2015 Statistics Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna

Published in Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna (2016): Final Activity Report 2015, Vienna

Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna A-1070 Vienna, Neubaugasse 1/3 Phone: +43 01/ 585 32 88-20 Email: [email protected] Homepage: www.interventionsstelle-wien.at

Contents 1. 2015 Statistics on Vienna, including notes and proposals for reform ...... 3 1.1. Client contacts at the Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna in 2015 ...... 3 1.2. Access to help ...... 4 1.3. Police and court interventions ...... 5 1.3.1. Number and type of police notifications ...... 6 1.3.2. Comparison of police notifications, 2003–2015 ...... 8 1.3.3. Police interventions in Vienna, by district and frequency ...... 9 1.3.4. Multiple police notifications ...... 11 1.3.5. Mention of weapons in police notifications ...... 12 1.3.6. Interim injunctions (IIs) – Applications for IIs ...... 12 1.3.7. Barring orders relating to crime reports and other measures ...... 14 1.3.8. Serious offences and detentions ...... 15 1.3.9. Crime reports by offence ...... 16 1.3.10. Court assistance (CA) ...... 16 1.4. Data on victims ...... 18 1.4.1. Gender of victims ...... 18 1.4.2. Age of victims ...... 19 1.4.3. Children and young people in the household witnessing violence ...... 20 1.4.4. Nationality of victims ...... 20 1.5. Data on perpetrators ...... 23 1.5.1. Gender of perpetrators ...... 23 1.5.2. Age of perpetrators ...... 24 1.5.3. Nationality of perpetrators ...... 25 1.6. Relationship between perpetrator and victim ...... 27 1.6.1. Relationship between perpetrator and victim/total ...... 27 1.6.2. Relationships in cases of violence against female victims ...... 28 1.6.3. Relationships in cases of violence against male victims ...... 30 1.6.4. Gender and relationships between abusers and underage victims ...... 32 1.6.5. Relationship between perpetrator and victim – female underage victims ...... 33 1.6.6. Relationship between perpetrator and victim – male underage victims ...... 34 1.7. Vienna’s anti-violence programme ...... 35 2. 2015 statistics on Austria, including notes and proposals for reform ...... 38 2.1. Overview of police interventions in the context of domestic violence, 1997–2015 ...... 38 2.2. Barring orders issued by the police in Austria, 1997–2015 ...... 40 2.3. Barring orders in 2015, nationwide figures for Austria ...... 41 2.4. Proposals for reform ...... 42 3. Crime reports and results of criminal proceedings under Criminal Code sections §§ 107, 107a, 107b and 201 handled by the Public Prosecutors of Vienna ...... 44 Abbreviations and glossary ...... 48

1. 2015 Statistics on Vienna1, including notes and proposals for reform

1.1. Client contacts at the Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna in 2015

Table 1: Clients in 2015 Clients2 Number Referral based on notification by police authorities in 2015 3 417 Self-referral or referral by other institution 811 Total 4 228 Persons referred to the Centre in previous years who contacted the Centre again in 2015 1 935 All clients in 2015 6 163

In 2015, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna provided advice and support to a total of 6 163 victims of domestic violence, sexual violence and stalking. The majority of victims were women and children (see Table 14). In 2014, 6 081 clients contacted the Centre; their number has thus slightly increased.

3 417 clients turned to the Intervention Centre following notification by the police. 811 clients came of their own accord or were referred to the Intervention Centre by another institution (see Table 2). 1 935 clients who had already contacted the Intervention Centre in the past required services again in 2015.

In 2015, approx. 24 full-time employees were available for service provision. In other words, the Centre’s capacities were limited to an annual average of only 6 hours per victim. This is insufficient for providing medium-term and long-term support to all persons experiencing violence.

As research has revealed, short-term intervention and support are not enough to end violence sustainably, and those experiencing violence often feel left to fend for themselves if they cannot rely on medium-term and long-term support (see Gloor/Meier 2014).

A positive development is that, in 2015, a larger number of victims of violence received support in the context of court assistance (see Table 13). It is essential that victims have a legal right to this type of service. However, court assistance is usually limited to the duration of criminal proceedings, but services would be needed after that time as well. Moreover, court assistance only covers legal proceedings, whereas victims would need all-encompassing support to be able to escape violent relationships and overcome trauma.

Investments in services for victims and prevention of violence are necessary from both a legal and an economic viewpoint.

The new European Union Directive on protection for victims of crime, which has been in force since 16 November 2015, requires an integrated, targeted approach to the protection of victims: “Persons who are particularly vulnerable or who find themselves in situations that expose them to a particularly high risk of harm, such as persons subjected to repeat violence in close relationships, victims of gender-based violence, or persons who fall victim to other types of crime in a Member State

1 Data as at: 5 April 2016 2 For notes on use of the terms “client” and “victim” please consult the glossary. 3 of which they are not nationals or residents, should be provided with specialist support and legal protection. Specialist support services should be based on an integrated and targeted approach which should, in particular, take into account the specific needs of victims, the severity of the harm suffered as a result of a criminal offence, as well as the relationship between victims, offenders, children and their wider social environment.” (European Union 2012, para. 38).

Proposal for reform The Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna urgently requests an expansion of support services for victims of violence, as laid down in Austria’s current Federal Government Programme, including help for children and young people who have witnessed violence. According to a survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, “specialist services need to be in place and adequately resourced to meet victims’ needs” (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2014:15).

Apart from the obligation based on human rights to protect victims of violence, the expansion of measures and support services also makes sense from an economic perspective: according to a paper by the European Parliament, in 2011, the economic cost of violence against women and domestic violence in the EU has been estimated at EUR 228 billion annually (European Parliament 2013:5). And it states that the cost per person in the EU is approx. EUR 450 annually. If only 10% of this sum, i.e. EUR 45 per person, is spent on prevention work, considerable amounts can be saved in the medium and long run.

1.2. Access to help

Table 2: Access to help Referrals of clients in 2015 Number Media/Internet 143 By another client of the Intervention Centre 101 Court/public prosecutor 97 Relatives/friends 83 Youth and family welfare offices 65 Women’s/immigrants’ advisory service 64 Police (without notification) 60 Men’s advisory service 55 Hospital/doctor/health care institution 36 Another institution/organisation 107 Clients in 2015 811

As Table 1 reveals, the majority of clients of the Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna are referred to the Centre based on a notification by the police authorities. 811 contacted the Centre of their own accord. They were asked who informed them about, or referred them to, the Centre.

It became apparent that the largest group (143) had become aware of the Intervention Centre through media or the Internet. In many cases, word of mouth plays a significant role: 101 victims had heard from existing clients of the Centre that they could get help there.

This is another reason why it is so important for the Intervention Centre to provide comprehensive services that are appropriate for the victims. Otherwise, they are unlikely to recommend the Intervention Centre to others. Of course, this also applies to other institutions and authorities: if the

4 first contact is positive, the victim is also likely, for instance, to turn to the police or court again when they need help. According to the survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), in cases of sexual and domestic violence, the dark figure is very high. Only 30% of women experiencing sexual violence contact the police or another institution following the most serious incident of violence (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2014:24). Encouragement by friends and acquaintances who have experienced similar incidents can be a crucial reason for victims of violence to turn to a support organisation.

Organisations addressing immigrants are of key importance in order to ensure that immigrants and asylum-seeking women have access to protection and specific support. In 2015, many refugees fleeing from war and armed conflicts arrived in Austria and were referred to emergency accommodation. It is important to take awareness-raising measures in these facilities and to provide information on violence against women and domestic violence so that those experiencing violence can get access to law and support.

Hospitals and other health-care institutions are further relevant points of first contact for victims. The Living FREE of Violence project enabled closer cooperation with hospitals, and contributed to the establishment and expansion of victims’ protection groups in hospitals.

Proposal for reform According to the above survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, many victims lack information about available support services. It is therefore imperative to invest greater sums in information and awareness-raising campaigns.

1.3. Police and court interventions

First of all, it should be emphasised that the cooperation between the Viennese police authorities and the Intervention Centre is very good and that the police officers, both at the higher administrative level and in the district offices, are highly committed and pursue an active course with regard to preventing violence against women and domestic violence.

However, certain deficiencies and problems are apparent as well, and will be outlined below. Under the agreement concluded between the Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna, the Austrian Federal Ministry of the Interior and the Federal Ministry of Education and Women’s Affairs, the Intervention Centre is obliged to present proposals for reform, which means that problem areas need to be discussed. Our intention is not to criticise the police authorities, but to contribute to our common goal of preventing violence against women and domestic violence.

1.3.1. Number and type of police notifications

Table 3: Number and type of police notifications Notifications by police authorities Number Notifications in acc. with Security Police Act (SPG) Section 3 138 38a – eviction and barring orders (BOs)3 Of these: BOs relating to childcare institutions to protect 152 children Notifications of crime reports to the police (particularly stalking, excl. BOs) 385

Notifications of dispute settlement 37 Police notifications communicated to the Intervention Centre, total 3 560

In 1997, a law was adopted in Austria that enables police officers to evict violent persons from their home for two weeks and to bar them from entering the flat and its surroundings. The local intervention centre/violence prevention centre is notified of all police interventions connected with violence; the centre’s staff then proactively contact the victim and offer help.4

In 2015, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna received a total of 3 560 police notifications. 3 138 notifications concerned barring orders, and 385 related to crime reports to the police, particularly stalking.

