Suchergebnisse

Worldwide female genital mutilation (FGM) is acknowledged as a serious violation of human rights which needs to be actively combated. However, in Europe France has been the only state to have prosecuted cases of FGM: until 2007 37 cases were tried. As for the Netherlands, (assumingly) FGM is practised on a relatively small, but regular basis. Nevertheless, no cases have been prosecuted; moreover, there have few reports of (alleged) FGM to the Centre for Advising and Reporting on Child Abuse. For the past decade the Dutch Parliament has urged the Dutch government to develop a more robust policy towards FGM, including intervention by the criminal justice system. However, to date the Dutch government has opted for a policy focusing on prevention and medical/social assistance, including a preference for a (non-)statutory reporting code. Recommendations to introduce mandatory reporting, in order to enable the transfer of information needed to enable the criminal justice authorities to intervene, have been turned down. In doing so the Dutch government is neglecting the positive obligations embedded within the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), prescribing that states should offer adequate and effective protection against serious forms of ill-treatment (article 3 ECHR) and/or serious violations of physical integrity (article 8 ECHR), especially to vulnerable persons. Moreover, according to the ECtHR in cases of serious violations, intervention by the criminal justice system is indicated. Thus, retaining a policy which provides no guarantees for the transfer of information needed to provide for effective and adequate protection results in a potential violation of the ECHR by the Dutch government. There is an urgent need for a change of policy. Moreover, as a result of the consistent political pressure by Parliament, the Dutch government has taken a recent interest in the way in which the French handle FGM. However, as legal and cultural conditions differ, copying the French policy is not an option. Nevertheless, there is one step that the Dutch should take: the introduction of mandatory reporting of FGM.

Worldwide female genital mutilation (FGM) is acknowledged as a serious violation of human rights which needs to be actively combated. However, in Europe France has been the only state to have prosecuted cases of FGM: until 2007 37 cases were tried. As for the Netherlands, (assumingly) FGM is practised on a relatively small, but regular basis. Nevertheless, no cases have been prosecuted; moreover, there have few reports of (alleged) FGM to the Centre for Advising and Reporting on Child Abuse. For the past decade the Dutch Parliament has urged the Dutch government to develop a more robust policy towards FGM, including intervention by the criminal justice system. However, to date the Dutch government has opted for a policy focusing on prevention and medical/social assistance, including a preference for a (non-)statutory reporting code. Recommendations to introduce mandatory reporting, in order to enable the transfer of information needed to enable the criminal justice authorities to intervene, have been turned down. In doing so the Dutch government is neglecting the positive obligations embedded within the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), prescribing that states should offer adequate and effective protection against serious forms of ill-treatment (article 3 ECHR) and/or serious violations of physical integrity (article 8 ECHR), especially to vulnerable persons. Moreover, according to the ECtHR in cases of serious violations, intervention by the criminal justice system is indicated. Thus, retaining a policy which provides no guarantees for the transfer of information needed to provide for effective and adequate protection results in a potential violation of the ECHR by the Dutch government. There is an urgent need for a change of policy. Moreover, as a result of the consistent political pressure by Parliament, the Dutch government has taken a recent interest in the way in which the French handle FGM. However, as legal and cultural conditions differ, copying the French policy is not an option. Nevertheless, there is one step that the Dutch should take: the introduction of mandatory reporting of FGM.

Since contemporary victims' policy features the pursuit of procedural justice, the criminal justice authorities have introduced procedural arrangements to serve victims' voice. Western states use (some form of) Victim Impact Statements, providing crime victims with room to inform the courts about the consequences of the crime. Nevertheless, victim voice is contested since it creates an imagery of bias and might cause repeated victimisaton. Indeed, victimologists point at the heterogeneity of victims' needs, stating that the topical focus on victim voice executed during trial proceedings is one-sighted. Notwithstanding this critique, the Dutch legislator has recently lodged a proposal to introduce a so-called adviesrecht, encompassing the full scheme of the court's decision-making (guilt and truth finding). Since the Dutch use non-bifurcated trial proceedings, the adviesrecht might have serious repercussions for the standard of a fair trial. A comparative (legal) perspective on the (use of) the Victim Impact Statement and the Victim Statement of Opinion as used in the United Stated of America appears helpful to expose the potential repercussions of extended victim voice in terms of procedural justice.

Since contemporary victims' policy features the pursuit of procedural justice, the criminal justice authorities have introduced procedural arrangements to serve victims' voice. Western states use (some form of) Victim Impact Statements, providing crime victims with room to inform the courts about the consequences of the crime. Nevertheless, victim voice is contested since it creates an imagery of bias and might cause repeated victimisaton. Indeed, victimologists point at the heterogeneity of victims' needs, stating that the topical focus on victim voice executed during trial proceedings is one-sighted. Notwithstanding this critique, the Dutch legislator has recently lodged a proposal to introduce a so-called adviesrecht, encompassing the full scheme of the court's decision-making (guilt and truth finding). Since the Dutch use non-bifurcated trial proceedings, the adviesrecht might have serious repercussions for the standard of a fair trial. A comparative (legal) perspective on the (use of) the Victim Impact Statement and the Victim Statement of Opinion as used in the United Stated of America appears helpful to expose the potential repercussions of extended victim voice in terms of procedural justice.