#zoomout

When Cyprus woke up in February 2021 to the horrific news of the double murder in the village of Ergates, one of the issues that some of us raised in the public discourse was the lack of a central database that would enable information sharing and coordination among the mental health servicesthat appeared to be involved in the incident, the police, and social welfare services. The goal was, and remains, timely intervention and the prevention of incidents of violence against women.

At that time, the government announced the obvious. The creation of a shared database in which incidents would be recorded, risk assessments would be conducted, and which would be accessible to frontline workers as well as other relevant stakeholders.

In November 2022, in its first report evaluating Cyprus following the ratification of the Istanbul Convention, among many other points, also highlighted the need to create a central database of incidents of violence.

Last Monday, at the House Committee on Human Rights and Equal Opportunities between Men and Women, where the need for effective prevention and response to gender-based violence—prompted by the recent cases of femicide—we were told that the database is still in the planning stages.

On the positive side, the session was attended by the Minister of Digital Governance, the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare, the Chief of Police, and the relevant Government Commissioner, all of whom expressed their intention to take action. However, there is still a gap between intention and action that we must bridge.

The PDS has submitted specific, practical recommendations.

a) Starting with what was announced five years ago and which we are still waiting for: the shared database. Simply put, when any police officer or official receives a call—whether from the victim, or from a third party seeking to protect the victim, they should be able, with the push of a button, to determine whether the incident is high-risk and to ensure an appropriate response. We know that the public sector does not operate at the same pace as the private sector. However, there is no excuse for the fact that, five years later, we are still in the same situation. To his credit, the Deputy Minister of Digital Governance himself acknowledged this.

b) Another important pillar is that of court orders. An order is issued prohibiting the perpetrator from approaching the victim. Enforcement of these orders must be effectively managed by the police and not shifted onto the victims. For example, in high-risk cases, the use of an electronic ankle monitor by the perpetrator could be considered, in conjunction with the ELPIS app on the victim’s mobile device, with a mechanism that allows for automatic notification of the police in the event of a violation of the order. It is unthinkable to expect the victim to bear the burden of monitoring the enforcement of orders issued by the court for their protection.

c) Assessing, through scientific evaluations, an individual’s fitness to possess firearms as a prerequisite for obtaining and retaining a license.

d) Conducting a substantive analysis and mapping of recorded incidents to enable the drawing of reliable conclusions regarding the characteristics, recurring patterns, gaps, and weaknesses in the existing prevention and protection system. For example, how many of the incidents were known to the police? In how many were mental health services involved? How many resulted from a lack of timely intervention and/or coordination among services? How many could have been prevented?

Simply listing numbers, without a qualitative analysis and assessment of the incidents, is not sufficient to draw conclusions, nor can it help in any way.

e) Given that there are countries that have addressed the issues of gender-based violence much earlier than we have and have allocated significant resources to prevention and response, let us turn to them and seek their expertise.

In discussions on this topic, I often hear the question, “If the solutions are simple, then what’s the problem?” I think the answer is simpler than it seems. It’s a matter of priorities. Obviously, no matter what the government does, there will be isolated incidents that could not have been prevented. The key is to make it a priority to do everything we can to prevent those incidents that could have been prevented.