The number of notifications concerning reports (385) refers to cases where no barring orders were issued. The majority of them is reports due to violation of Section 107a on stalking (referred to as “insistent pursuit”). The total number of crime reports to the police is higher than the 385 reports mentioned above. In the vast majority of cases in which barring orders were issued, punishable offences had been committed (see Table 12).

37 notifications concerned dispute settlement. This most probably represents only a very small percentage of “other interventions” in the context of domestic violence, of which the victim support organisations, regrettably, have not been notified (see section on proposals for reform).

Problem: Decline in protection measures In 2014, the corresponding number of notifications was 3 805, which represents a difference of 245. A decline has been recorded especially with regard to barring orders to protect victims at home: 2014 saw a total of 3 372 barring orders, compared to 3 138 in 2015, i.e. a decrease of 234 barring orders.

What particularly gives rise to concern is the decrease in protection measures for children. The background is as follows: since September 2013, the police have been entitled to issue barring orders for schools and kindergartens in order to protect children (aged under 14) from perpetrators5. This type of measure was introduced after an 8-year-old boy had been shot dead by his father at school in 2012.

3For further information on eviction and barring orders in accordance with Security Police Act Section 38a please consult the glossary. These two types of measure will hereinafter be summarised under the term “barring order” or “BO”. 4For further information on legal protection measures in Austria see the information booklets on violence prevention in 20 languages; download: http://www.interventionsstelle-wien.at/gewaltschutzbroschuere 5 For notes on the term “perpetrator” please consult the glossary. 6

In 2015, the police issued 152 barring orders to protect children. In 2014, this protection measure had been adopted in 180 cases, which represents a decline of 28 cases. However, an increase of barring orders to protect children would actually have to be expected, as a total of 5 733 children and young people lived in the families that had, according to the police notifications, seen police interventions in 2015 (see Table 16). This means that, at present, only a very small percentage of the children are protected by specific measures. The institutions concerned need to investigate jointly why these protection measures have been adopted less often, and what should be done to improve the protection particularly of children. The necessary steps will be discussed in the section on proposals for reform.

Problem: Decrease in documented police interventions in cases of domestic violence The small number of dispute settlements6 of which the Intervention Centre was notified deserves special attention, as a massive decline has been recorded in recent years. In 2010, the Intervention Centre had been notified of as many as 1 789 dispute settlements. It is unlikely that the number of police interventions concerning domestic violence has actually decreased to such an extent. It seems more plausible to assume that not all interventions in the area of domestic violence have been documented as a notification. They thus do not appear in the files, and cannot be included in the statistics, which prevents a reliable documentation of incidents. This is a problem with regard to the prosecution of offences, too, because particularly charges relating to Section 107b of the Criminal Code (continued exercise of violence) require proof of former incidents. In 2015, as in previous years, clients of the Intervention Centre stated that they had called the police prior to the current case as well. However, our investigations did not reveal any notifications to this effect.

Notifying victim protection organisations of all incidents is necessary for prevention. This situation is also worrying as far as the prevention of violence is concerned. An Austrian survey on homicides shows that the killings had often been preceded by barring orders and dispute settlements. The study concludes that “in view of this fact it would be desirable if the violence prevention centres/intervention centres were notified at a nationwide level also of dispute settlements resulting from police interventions due to domestic violence, as this is the only way to document the complete history of violence.” (Haller 2012:61f).

Proposals for reform  In order to enable effective prevention activities and to permit an evaluation of the implementation of protection measures it is necessary that ALL police interventions relating to violence against women, domestic violence and stalking are documented and recorded in the corresponding statistics.  This is a prerequisite for establishing whether the number of police interventions in this field has risen, declined or has remained at a constant level.  This also makes it possible to assess changes with regard to issuing protection measures: for instance, a smaller number of BOs can indicate a general reduction of police interventions in this field.  It is also necessary that all violations of barring orders as well as any resulting sanctions are included in the statistics, in order to assess the effects of protection measures.  Another crucial point is to implement the recommendation presented in the research paper by Haller (2012) on homicides related to domestic violence, and to inform victim support organisations of all police interventions, as otherwise it is impossible to obtain a complete picture of the problem of violence and to take effective prevention measures.

6 Until 2010, police interventions in cases that did not meet the criteria for issuing barring orders were documented as dispute settlements in accordance with Section 26 of the Security Police Act. 7

 Furthermore, certain disaggregated data must be collected in all interventions in the context of violence against women, as stipulated in the Explanatory Report to the Istanbul Convention: sex and age of victim and perpetrator, relationship of the perpetrator to the victim, type of violence, geographical location, and it must be possible to link these data in order to compile.

1.3.2. Comparison of police notifications, 2003–2015

Diagram 1: Police notifications in Vienna, 2003–2015

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Dispute settlement 327 429 587 755 710 670 674 526 85 51 45 39 37 Crime report 153 126 123 397 491 466 525 502 411 404 374 394 385 Barring order 1698 1924 2467 3037 2940 2825 3116 3109 3303 3246 3429 3372 3138

In the comparison over 12 years it becomes apparent that over 3 100 barring orders have been issued annually in Vienna since 2009. The diagram clearly depicts the problem explained in the above section, namely that “other police interventions”, which were filed as dispute settlement until 2010, almost seem to have disappeared. This gives rise to many questions and problems – see proposals for reform in the above section.

1.3.3. Police interventions in Vienna, by district and frequency

Table 4: Police interventions by district BOs District police station Police No. of Dispute Crime Barring per (PS) or provincial notifications inhabitants7 settlement report order 10 000 criminal agency (PCA) total inhab. PS Innere Stadt, 1st 54 28.2 district 16 339 8 46 PS Brigittenau, 2nd & 2 26 338 16.7 20th districts 187 227 312 PS Landstrasse, 3rd 4 11 182 19.4 district 88 125 171 PS Margareten, 4th, 14 184 14.5 5th & 6th districts 116 937 170 PS Josefstadt, 7th, 8th 25 140 11.9 & 9th districts 96 691 115 PS Favoriten, 10th 57 481 22.3 district 189 713 424 PS Simmering, 11th 15 17 234 22.8 district 95 198 217 PS Meidling, 12th & 1 10 212 14.0 13th districts 144 344 202 PS Fünfhaus, 14th & 2 31 328 17.9 15th districts 165 623 297 PS Ottakring, 16th & 65 467 25.7 17th districts 156 366 402 PS Döbling, 18th & 2 38 255 18.2 19th districts 119 177 217 PS Floridsdorf, 21st 3 32 242 13.8 district 151 844 210 PS Donaustadt, 22nd 8 31 252 12.8 district 172 978 221 PS Liesing, 23rd 12 128 12.0 district 96 775 116 PCA central districts 1 branch office 1 PCA western districts 2 branch office 1 1 Police authority/other 7 16 23 province Total 1 797 337 37 385 3 138 3 560 17.5

This table provides figures on police interventions due to domestic violence, broken down by type as well as police district, and thus enables insight into the distribution of police interventions in Vienna.

Indicator: Number of barring orders per 10 000 inhabitants The number of barring orders is given relative to the number of inhabitants in order to generate comparable data. The figure thus obtained can be used as an indicator that permits a comparison of

7 Source: Statistik Austria 2015. 9 the frequency of barring orders issued to prevent domestic violence. In 2015, an average of 17.5 barring orders per 10 000 inhabitants were issued in Vienna, which represents a considerable decrease in this type of protection measure compared to 2014 (19.1).

This constitutes a problem as there are no indications that the number of police interventions due to violence against women, domestic violence and stalking has gone down significantly. In order to be able to analyse this decline, it would be necessary to enter all police interventions in the corresponding statistics, as discussed in section 3.1.

The figures on imposition of protection measures strongly vary in the individual districts, as the following diagram shows:

Diagram 2: Number of barring orders per 10 000 inhabitants according to police district 28.2 25.7

22.8 22.3 19.4 18.2 17.9 16.7 14.5 14.0 13.8 12.8 12.0 11.9

When the police notifications are related to the number of inhabitants, it becomes apparent in which districts of Vienna police interventions due to violence in intimate social relationships were most frequent in 2015: in the police districts of Innere Stadt, Ottakring and Simmering. The smallest numbers of barring orders were recorded at the police districts of Donaustadt, Liesing and Josefstadt. The number of barring orders ranges from 11.9 to 28.8% per 10 000 inhabitants, which is a greater spread than in 2014 (13.1 to 27.5 BOs per 10 000 inhabitants), and differences with regard to the imposition of barring orders have grown further.

Seven out of the total of 14 police districts are above the average of 17.5 BOs: Innere Stadt, Ottakring, Simmering, Favoriten, Landstraße, Döbling and Fünfhaus. The other seven districts are below the average: Josefstadt, Liesing, Donaustadt, Floridsdorf, Meidling, Margareten and Brigittenau.

Proposals for reform  It gives rise to concern that the number of BOs issued per 10 000 inhabitants in the districts of Liesing, and Josefstadt is less than half of Innere Stadt and Ottakring, the districts with the largest number of BOs.  The reasons for these differences need to be analysed, and measures need to be taken to reduce them. This is important with regard to equal treatment of all citizens as far as protection against violence is concerned.

