove that has appeared. No one asks any questions, no none ask the victims about his conduct. Some years ago, in a well publicized case, the perpetrator was coming to the police headquarters together with his abused wife covered in bruised and nobody paid any attention. This preventive measure might be more effective if law enforcement officers treated it more seriously and really wanted to influence the perpetrator's behavior.

The police may request a prosecutor to petition a court to issue a pretrial detention order. Such order may be issued in the following cases:

In exceptional cases, the pretrial detention order may be also issued in the cases of serious crimes against life and health, particularly if an alleged perpetrator threatened to commit such crime.

Pretrial detention is seldom used in domestic violence cases. Prosecutors do not request the courts to issue orders, as they are of the opinion that this measure should not be used in the cases of domestic abuse, although the perpetrators of domestic violence have almost endless possibilities to force the victim and witnesses to withdraw the charges or the testimonies.

The police usually do not take an active role in gathering evidence. They, for example, don't question neighbors immediately after the incident, when they may be more willing to testify. They often require the victim to provide a well documented complaint and refuse to pursue the case if they find gathered evidence insufficient.

Forensic certificates are among the most important evidence in domestic violence cases. The police often require numerous medical certificates, which women have to acquire and pay for them.

Although, according to the Constitution, public health services are free in Poland, women who seek forensic medical examination and apply for a certificate issued by a certified forensic doctor are required to pay. According to the Ministry of Justice executive order, the official price is an equivalent of 3,9% of the average salary. Individual medical facilities, however, may charge women with their own price. Moreover, as access to forensic examinations in public clinics is highly limited, most women use the services of private clinics, where the fee for such examination exceeds 40 zlotys (10 USD) per certificate. Doctors in public clinics who are not certified as forensic medical practitioners routinely refuse to carry out examinations and issue certificates that declare abuse-related injuries, although such refusals are in contradiction with the existing law. Apart from the financial barriers to obtain a medical certificate, which is recognized by prosecutors, accessibility to authorized doctors is also limited, even in Warsaw. In the afternoon, women find it practically impossible to get a statement from the public medical facilities. Although it is against the law, doctors in general practice, often refuse to write any statement describing injures of the victim. Another reason that women cannot produce the medical certificates required by the police is the fact that they are ashamed of their injuries. They do not seek medical attention because of the social stigma attached to battered women and because they are afraid of repeated abuse. Although it is possible to receive a free medical examination if the police or prosecutor refers the woman, in fact it rarely happens and women are not informed of the existing possibilities.

Law enforcement and prosecutors often require women to submit a long list of witnesses, while domestic abuse usually takes place behind the closed doors where there are no witnesses. Neighbors are often unwilling to get involved and often feel domestic abuse crimes are private matters to be settled within the family. Moreover, the witnesses are also exposed to the perpetrator's threats of revenge. As a result, the witness may pretend not to have heard anything or openly refuse to testify.

As it has been said, the police do not take active role in gathering evidence. For example, that rarely use recorded testimonies, as judges and prosecutors often refuse to admit them. Similarly, they do not use photographic evidence or any other police records . Law enforcement officers are rarely called up to give their testimonies during the trial.

At the request or by mutual consent of the parties a prosecutor may refer the case to a trustworthy person or an institution to conduct mediation between the parties. In practice mediation is seldom used though there are calls to use it more widely. In our opinion, this technique should used cautiously as it often leads to the revictimization of women.

With the consent if the accuses a prosecutor may file a petition to pass a sentence for an offence liable to penalty of up to 5 years in prison without trial.

If the circumstances of a crime are clear and if the attitude of a perpetrator shows that the purpose of criminal proceeding may be achieved even without a trial, the court may apply the provisions concerning extraordinary mitigation of penalty or may impose on the perpetrator a duty to redress the damage caused and to make the judgement public. The court may also suspend the punishment or even abstain from an execution of a sentence.

Unfortunately, the institution of voluntary submission to penalty is rarely used, though it could prove to be an effective measure, accelerating the proceedings and helping the perpetrators to assume responsibility for their behavior. The accused may be also put on parole with an established term of supervises release and subject to other conditions.