1.3.4. Multiple police notifications8

Table 5: Multiple police notifications Victims Number of notifications Percent 2 816 1 83.3% 351 2 10.4% 125 3 3.7% 42 4 1.2% 24 5 0.7% 10 6 0.3% 7 7 0.2% 6 8 0.2% 1 9 0.0% 3 382 Total 100%

Diagram 3: Multiple police notifications

3 PN Multiple PN 2 PN 3.7% 2.6% 10.4%

1 PN 83.3%

Table 5 and Diagram 3 show how often a police notification was recorded for the first time in 2015 and whether police notifications had already been registered before (earlier in 2015 or in previous years). The majority of police notifications communicated in 2015 relate to the first police intervention in accordance with SPG Section 38a, i.e. 2 816 (83.3%). In 351 cases, it was the second

8 These figures refer to the number of victims of violence for whom one or several police notifications have been recorded (i.e. they do not refer to the number of police notifications). 11 notification, in 125 cases, the third one, and in 90 cases, four or more notifications had been communicated.

In 566 cases (16.7%), violent incidents that involved police interventions had thus occurred repeatedly. Repeat violence constitutes a risk factor and increases the danger of further acts of violence (see Wiener Interventionsstelle gegen Gewalt in der Familie 2016a).

Whenever barring orders are issued, this is a signal to the perpetrator that violence is not tolerated and does have consequences. Barring orders have a deterrent effect, but not a permanent one. In cases of repeat violence, additional, and stronger, measures to protect victims, as well as preventive measures for perpetrators, thus need to be taken.

1.3.5. Mention of weapons in police notifications

Table 6: Mention of weapons in police notifications Mention of weapons Number Threat with knife 146 Injury with object 13 Injury with knife 36 Threat with firearm 16 Threat with other weapon 10 Threat with cutting weapon 7 Injury with other weapon 3 Injury with cutting weapon 3 Injury with service weapon 1 Injury with firearm 1 Perpetrator owns a weapon 93 Total 329

Weapons were mentioned in 329 (10.5%) of notifications on barring orders, which represents a slight decrease as against 2014 (11.8%). 221 out of those 329 cases concern threat with a weapon, and in 15 cases the victims had sustained injuries with a weapon. In one case, it was an injury with a service weapon. In 93 cases, the perpetrator owned weapons. All cases involving weapons must be treated as high-risk cases.

1.3.6. Interim injunctions (IIs) – Applications for IIs

Table 7: Applications for interim injunctions Applications for interim injunctions (IIs) Number Applications for IIs, total 1 108 – of these: application while barring orders were in force 820

Table 8: Type of interim injunction Type of interim injunction Number II under Section 382g (stalking) 87 II under Section 382e (prohibition of contact and entry of certain area) 457 II under Section 382b (flat) 99 II under Section 382b/e (prohibition extending to flat, contact and entry of certain areas) 451 II under Section 382h (protection of flat) 14 Total 1 108

In 2015, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna recorded 1 108 applications for interim injunctions. The largest part of applications (74.0%) were filed while barring orders were still in force. Most of the interim injunctions were applied for with the aid of the Intervention Centre (85.2%; 945 applications for interim injunctions).

Table 9: Persons protected by interim injunction Persons protected by interim injunction Number Persons protected by interim injunction 1 307 of these: II applications that include the protection of children and young people 199 of these: II applications specifically for children and young people 27

In all, 1 307 persons were protected on the basis of 1 108 interim injunctions.

199 interim injunctions covered several victims (usually a woman/parent and children). In 27 cases, the application for interim injunction only related to children and young people.

Proposals for reform  Interim injunctions are not very effective as far as the protection of children and young people is concerned. In view of the fact that 5 733 children and young people are affected by violence (see Table 16), the number of interim injunctions that have been applied for to protect them seems rather small. It is of key importance to analyse the reasons for this and to consider measures to be taken so as to improve the protection against violence of children and young people. The new Act on Family Matters, under which ensuring the child’s well-being includes the need to avoid putting the child at risk of suffering abuse or violence themselves or witnessing violence against a close caregiver should be applied more frequently (2013 Act on Family Matters, Section 138.7).  Statistics on interim injunctions would be essential. A problem that continues to exist with regard to interim injunctions is that there are no annual statistics on the implementation of the corresponding law. In other words, it is not known how many interim injunctions have been applied for in which areas, whether the applications have been accepted or turned down, how often interim injunctions have been violated, etc. These data would be crucial in order to verify whether, and to what extent, interim injunctions are effective as a protection measure. In addition, the collection of such data is a requirement under Article 11 of the Council of Europe Istanbul Convention. The Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna requests the Federal Ministry of Justice to issue annual statistics on interim injunctions, in line with the minimum requirements of the Istanbul Convention.

1.3.7. Barring orders relating to crime reports and other measures (n=3 100)9

Table 10: Crime reports and other measures connected with barring orders Crime reports and measures Number Percent No. of reports Reports % Crime report 2 691 86.8% Crime report and detention 3.5% 108 2 814 90.8% Crime report and commitment to 0.5% psychiatric institution 15 Commitment to psychiatric 0.1% institution 4 No further measure 282 9.1% Total 3 100 100% n.d. 38 Barring orders, total 3 138

A barring order issued by the police is a prevention measure, i.e. it can be imposed not just after a punishable act has been committed but can also be used in order to prevent violence. The table shows that preventive barring orders are issued in only approx. 10% of cases, whereas in approx. 90% of cases, punishable acts have already been committed.

Proposals for reform It would be important to analyse why preventive barring orders have been issued in only 10% of cases. A possible reason is that the police are not called before manifest acts of violence have been committed. It would be helpful to take appropriate measures that encourage the victims and persons close to them to already call the police at an earlier stage.

Diagram 4: Measures connected with barring orders

Commitment to No further psych. inst. 0.1% measure 9.1% Crime report and commitment 0.5%

Crime report and detention 3.5% Crime report 86.8%

The above figures show that, in the context of barring orders, 2015 saw a total of 108 detentions due to punishable acts, 15 reports to the police, and one referral to an institution under the Act on Commitment to Psychiatric Institutions. In four cases, perpetrators were referred to psychiatric institutions without a report to the police being filed, and in 282 cases, no further measures were taken.

9 The figure (n) refers to criminal reports and other measures connected with barring orders. The entry “n.d.” (no data) in the table refers to information that has not been statistically covered. 14

1.3.8. Serious offences and detentions

Table 11: Crime reports and possible reasons for arrest

Number of crime reports with possible reasons for arrest Number Severe bodily injury (Criminal Code Sections 84 & 87) 80 Dangerous threat (Criminal Code Section 107) 1 139 Severe coercion (Criminal Code Section 106) 226 Continued exercise of violence (Criminal Code Section 107b) 254 Attempted murder (Criminal Code Section 75/15) 19 Murder (Criminal Code Section 75) 2 Total 1 720

As the table shows, barring orders are often issued in connection with serious offences that have been committed and which could provide a reason for detention. This situation applies to 1 720 barring orders. In view of the large number of severe offences, the number of 108 detentions seems to be low.

This gives rise to great concern as domestic violence quite often involves severe offences such as murder or attempted murder, which the perpetrators have “announced” in the form of threats, or which have been preceded by repeat violence. Regrettably, it continues to be a frequent practice on the part of criminal court authorities not to detain perpetrators pending trial, not even after severe, repeated acts of violence, but to file a report while the perpetrator is allowed to go free. This is not in conformity with the state’s due diligence obligation to proactively protect victims against violence (see Istanbul Convention, Article 5). The obligation to proactively protect victims against violence is underlined in a number of recent decisions by the European Court of Human Rights.

Proposals for reform  In cases of repeat violence or escalating violence, expulsion orders issued by the police and civil law protection orders are insufficient measures – as the two murders brought before the United Nations CEDAW Committee have made apparent.10 In high-risk situations, measures such as pre- trial detention may be needed in order to protect the victims’ life, health and freedom.  If release from pre-trial detention before the start of proceedings is an option, this should be combined with protection measures for the victim(s), as well as prevention measures, for instance, temporary probation services, or orders to keep away from certain locations and from the victim. If these instructions are not complied with, the perpetrator can be re-detained immediately. This instrument is thus stronger than an interim injunction under civil law, violation of which only leads to administrative sanctions. In addition, the state is obliged to protect victims at risk, and it cannot be the victims’ responsibility to attain civil law measures after massive punishable acts have already been committed.  The Neustart probation service and the Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna have jointly launched an anti-recidivism project, which includes immediate activities targeting perpetrators, parallel to support for the victim. Regrettably, these options are hardly ever used on the part of the criminal court authorities.

10CEDAW Communications No. 5/2005 and 6/2005. For the full text please consult https://www.bmb.gv.at/frauen/euint/cedaw.html and https://www.bmb.gv.at/frauen/fgie/cedaw_optprot6_2005_26060.pdf?5ibe2p 15

1.3.9. Crime reports by offence

Table 12: Crime reports by offence Crime reports by offence Number Percent Bodily injury (Section 83) 2 151 48.2% Dangerous threat (Section 107) 1 139 25.5% Insistent pursuit, i.e. stalking (Section 107a) 328 7.3% Severe coercion (Section 106) 226 5.1% Continued exercise of violence (Section 107b) 254 5.7% Coercion (Section 105) 154 3.4% Deprivation of liberty (Section 99) 45 1.0% Rape (Section 201); sexual coercion (Section 202) 58 1.3% Severe bodily injury (Section 84); deliberate severe bodily injury (Section 87) 80 1.8% Sexual abuse of a defenceless or psychologically impaired person (Section 205); severe sexual abuse of underage persons (Section 206); sexual abuse of 11 0.2% underage persons (Section 207) Attempted murder (Section 75/15) 19 0.5% Murder (Section 75) 2 0.0% Total 4 467 100%

In 2015, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna recorded 4 467 crime reports relating to domestic violence and stalking (in addition to 353 reports concerning other offences such as trespassing or damage to property). The greater portion was accounted for by reports due to bodily injury (48.2%) and dangerous threat (25.5%).

These figures underline that domestic violence is by no means just “disputes”, but that victims often experience manifest, severe forms of violence.

1.3.10. Court assistance (CA)

Table 13: Court assistance Gender of victims No. of CA Percent services Total 1 324 100% Women 1 215 91.8% Men 109 8.2%

In 2015, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna provided court assistance services to 1 324 victims of violence: 91.8% were female, and 8.2% were male victims.

This represents an increase of 157 persons as against 2014 – and is a positive development as it shows that survivors of violence can be encouraged to assert their rights.

Under Section 66 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all victims of violence are entitled to free psychosocial and legal court assistance in criminal proceedings. Under Section 73b of the Code of Civil Procedure, they also have the right to psychosocial court assistance in civil proceedings that are connected with the criminal proceedings (e.g. divorce, custody of children, etc.).

Proposals for reform  Victims’ rights still play a minor role, and they are insufficiently consolidated. If they are not recognised, the only possible recourse is a complaint, which, however, does not influence the proceedings. They can thus not be regarded as “rights” in the true sense of the word.  Even though court assistance is available, access to law continues to be difficult for victims of violence, and the percentage of dismissed proceedings is high.  The implementation of victims’ rights should thus be assessed comprehensively, and victims’ rights need to be strengthened.

1.4. Data on victims

1.4.1. Gender of victims (n=6 163) 11

Table 14: Gender of victims Gender Number Percent Female 5 373 87.2% Male 790 12.8% Total 6 163 100%

Diagram 5: Gender of victims

Male 12.8%

Female Male

Female 87.2%

The Intervention Centre provides services to all victims of violence against women, domestic violence and stalking, independent of their gender, ethnic origin or age.

The statistics show that women and girls are disproportionately often affected by domestic violence: in 2015, 5 373 victims (87.2%) were female, and 790 (12.8%) were male. Domestic violence is a gender-related problem, and prevention measures thus need to be gender-related in order to be effective.

According to the Istanbul Convention, violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between women and men, which have led to domination over, and discrimination against, women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women (Council of Europe 2011). The Convention underlines that the realisation of de jure and de facto equality between women and men is a key element in the prevention of violence against women, and that gender-sensitive measures need to be taken in all policy areas.

Almost all female victims experience violence exerted by male perpetrators (95.3%), whereas the majority of male victims are not abused by female perpetrators but by men (almost 60%; see also section 6: Relationships between perpetrators and victims).

11 The tables in this section relate to the total number of clients in 2015. However, the figures given may vary as the corresponding data are not always available for all clients or have not been collected: if lack of time is an issue, provision of services is given priority to data acquisition.

1.4.2. Age of victims (n=5 875)

Table 15: Age of victims

Age Number Age group Number Percent 0–10 194 11–14 107 15–18 173 0–18 474 8.1% 19–21 521 22–30 1 610 31–40 1 579 19–40 3 710 63.1% 41–50 1 034 51–60 463 41–60 1 497 25.5% 61–70 150 71–80 25 61–80 175 3.0% Over 80 19 Over 80 19 0.3% Total 5 875 100% n.d. 288 Total 6 163

Diagram 6: Age of victims

41–60 61–80 over 80 0–8 25.5% 3.0% 0.3% 8.1%

Aged 0-18 Aged 19-40 Aged 41-60 Aged 61-80 Over 80

19–40 63.1%

The above table and diagram depict the age distribution of victims. The age group from 19 to 40 represents the largest group of victims (3 710 persons, i.e. 63.1%). 1 497 victims (25.5%) are aged between 41 and 60, and account for the second-largest group. 175 victims (3.0%) are aged between 61 and 80, and 19 victims are over 80.

474 victims are children or young people (8.1%). In addition, a large number of children and young people are indirectly affected by violence, as the following table illustrates. They have also suffered from violence, as they have become witnesses of violence and its consequences.

1.4.3. Children and young people in the household witnessing violence

Table 16: Children and young people witnessing violence Children per household Number of households No. of children witnessing violence 1 child 1 794 2 children 984 3 children 381 4 children 129 5 children 41 5 733 6 children 10 7 children 3 8 children 2 10 children 1 Households with children/total 3 345 No children 2 756 n.d. 62 Households/total 6 163

In 2015, 5 733 children and young people became witnesses of violence. Since 2013, witnessing violence against a close caregiver has been defined as a danger to the child’s welfare (General Civil Code Section 138, 7).

Proposals for reform  In all questions of custody, the safety of children must be the main concern. This is also required under the Istanbul Convention (Article 31).  The Convention furthermore stipulates that services for children who have witnessed violence need to be in place (Article 26). At present, this is not the case. Even though the youth and family welfare offices are informed of all interventions relating to domestic violence and the immediate risk situation is assessed, no specific services for children and young people witnessing violence have been established.  The Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna has drawn up programmes for the provision of advice and support services to children, and can contact these children. However, they cannot be offered assistance as, at present, no funding has been made available.  We urgently call on the Federal Government to provide the resources needed at the Intervention Centre to offer appropriate support to children and young people who have witnessed violence.

1.4.4. Nationality of victims (n=5 654)

Table 17: Nationality of victims Nationality Number Percent Austrians 3 182 56.3% EU/EEA nationals 914 16.2% Other nationals 1 540 27.2% Stateless 18 0.3% Total 5 654 100% n.d. 509 Total 6 163

The majority of victims (3 182, or 56.3%) are Austrian nationals. 914 (16.2%) are nationals of the EU or the EEA, and 27.2% are nationals of other countries. In 2015, the Intervention Centre provided services to victims from 100 countries.

When compared with the population figures for Vienna it becomes apparent that the proportion of victims who are Austrian nationals (56.3%) is slightly below their proportion of the total Viennese population (63.2%).12 This probably has manifold reasons: maybe victims of violence are in a difficult social situation more often and therefore need support more frequently. Or certain groups of victims may come from very patriarchal social structures and therefore experience violence more often.

It is a positive sign that people experiencing violence actually seek help, call the police and take up the support services provided by the Intervention Centre. The Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna is open to victims from all countries. It thus complies with Article 4, para. 3 of the Istanbul Convention, which prohibits discrimination of victims on any ground such as national or social origin, association with a national group or minority, migrant or refugee status, or other status.

In order to improve immigrants’ access to law, the Intervention Centre provides culture-related advisory services, as well as counselling in Armenian, Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, Farsi (Persian), Georgian, Russian and Turkish.

Proposals for reform:  It is essential that all public authorities and institutions pay attention to the specific situation of immigrants and asylum-seeking women who have experienced violence, and take their special vulnerability into account.  Specific support and interpreting services for victims are needed in order to ensure protection and access to law. These standards have also been laid down in the EU Directive on protection of victims (European Union 2012).

The table below lists the nationalities of victims.

Table 18: Nationality of victims, broken down by country Nationality Number Austria 3 182 Serbia 505 Turkey 266 Romania 198 Poland 195 Slovakia 135 Afghanistan 93 Bosnia and Herzegovina 82 Germany 77 Bulgaria 73 Russia 72 Hungary 60 Croatia 59 Iran 56 Macedonia 39 Syria 34

12 City of Vienna: https://www.wien.gv.at/statistik/bevoelkerung/tabellen/bevoelkerung-migh-geschl-zr.html 21

Iraq 32 Nigeria 30 Egypt 29 Ukraine 29 Czech Republic 28 Italy 26 Kosovo 19 Pakistan 18 Tunisia 16 Somalia 12 Mongolia 12 Bangladesh 11 India 11 United States 11 Spain 10 Israel, United Kingdom and Morocco 9 each 27 Brazil, China, Georgia, France and Philippines 8 each 40 Sudan 7 7 Armenia, Dominican Republic, Colombia and Netherlands 6 each 24 Greece, Mexico and Peru 5 each 15 Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovenia 4 each 20 Azerbaijan, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Jordan, Latvia, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda and Venezuela 3 each 27 Algeria, Australia, Bolivia, Chile, Ivory Coast, Finland, Ghana, Guatemala, South Korea, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Norway, Palestinian territories, Sweden, Switzerland and Uzbekistan 2 each 32 Albania, Argentine, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Ireland, Canada, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Moldova, Montenegro, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Congo, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Turkmenistan, Belarus and Cyprus 1 each 24 Stateless 18 n.d. 509 Total 6 163

The largest group of foreign nationals comes from Serbia (505). 266 victims are Turkish nationals, 198 are Romanians, 195 are from Poland, and 135 from Slovakia.