Preparatory proceedings take usually several months, though relevant regulations provide that they should be completed within a month. The prosecutor responsible for the proceedings may extend this period up to 6 months, but in practice this period is often even longer, as it usually takes a few weeks before the proceedings are initiated.

Lengthy proceedings often result in the escalation of violence, as perpetrators make every effort to induce their victims to withdraw the complaints. While awaiting trial, new criminal proceedings are often initiated. Such long pretrial periods discourage abused women, who loose confidence in effectiveness of the court action, and law enforcement officers who are frustrated by the fact that their work has been wasted.

The trial often starts 2 or even 3 years after the indictment has been issued. Court proceedings are usually lengthy and burdensome for both, the victims and witnesses. Court actions against the perpetrators of domestic abuse are usually treated by judges as cases of secondary importance. Women victims often received highly unfavorable treatment. Courts often seek to discredit heir testimonies, they are accused of being provocative and in fact made responsible for the crime. Occasionally, they are accused of encouraging violence, particularly if they do not leave their partners immediately, which is interpreted as a proof that they are actually fond of being subjected to violence. There is strong tendency to justify men's aggressive behavior. The accused and their lawyers use all possible tricks to procrastinate the proceedings: they do not appear at hearings, they call numerous witnesses or they change the defense lawyers.

In domestic violence cases the court may dismiss the case conditionally, on condition that the victim and the perpetrator are reconciled, the perpetrator has redressed the damage or at least gave his consent to do so in a manner agreed with the victim. The case may be conditionally dismissed if a crime and damage are not severe, the circumstances of the case are clear and the attitude of a perpetrator gives reasons to believe that he won't relapse into crime and will respect legal order (Art. 66 of the Penal Code).

Court statistics show that the number of cases brought to trial constitutes a small percentage of all complaints received by the police. Most commonly, in the cases of domestic abuse the prosecutors refuse to initiate proceedings or dismiss the cases. The large number of cases that are adjudicated by courts are either discontinued or the accused are found not guilty. However, despite the large number of discontinued cases, the 1990s have seen an increased number of convictions in domestic abuse cases, from 10415 in 1993 to 14 375 in 1999 and 7390 in the first half of 2000. Since 1997, there has been a visible decline in suspended sentences, from 91,41% to 83,6% of all prison sentences in 1999.

The statistics on sentencing in domestic violence cases do not explain whether the growing number of convictions results from the increased number of cases of abuse or - perhaps - is a consequence of the growing number of cases brought to light in consequence of the women's greater awareness of violence and relating issues. Another reason for the increased sentencing is, perhaps, the changed attitude of law enforcement and resulting growing number of charge-sheets filed at courts. At the same time, however, we are deeply concerned that the number of suspended sentences is equally high in the cases of violence committed with extreme cruelty or when the victim attempts suicide. There may be no doubt that suspended sentences do not serve as effective deterrent.

Despite the fact that the punishment for violence constituting cruelty is imprisonment for up to 5 years, and in the case of violence committed with particular cruelty even up to 10 years, in reality, the perpetrators usually receive the lowest possible, and usually suspended, punishment for their crimes. As a result they feel immune from punishment altogether, they remain with their families and in, most cases, do not abstain from further violence.

The Ministry of Justice statistics show that 98% of perpetrators of domestic violence are men. Additionally, the results of a study conducted by Professor Kołakowska-Przełomiec indicated that 81% of the victims are the perpetrators' wives, 8% mothers, 5% former wives, 3% women live-in partners, 2% parents-in-law, and 1% children.

The Ministry of Justice also reported that women are the perpetrators in only 1.5 - 2% of the total cases of domestic violence, the majority of which concern child abuse. Thus, one can determine from these numbers that men are also overwhelmingly represented in cases of spouse abuse. Unfortunately, the only data kept relate to the sentencing of perpetrators, not victim characteristics.

According to ministerial statistics, approximately fifty abused women per year attempt suicide and two hundred murder cases per year can be traced to a family dispute.