2015 was a year in which many refugees who had fled their home countries due to war and armed conflict entered Austria. They also include people experiencing violence in intimate social relationships: the Intervention Centre provided services to 93 victims from Afghanistan, 34 from Syria and 32 from Iraq.

1.5. Data on perpetrators13

1.5.1. Gender of perpetrators (n=6 152)

Table 19: Gender of perpetrators Gender Number Percent Women 515 8.4% Men 5 637 91.6% Total 6 152 100% n.d. 1114 Total 6 163

Diagram 7: Gender of perpetrators

Female 8.4%

Male 91.6%

As far as domestic violence and violence in intimate social relationships are concerned, 91.6% of perpetrators are male. This proportion clearly indicates that domestic violence is not “gender- neutral” but a phenomenon that is definitely connected with gender. It is thus essential for work with perpetrators to focus on the causes of male violence and to organise specific programmes addressing perpetrators (see Wiener Interventionsstelle gegen Gewalt in der Familie 2016c).

For further information on relationships between perpetrators and victims please consult section 6.

13For notes on the term “perpetrator” please consult the glossary. Perpetrators are usually referred to as “he” because 90% of abusers are male; female abusers shall be deemed to be included. 14 This figure refers to reports to the police relating to stalking by unknown perpetrators. 23

1.5.2. Age of perpetrators (n=5 644)

Table 20: Age of perpetrators Age Number Age group Number Percent 0–10 0 11–14 14 0–18 191 3.4% 15–18 177 19–21 291 22–30 1 397 19–40 3 378 59.9% 31–40 1 690 41–50 1 277 41–60 1 889 33.5% 51–60 612 61–70 141 61–80 176 3.0% 71–80 35 Over 80 10 Over 80 10 0.2% Total 5 644 5 644 100% n.d. 519 Total 6 163

Diagram 8: Age of perpetrators:

61–80 Over 80 0–18 3.0% 0.2% 3.4% 41–60 33.5%

Aged 0-18 Aged 19-40 Aged 41-60 Aged 61-80 Over 80

19–40 59.9%

Perpetrators are found in all age groups. The majority of them is aged between 19 and 40 (59.9%). The age group from 41 to 60 accounts for 33.5%. The number of perpetrators aged 61 or older is considerably smaller, but still, in 2015 as many as 176 (3.0%) were in this group. The table also shows that 177 perpetrators are young people aged between 15 and 18, and 14 perpetrators were only between 11 and 14 years old.

Proposals for reform:  Intensive work with young perpetrators is essential in order to prevent repeat violence and an escalation of violence.  The criminal court authorities should always refer young perpetrators to obligatory probation assistance.

1.5.3. Nationality of perpetrators (n=5 381)

Table 21: Overview: Nationality of perpetrators Nationality Number Percent Austrians 2 877 53.5% EU/EEA nationals 630 11.7% Other nationals 1 835 34.1% Stateless 39 0.7% Total 5 381 100% n.d. 782 Total 6 163

The majority of perpetrators, i.e. 2 877 (53.5%) are Austrian nationals. Approximately 11.7% are EU or EEA nationals. 34.1% are nationals of third countries.

Nationality broken down by country:

Table 18: Nationality of perpetrators, broken down by country Nationality Number Austria 2 877 Serbia 585 Turkey 383 Poland 166 Romania 138 Afghanistan 116 Bosnia and Herzegovina 106 Nigeria 67 Russia 65 Croatia 62 Bulgaria 56 Germany 52 Macedonia 48 Slovakia 46 Egypt 43 Iran 41 Iraq 36 India 31 Kosovo 31 Syria 31 Tunisia 31 Hungary 31 Italy 20 Bangladesh 16 Pakistan 15 Morocco 12 Ukraine 11 25

Georgia, Mongolia and Somalia 10 each 30 Algeria, Dominican Republic and United States 9 each 27 France and Philippines 8 each 16 Gambia, Sudan and Czech Republic 7 each 21 Brazil, China, United Kingdom, Kenya and Portugal 6 each 30 Slovenia and Spain 5 each 10 Armenia, Belgium, Ghana, Ireland, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uzbekistan 4 each 24 Greece, Jordan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sierra Leone and South Africa 3 each 18 Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Israel, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Cuba, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mexico, Moldova, Sweden, Switzerland and Senegal 2 each 32

Ethiopia, Burundi, Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, Guinea- Bissau, Haiti, Cameroon, Colombia, Liberia, Mauritania, Montenegro, Palestinian territories, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Venezuela and Vietnam 1 each 18 Stateless 39 n.d. 782 Total 6 163

The largest groups of perpetrators are from Serbia (585), Turkey (383), Poland (166), Romania (138), Afghanistan (116), and Bosnia and Herzegovina (106).

Proposals for reform:  A key point is to expand prevention services and to integrate the communities from the relevant countries into awareness-raising activities with regard to the issue of violence.  Asylum seekers should also be specifically addressed in the context of information and awareness-raising campaigns.

1.6. Relationship between perpetrator and victim

1.6.1. Relationship between perpetrator and victim/total

Table 23: Relationships between perpetrators and victims/total Relationship – perpetrator is Number Percent Husband 1 899 30.9% Live-in partner 816 13.3% 48.3% Boyfriend 249 4.1% [2 964] 71.6% Former husband 337 5.5% [4 397] Former live-in partner 469 7.6% 23.3% Former boyfriend 627 10.2% [1 433] Father (in law)/mother (in law) 444 7.2% Stepfather/stepmother 60 1.0% Son/daughter 324 5.3% 17.1% Brother/sister 139 2.3% [1 047] Other family member 80 1.3% Other relationship 568 9.2% 9.2% Stranger (no personal relationship, e.g. stalker) 136 2.1% 2.1% Total 6 148 100% 100% n.d. 15 Total 6 163

Diagram 9: Relationship between perpetrator and victim/total

Other Stranger relationship 9.2% 2.1% Family member 17.1%

(Former) partner 71.6%

It becomes apparent that almost 3 out of 4 incidents of domestic violence (71.6%) take place within close social relationships, especially in continuing partnerships. A large proportion of violent acts (48.3%) are committed by partners, with former partners (23.3%) ranking second. In 17.1% of cases, the perpetrator is another family member. In 9.2% of the cases the abusers are other persons in the victims’ intimate social environment, such as flatmates/housemates, neighbours or acquaintances. Strangers account for 2.1% of cases.

1.6.2. Relationships in cases of violence against female victims

Table 24: Relationships in the case of female victims Perpetrator (male) is Number Percent Husband 1 827 36.0% Live-in partner 747 14.7% 54.9% Boyfriend 212 4.2% [2 786] Former husband 324 6.4% Former live-in partner 447 8.8% 26.2% Former boyfriend 559 11.0% [1 330] Father 90 1.8% Stepfather 15 0.3% Son 182 3.6% 8.0% Brother 63 1.2% [403] Other family member 53 1.1% Other relationship 246 4.9% Stranger 67 1.3% Perpetrators (male) 4 832 95.3% n.d. 11 Perpetrator (female) is Number Percent Wife 0 0.0% Live-in partner 10 0.2% 0.3% Girlfriend 5 0.1% [15] Former wife 0 0.0% Former live-in partner 6 0.1% 0.2% Former girlfriend 6 0.1% [12] Mother 29 0.6% Daughter 47 0.9% 2.1% Sister 13 0.3% [103] Other family member 14 0.3% Other relationship 84 1.6% Stranger 25 0.5% Perpetrators (female) 239 4.7% n.d. 1 4.7% Perpetrators/total 5 071 100%

Diagram 10: Gender of perpetrators in cases of violence against female victims

Perpetrators (female) 4.7%

Perpetrators (male) 95.3%

According to the diagram, 95% of perpetrators exerting violence against women are male.

Diagram 11: Relationships in cases of violence against female victims – male perpetrators

Other relationship 4.9% Stranger 1.3% Other family member 8.0%

Former partner Partner 26.2% 54.9%

2 786 perpetrators (54.9%) are partners, and 1 330 (26.2%) are former partners. Violence against women thus primarily takes place in or after an intimate relationship.

Diagram 12: Relationships in cases of violence against female victims – female perpetrators

Former Stranger Partner Partner 0.5% 0.3% 0.2%

Other relationship 1.6% Other family member 2.1%

In the case of women experiencing violence exerted by other women, in most cases the abusers are their daughters, mothers or other family members (2.1%).

1.6.3. Relationships in cases of violence against male victims

Table 25: Relationships in the case of male victims Perpetrator (male) is Number Percent Husband/civil partner 1 0.1% Live-in partner 7 1.2% 3.0% Boyfriend 4 0.7% [18] Former boyfriend 6 1.0% Father 38 6.4% Stepfather 9 1.5% Son 71 12.0% 25.6% Brother 19 3.2% [152] Other family member 15 2.5% Other relationship 166 27.9% Stranger 17 2.9% Perpetrators (male) 353 59.4% n.d. 1 Perpetrator (female) is Wife 68 11.5% Live-in partner 42 7.1% 21.1% Girlfriend 15 2.5% [125] Former wife 13 2.2% Former live-in partner 15 2.5% 9.6% Former girlfriend 29 4.9% [57] Mother 8 1.3% Daughter 6 1.0% 4.7% Sister 10 1.7% [28] Other family member 4 0.7% Other relationship 22 3.7% Stranger 9 1.5% Perpetrators (female) 241 40.6% Perpetrators/total 594 100%

Diagram 13: Gender of perpetrators in cases of violence against male victims

Female perpetrator 40.6% Male perpetrator 59.4%

The most obvious difference between female and male victims is that the former almost exclusively experience violence exerted by male perpetrators (95.3%), whereas in the case male victims, the majority of perpetrators is not women but men (almost 60%). In other words, violence against men is also primarily committed by other men. In 40.6% of cases, the perpetrator is a woman.

Diagram 14: Relationships in cases of violence against male victims – male perpetrators

Stranger Former partner 2.9% 3.0%

Other relationship Other family 27.9% member 25.6%

Here, it is mostly sons who commit acts of violence against other family members (71; i.e. 12.0%). In 27.9% of cases the abusers are other persons in the victim’s intimate social environment, such as flatmates/housemates, neighbours or acquaintances.

Diagram 15: Relationships in cases of violence against male victims – female perpetrators Stranger Other relationship 3.7% 1.5%

Other family member 4.7% Partner Former 21.1% partner 9.6%

The majority of female abusers are wives and live-in partners or former partners (30.7% in total).

In a comparison of female and male victims it becomes apparent that approximately 30% of perpetrators exerting violence against male victims are family members, whereas this group accounts for only 10% in the case of female victims.

1.6.4. Gender and relationships between abusers and underage victims

Table 26: Gender relationships in the case of underage victims Gender of perpetrator Gender of victim Number Percent Victims (girls) 256 Perpetrators (male) 440 92.8% Victims (boys) 184 Victims (girls) 26 Perpetrators (female) 34 7.2% Victims (boys) 8 Underage victims – relationships between perpetrators and victims/total 474 100%

In 2015, the Intervention Centre recorded 474 underage victims of domestic violence. 282 of them were girls. This shows that gender-related factors are already apparent in the case of children and young victims of domestic violence.

Diagram 16: Gender of perpetrators in the case of underage victims Female perpetrators 7.2%

Male perpetrators 92.8%

A proportion of 92.8% of the 474 underage victims experienced violence exerted by a male perpetrator.

1.6.5. Relationship between perpetrator and victim – female underage victims

Table 26: Relationship between perpetrator and victim – female underage victims Perpetrator (male) is Number Percent Husband 3 1.0% Live-in partner 10 3.6% Boyfriend 12 4.3% 18.8% Former live-in partner 1 0.4% [53] Former boyfriend 27 9.5% Father 135 48.0% Stepfather 14 5.0% 61.6% Brother 19 6.8% [173] Other family member 5 1.8% Other relationship 24 8.6% Stranger (= no personal relationship, e.g. stalker) 5 1.8% Perpetrators (male) 255 90.8% n.d. 1 Perpetrator (female) is Mother 17 6.0% 6.7% Other family member 2 0.7% [19] Other relationship 6 2.1% Stranger (no personal relationship, e.g. stalker) 1 0.4% Perpetrators (female) 26 9.2% Perpetrators/total 281 100%

Diagram 17: Relationships in cases of violence against female underage victims – male perpetrators

Stranger Other relationship 8.6% 1.8%

Former partner 18.8%

Other family member 61.6%

In the case of female underage victims, the violence is typically exerted by male abusers (90.8%) - mostly fathers, stepfathers and brothers (61.6%). 18.8% of these victims experience violence perpetrated by boyfriends, former boyfriends, partners and former partners. It thus becomes apparent that girls experience intimate relationship violence already at a young age. 1.6.6. Relationship between perpetrator and victim – male underage victims

Table 28: Relationship between perpetrator and victim – male underage victims Perpetrator (male) is Number Percent Boyfriend 1 0.5% Father 123 64.4% Stepfather 22 11.5% 85.2% Brother 15 7.7% [163] Other family member 3 1.6% Other relationship 17 8.9% Stranger (= no personal relationship, e.g. stalker) 2 1.1% Perpetrators (male) 183 95.7% n.d. 1 Perpetrator (female) is Number Percent Mother 4 2.1% 3.2% Other family member 2 1.1% [6] Other relationship 2 1.1% Perpetrators (female) 8 4.3% Perpetrators/total 191 100%

Diagram 18: Relationships in cases of violence against male underage victims – male perpetrators

Stranger Partner 1.1% Other relationship 8.9% 0.5%

Other family member 85.2%

In the case of male underage victims, the violence is also typically exerted by male abusers (95.7%). The perpetrators are mostly fathers, stepfathers and brothers, as well as other family members (85.2%).

In 3.2% of cases, the violence is exerted by mothers. No cases of violence perpetrated by partners or girlfriends have been recorded.

1.7. Vienna’s anti-violence programme

Since 1999, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna, cooperating with the Vienna Men’s Counselling Service, has launched an anti-violence programme that focuses on the protection of victims and the prevention of violence.

Table 29: Type of referral to the anti-violence programme Type of referral to the anti-violence programme Number Percent Criminal court/public prosecutor, incl. after release from prison on probation 63 39.9% Family court in the context of custody/visiting rights 1 0.6% 51.9% Referral by youth and family welfare office 18 11.4% Referral requested by partner 10 6.3% Self-referral, often following eviction order by the police 56 35.4% Other 10 6.4% Total 158 100%

The table shows on which basis perpetrators are referred to the anti-violence training: 82 participants (51.9%) were referred by authorities or institutions, 10 participated because their partners wanted them to, and 56 took part on their own initiative.

Table 30: Status of participants Participants in 2015 Number Percent Training completed 23 14.6% Participants in the programme (assessment or training) 61 38.6% No participation in the programme after assessment (for reasons see next table) 61 38.6% Drop-out 13 8.2% Total 158 100%

Table 31: Reasons for non-participation in the anti-violence training Reasons for non-participation in the training15 Number No interest on the part of the perpetrator 46 Complete denial of violence 10 Drinking/drug problems 3 Further violence committed 2 High-risk perpetrator 3 Insufficient German language skills 3

Summary The figures reveal that only a very small proportion of perpetrators (i.e. 158 out of a total of 6 100) actually had contact with the anti-violence training, even though all perpetrators on whom barring orders are imposed by the police are informed about the possibility of taking up men’s counselling services (information leaflet).

15More than only one reason for non-admission to the programme can be indicated, therefore the figure given (67) is higher than the number of men referred to another service after the assessment or not admitted to the programme (61).

The reasons for the small number of participants include non-referral by the courts and authorities, as well as lack of interest in, and motivation to take part in, the anti-violence training voluntarily. It is therefore essential that the courts and the youth and family welfare offices refer perpetrators to a compulsory anti-violence training more often. This issue is currently discussed by the federal working group on perpetrator-related interventions.

References

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) 2014: Violence against women: An EU-wide survey. Results at a glance, Vienna, p. 17, download: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-at-a-glance-oct14_en.pdf, 20 Sept. 2016

Council of Europe (2011): Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence and Explanatory Report Istanbul, 11 May 2011, download: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000 16800d383a https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000 168046031c20 Sept. 2016

European Parliament (2013): Combatting violence against women. An assessment accompanying the European Parliament’s Legislative own-Initiative Report (Rapporteur Antonyia Parvanova, MEP); Report undertaken by the European Added Value Unit of the Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (DG EPRS) of the General Secretariat of the European Parliament, Brussels

European Union (2012): DIRECTIVE 2012/29/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims (to be brought into force by the Member States by 16 November 2015), Brussels

Gloor, Daniela/Meier, Hanna (2014): «Der Polizist ist mein Engel gewesen.» Sicht gewaltbetroffener Frauen auf institutionelle Interventionen bei Gewalt in Ehe und Partnerschaft, Schlussbericht der NFP 60-Studie, Social Insight, Schinznach-Dorf

Haller, Birgitt (2012): High Risk Victims – Tötungsdelikte in Beziehungen. Verurteilungen 2008 - 2010, Studie im Auftrag des Bundeskanzleramtes/Bundesministerin für Frauen und Öffentlichen Dienst, Vienna

Logar, Rosa (2014): Die Istanbul-Konvention. Rechtsnormen zur Verhinderung von Gewalt an Frauen und häuslicher Gewalt in Europa. In: juridikum, Zeitschrift für Kritik, Recht und Gesellschaft, 3/2014, 349–359

Wiener Interventionsstelle gegen Gewalt in der Familie (2016a): Partnerschaften gegen Gewalt. Leitfaden zum Aufbau multi-institutioneller Bündnisse und Fallkonferenzen zur Verhinderung von schwerer und wiederholter Gewalt, Morden und Mordversuchen im Bereich Gewalt an Frauen und häusliche Gewalt; Publikation im Rahmen des Projektes GewaltFREI LEBEN, Authors: Katrin Gleirscher and Rosa Logar, Vienna For orders please contact [email protected]

Wiener Interventionsstelle gegen Gewalt in der Familie (2016b): Gemeinsam gegen Gewalt an Frauen und häusliche Gewalt handeln. Leitfaden für Leitung und Praxis in Krankenhäusern zur Versorgung

36 von gewaltbetroffenen PatientInnen; Publikation erstellt im Rahmen des Projektes GewaltFREI LEBEN, Authors: Elisabeth Gruber and Rosa Logar with assistance by Michaela Egger, Vienna For orders please contact [email protected]

Wiener Interventionsstelle gegen Gewalt in der Familie (2016c): Partnerschaft gegen Gewalt. Bericht zum Stand (opferschutzorientierter) Täterarbeit bei Gewalt an Frauen und häuslicher Gewalt in Österreich, 2. überarbeitete Fassung, Vienna For orders please contact [email protected]

2. 2015 statistics on Austria, including notes and proposals for reform

Nationwide figures/overview

In 2015

... police officers issued 8 261 barring orders in Austria.