Women who have fallen victim to domestic violence have the same rights as any aggrieved person. For example, they may, acting either personally or by and through their attorney, file a motion as to evidence, review the case files and make copies of these files, take part in the so-called "unrepeatable actions", file motions to be given access to inquiry actions (as hearing of the witnesses) and so on. However, victims may be refused to take part in some actions, if an officer conducting investigation finds that it would contradict the interest of the investigation.

An aggrieved party, who is an intimate relation of the perpetrator, has the right to refuse to testify. However, if a woman decides to use this right, the court does not into account her previous testimonies. The WRC's experience shows that woman are often unaware of the consequences of their refusal to testify.

Women victims have also to right to take part in a trial as an auxiliary prosecutor, if they file at court a relevant statement before the charges are read. Sometimes, however, victims are not informed about the day of initial trial and they may not take this role. Taking part in a trial in the role of an auxiliary prosecutor allows the victim to act independently of the prosecutor: she has all rights of litigant parties, for instance, she is advised of dates of court sessions, receives the copies of all court decisions and orders. During the trial she may ask questions, make comments, file motions, review the files, file motions to exclude a judge, prosecutor or an expert and so on.

If a victim, as a result of violence, has suffered damage to her property, she may (during criminal trial) file a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator and claim damages. The suit must be brought before the commencement of a criminal action. The court may reject the lawsuit, if it finds that a claim is nod directly related to the illegal act or if a person entitled to damages has earlier brought a lawsuit in a civil court.

Most women victims do not know and, as a result, rarely exercise their rights, as they have never been educated in this field. They sign the "victims' card", but they can't keep it with themselves so they forget the content. Moreover, the wording of the information they are provided with is incomprehensible for some women.

If an aggrieved woman refuses to cooperate with the police, they eagerly use this opportunity to discontinue the case, regardless of other evidence. Such practices are in fact illegal; the police may not refuse to commence or decide to discontinue the preparatory proceedings exclusively on the ground that the victims do not want to co-operate. One should remember that most women victims still live with their abusive partners, who try to force them to withdraw the complaint. Under these circumstances unfriendly police attitude and often incomprehensible procedures further discourage women to participate in the proceedings against their partners. In fact, their reluctance to co-operate should be considered as rational defense against the escalation of violence, particularly, in view of the fact that in many regions of Poland, especially in big towns, it usually takes 2 or 3 years before the case is tried.

Recognizing domestic abuse as a separate offence should be considered as a progressive step, emphasizing the specific nature of crimes committed within intimate relationships. Domestic violence is unambiguously classed as an offence and interpretation of family violence is not left to the discretion of law enforcement. On the other hand, however, separate provisions regarding domestic abuse may sometimes result in the crimes of a grave bodily harm or even attempted homicide being classed as domestic violence that carries a lighter penalty.

Violent men are not provided with any offer of therapy, existing laws and the way they are applied does not ensure effective protection against violence, nor do they allow to remove an offender from the home. The number of shelters for battered women is also far from satisfactory. In consequence, intimidated victims are deprived of any faith in the help from the legal system and they refuse to co-operate with the police and withdraw the charges.

In this situation, one should welcome the recent efforts of an innovative application of existing laws. One of the women prosecutors issued a kind of restraining order prohibiting the perpetrator of rape from approaching his victim. This interpretation of police and prosecution supervision is increasingly often applied by one of the Prosecutor's Offices in Warsaw. Another prosecutor petitioned the court to issue, together with a suspended sentence, an order for a convicted offender to leave the home and the court complied with this request.

A more flexible and creative approach to the interpretation of existing regulations, however, should not be regarded as a substitute for necessary changes, which must be introduced to ensure that all women victims of violence can feel safely at their homes and that it is an the perpetrator of violence, not his victim, who has to leave the home.

1 According to prof. Andrzej Murzynowski, todays' meaning of this principle has been modified to accommodate contemporary, broadened understanding of state responsibilities. Therefore the new wording of this principle should perhaps read: "no crime without respond".