... 17 621 victims of domestic violence took up services of violence prevention centres/intervention centres.

... 85.5% of the centres’ clients were women or girls, 92.4% of the perpetrators were male.

... 2 193 applications for interim injunction were filed with the assistance of violence prevention centres/intervention centres.

2.1. Overview of police interventions in the context of domestic violence, 1997–2015

The nationwide Austrian statistics for 2015 are based on the data acquired by the violence prevention centres and the Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna – Statistics of the Federal Association of Austrian Violence Prevention Centres and Intervention Centres.

Since the adoption of Austria’s first Protection Against Violence Act in 1997, the police has been the only institution that has regularly (i.e. annually) provided statistics on interventions in the context of domestic violence. During the first 14 years following the introduction of barring orders in 1997, essential data were acquired: number of barring orders issued by the police, number of barring orders repealed or violated, number of other police interventions due to domestic violence (dispute settlement).

Regrettably, as of 2010, a setback with regard to police data acquisition has become apparent. Currently, only barring orders imposed by the police are documented in the statistics, but no “other interventions” regarding domestic violence. This is a problem as it is now impossible to assess whether the total number of police interventions has increased or decreased.

In addition, due to a change in data acquisition, the data currently provided by the Federal Ministry of the Interior are less reliable than those from the first 14 years. Therefore, the data used for the nationwide 2015 statistics are those acquired by the violence prevention centres (VPC) and the Vienna Intervention Centre (IC). The figures given are likely to be correct as they have been generated from notifications by the police, i.e. they are based on individual incidents filed.

Table 32: Police interventions, 1997–2015 Year Police Of those: Other interventions Violations Violations of interventions barring regarding domestic of barring barring orders communicated orders violence (dispute orders (percentage) to VPC/IC settlement)

1997 1 449 1 449 n.d. 138 n.d. 1998 2 673 2 673 n.d. 252 n.d. 1999 8 309 3 076 5 233 301 9.8% 2000 10 992 3 354 7 638 430 12.8% 2001 10 800 3 283 7 517 508 15.5% 2002 11 335 3 944 7 391 475 12.0% 2003 10 738 4 180 6 558 633 15.1% 2004 10 959 4 764 6 195 641 13.5% 2005 11 789 5 618 6 171 668 11.9% 2006 13 702 7 235 6 467 629 8.7% 2007 11 314 6 347 4 967 586 9.2% 2008 11 684 6 566 5 118 615 9.4% 2009 12 038 6 731 5 307 655 9.7% 2010 12 403 6 759 5 644 770 11.0% 2011 9 434 7 993 n.d. n.d. n.d. 2012 9 322 8 063 n.d. n.d. n.d. 2013 9 538 8 307 n.d. n.d. n.d. 2014 9 607 8 466 n.d. n.d. n.d. 2015 9 398 8 261 n.d. n.d. n.d. Total 187 484 107 069 - - -

This overview of the past 18 years shows that more than 100 000 barring orders were issued in Austria during that period. In all, 187 484 notifications of domestic violence were recorded. They relate to barring orders, crime reports to the police (including reports concerning stalking) and dispute settlements.

The table and the diagram below illustrate the “break” in available data since 2011: “other interventions” in cases of domestic violence (i.e. dispute settlements) have no longer been recorded. It is not likely that such interventions have ceased to take place, but they are apparently no longer being communicated to victim protection centres as formal notifications nor collected for the statistics, but are only entered in the “daily reports of activities”. Furthermore, data on violations of barring orders are no longer being collected.

This is a regrettable development, particularly as Austria is one of the first two countries whose implementation of the Istanbul Convention has been monitored by the GREVIO experts. The questionnaire16 that was sent to the Austrian Federal Government includes items such as the annual number of police interventions carried out in relation to violence against women and domestic violence.

16 See https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016805c95 b0 39

Diagram 19: Police notifications of domestic violence recorded from 2005 to 2015

13 702 12 038 12 403 11 789 11 314 11 684 9 434 9 322 9 538 9 607 9 398

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2.2. Barring orders issued by the police in Austria, 1997–2015

Diagram 20: Barring orders issued nationwide, 1997–2015

8 466 8 307 8 261 7 993 8 063 7 235 6 566 6 731 6 759 6 347 5 618

4 764 4 180 3 944 3 354 3 283 2 673 2 673

1 449

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

The diagram again represents the development of barring orders issued in the past 18 years: a rise from 1 449 in 1997 to 8 261 becomes apparent, i.e. the number of BOs has increased almost sixfold. The past five years have seen a stabilisation at a high level, with a slight decline last year. However, this cannot be regarded as a trend as annual variations are a normal occurrence.

2.3. Barring orders in 2015, nationwide figures for Austria

Table 33 : Barring orders in 2015, by province Province No. of inhabitants17 BOs BOs by 10 000 inhabitants Burgenland 288 356 171 5.9 Vorarlberg 378 592 288 7.6 Salzburg 538 575 415 7.7 Carinthia 557 641 459 8.2 Tyrol 728 826 460 6.3 Styria 1 221 570 854 7.0 Upper Austria 1 437 251 1 128 7.8 Lower Austria 1 636 778 1 348 8.2 Vienna 1 797 337 3 138 17.5 Total 8 584 926 8 261 9.6

As the table on barring orders in Austria reveals, the majority of barring orders are issued by police officers in Vienna: almost 40% of all BOs nationwide (whereas Vienna accounts for approx. 21% of the Austrian population). In 2015, an average 9.6 barring orders per 10 000 inhabitants were issued in Austria, as against an average of 9.8 in 2013, and 10.0 in 2014.

Diagram 21: Number of barring orders by province, related to number of inhabitants

17.5

8.2 8.2 7.6 7.7 7.0 7.8 5.9 6.3

The diagram highlights the differences between Vienna and the other Austrian provinces. For the latter, only small differences are apparent, ranging from 5.9 to 8.2 barring orders per 10 000 inhabitants.

This discrepancy between Vienna and the other provinces gives rise to concern, and urgently needs to be analysed, because victims should be protected in the same way everywhere.

17 See Statistics AUSTRIA 2015: Population at the beginning of the year/quarter: http://www.statistik.at/web_en/statistics/PeopleSociety/population/population_stock_and_population_chang e/total_population_at_the_beginning_of_the_year_guarter/106933.html 41

2.4. Proposals for reform

The fact that data acquisition by the police has not been expanded but, in fact, restricted, represents a regrettable development, especially as Austria is one of the first two countries monitored by the GREVIO experts with regard to implementation of the Istanbul Convention. By 1 September 2016, a comprehensive report has to be submitted. As a basis for preparing the report, GREVIO sent a questionnaire18 to the Federal Government.

With regard to police interventions and protection measures, the following data are requested: annual figures on all police interventions in the context of violence against women (including reports and interventions that did not result in barring orders); number of barring orders or other protection orders issued per year; number of breaches of such orders number of sanctions imposed as a result of these breaches (see questionnaire, p. 17).

The Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna calls on the Federal Government to take all measures required to ensure that the data requested under the Istanbul Convention are acquired in all relevant areas, compiled in statistics, and published annually.

It is also important to analyse the reason for the differences with regard to issuing barring orders, and what measures are required in order to grant the same level of protection to all victims nationwide. As mentioned above, it would be important for the analysis to record the number of all police interventions in order to establish whether pronounced differences between Vienna and the other provinces are apparent in this regard, too, or whether it is just that a smaller number of barring orders are issued there.

Eventually, the recording of all police interventions is also relevant for the prosecution of offences and the prevention of violence. For instance, for prosecuting offences under Section 107b of the Criminal Code (continued exercise of violence), prior incidents need to be taken into account. It is very difficult to furnish the required evidence if police interventions are not documented precisely. Police officers who carry out investigations following crime reports or court requests often have to look through many daily reports, which is time-consuming and very difficult when the exact date of an intervention is not known. For this reason, all interventions should be documented as separate statements and entered into the statistics, even if the intervention was “just” a risk investigation that did not result in barring orders. The police are hardly ever called if “nothing has happened”. On the contrary: according to the survey conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, victims of violence against women and domestic violence are often reluctant to call the police. Even after the most serious incident of violence that the respondents had experienced, only 33% had contacted the police or another institution (see European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2014:24).

It is essential also to document and record dispute settlements. As discussed in section 3.1 of the statistics on Vienna, an Austrian survey on homicides revealed that the killings had often been preceded by barring orders and dispute settlements. The paper concludes that, in order to prevent severe violence, it is important to inform the victim support organisations about all incidents (Haller 2012: 61f). The violence prevention centres/intervention centres need to be notified of all risk investigations and dispute settlements that have been carried out, at least in cases for which prior police interventions have been recorded. If the police emergency number is called repeatedly, this indicates a high risk potential, which can, in the worst case, lead to a massive escalation.

18See https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016805c95 b0 42

All data collected must be in conformity with the minimum standards of the Istanbul Convention and cover at least the following aspects: - gender of victim and perpetrator - age of victim and perpetrator - relationship between perpetrator and victim - type of violence - geographical location - and it must be possible to link these data.

Apart from the Council of Europe Istanbul Convention, the European Union has also intensified its activities regarding data collection in the context of violence against women and domestic violence. In its conclusions, the Council of the European Union (2014) calls on the Member States and the Commission: „[to] improve the collection, the analysis and the dissemination at both national and EU level of comprehensive, comparable, reliable and regularly updated data on violence against women, notably on victims and perpetrators, disaggregated by sex, age and victim-perpetrator relationship, as well as on the number of incidents reported by the victims and recorded by law enforcement authorities, on the number of convictions, and on the punishments handed down to offenders, by ensuring a coherent approach which makes full use of existing and, as appropriate, new EU surveys, and involving all relevant actors, including national and European statistical offices, and making full use of the work of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) and FRA where appropriate.”

References

Council of the European Union (2014): Council conclusions – "Preventing and combating all forms of violence against women and girls, including female genital mutilation", JUSTICE and HOME AFFAIRS Council meeting, 5 and 6 June 2014, Luxembourg, para. 3

Council of Europe (2011): Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence and Explanatory Report, Istanbul, 11 May 2011, download: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000 16800d383a https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000 168046031c20 Sept. 2016

Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO) (2016): Questionnaire on legislative and other measures giving effect to the provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention), download: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000 16805c95b0, 14 April 2016.

Haller, Birgitt (2012): High Risk Victims – Tötungsdelikte in Beziehungen. Verurteilungen 2008 – 2010, Studie im Auftrag des Bundeskanzleramtes/Bundesministerin für Frauen und Öffentlichen Dienst, Vienna.

3. Crime reports and results of criminal proceedings under Criminal Code sections §§ 107, 107a, 107b and 201 handled by the Public Prosecutors of Vienna

The data in the tables below have been obtained through a query in the database of the Ministry of Justice19. They have already been published in our 2014 report on activities. However, as no more recent data have been made available and the results of criminal proceedings continue to be an issue of great interest, these data are presented again here.

Table 34: Crime reports and results of criminal proceedings under Criminal Code sections §§ 107, 107a, 107b and 201 handled by the Public Prosecutors of Vienna Section 107a; insistent pursuit, i.e. stalking 2009 % 2010 % 2011 % 2012 % 2013 % Disc./not tr./other20 366 28.4% 300 23.4% 279 24.3% 220 19.1% 239 23.3% Dismissal 608 47.2% 657 51.3% 578 50.4% 637 55.3% 519 50.6% Diversion 51 4.0% 50 3.9% 46 4.0% 61 5.3% 54 5.2% Charges brought 150 11.6% 161 12.6% 132 11.5% 133 11.5% 122 11.9% Acquittal 44 3.4% 40 3.2% 43 3.7% 34 3.0% 35 3.4% Conviction 70 5.4% 72 5.6% 70 6.1% 67 5.8% 57 5.6% Total 1 289 100% 1 280 100% 1 148 100% 1 152 100% 1 026 100% Section 107b; Continued exercise of violence 2009 % 2010 % 2011 % 2012 % 2013 % Disc./not tr./other 14 28.6% 19 6.8% 49 9.2% 68 9.4% 59 9.4% Dismissal 26 53.1% 144 51.2% 274 51.6% 405 56.0% 371 58.9% Diversion 0 0.0% 3 1.1% 7 1.3% 17 2.3% 17 2.7% Charges brought 6 12.2% 74 26.3% 115 21.7% 140 19.4% 102 16.2% Acquittal 3 6.1% 16 5.7% 37 7.0% 29 4.0% 29 4.6% Conviction 0 0.0% 25 8.9% 49 9.2% 64 8.9% 52 8.2% Total 49 100% 281 100% 531 100% 723 100% 630 100%

Section 201; rape 2009 % 2010 % 2011 % 2012 % 2013 % Disc./not tr./other 267 38.3% 289 37.3% 256 33.1% 185 29.2% 192 29.4% Dismissal 282 40.5% 318 41.0% 361 46.7% 325 51.3% 336 51.5% Diversion 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.3% 4 0.6% 1 0.2% Charges brought 79 11.3% 86 11.1% 77 9.9% 63 9.9% 63 9.7% Acquittal 17 2.4% 29 3.8% 22 2.8% 15 2.4% 13 2.0% Conviction 52 7.5% 53 6.8% 56 7.2% 42 6.6% 47 7.2% Total 697 100% 775 100% 774 100% 634 100% 652 100% Section 107; dangerous threat 2009 % 2010 % 2011 % 2012 % 2013 % Disc./not tr./other 1 399 24.0% 1 283 21.1% 1 118 18.5% 977 15.1% 1 053 16.7%

19 They were retrieved from the court proceedings automation of the Ministry of Justice and relate to the Public Prosecutors of Vienna; they were compiled by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna in May 2015. 20 Discontinuation of proceedings/not tried in current proceedings/other. 44

Dismissal 2 423 41.6% 2 824 46.4% 2 961 49.1% 3 522 54.5% 3 370 53.7% Diversion 141 2.4% 189 3.1% 192 3.2% 207 3.2% 174 2.8% Charges brought 998 17.1% 972 15.9% 945 15.7% 1 011 15.7% 936 14.9% Acquittal 306 5.2% 254 4.2% 261 4.3% 238 3.7% 223 3.6% Conviction 565 9.7% 565 9.3% 553 9.2% 504 7.8% 520 8.3% Total 5 832 100% 6 087 100% 6 030 100% 6 459 100% 6 276 100%

The table lists reports and criminal proceedings relating to dangerous threat (Criminal Code Section 107), insistent pursuit (Section 107a), continued exercise of violence (Section 107b) and rape (Section 201).

What deserves special attention and also gives rise to concern is the large number of proceedings dismissed or discontinued, as well as offences not tried in the current proceedings, compared to the small number of convictions. In 2013, the conviction rate was only between 5.6% and 8.3%! In contrast, between 50.6% and 58.9% of proceedings were dismissed.

It is not known what steps were taken in the case of the proceedings filed as discontinued, not tried in current proceedings or “other”. They also account for 9.4% to 29.4%.

As the available data have not been disaggregated by gender, it cannot be deduced from them how often women have experienced this form of violence. As far as stalking (section 107a, i.e. insistent pursuit) and rape are concerned, practical experience has definitely shown that women are disproportionately often affected by this type of offence.

Diagram 22: Results of criminal proceedings with regard to rape in 2013

Charges Acquittal Conviction brought 2.0% 7.2% 9.7%

Diversion Disc./not tr./other 0.2% 29.4%

Dismissal 51.5%

Diagram 23: Results of criminal proceedings with regard to stalking (insistent pursuit) in 2013

Acquittal Conviction Charges 3.4% 5.6% brought 11.9% Disc./not tr./other 23.3% Diversion 5.2%

Dismissal 50.6%

The diagrams reveal the small number of convictions in rape and stalking cases. In view of these figures it is a pity that recent endeavours to expand the provisions prohibiting sexual violence have often met with disapproval in the public discourse.

One must also bear in mind that acts of violence against women are offences that many women do not report anyway, out of fear and shame. According to a survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, even after the most serious incident of violence, only 33% of victims contacted the police or another institution (see European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2014: 24).

The problem of under-reporting is paralleled by a low conviction rate. This paints a horrendous picture of non-punishment of perpetrators who exert violence against women and their families, and calls for immediately action by political stakeholders. The Domestic Abuse Intervention Centre Vienna urgently requests the Government and Parliament to discuss this problem and to implement effective measures in order to raise the reporting rate and decrease the dismissal rate.

A positive point is that the Federal Ministry of Justice is already able to retrieve data on criminal proceedings from its new data collection system (the “court proceedings automation”), and to thus draw important conclusions. It is necessary to improve data saving routines and to break the data down by certain minimum criteria (gender, age, relationship between perpetrator and victim), and to be able to link the individual data.

 Investments in modern IT data acquisition systems are worthwhile. They also help save resources in data acquisition as the data, in contrast to present-day practice, need not be entered several times. The data systems to be established need to follow a comprehensive approach, i.e. overall solutions should be given priority to special solutions for individual areas of offences. This would, in fact, contribute to the modernisation of the entire criminal statistics and the judicial criminal statistics.  Modern data acquisition systems need to be configured in such a way that they can serve several purposes: documentation of proceedings and the work of court authorities and courts (which can also speed up the administration of proceedings and contribute to citizen-friendliness); documentation of the work of public prosecutors and the courts; management control; data analysis for the evaluation of measures taken; public relations activities, etc.

 Electronic data acquisition systems can also help accelerate proceedings and increase the effectiveness of protection measures (e.g. protection orders under criminal law for victims); which also means better, and more effective, police and court services for citizens.  Data acquisition systems must of course be in conformity with the relevant data protection laws and ensure that personal data are protected from publication. This is technologically feasible, and the best possible technological and legal solution for stakeholders needs to be found.

References European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) 2014: Violence against women: An EU-wide survey. Results at a glance, Vienna, p. 17, download: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-at-a-glance-oct14_en.pdf, 20 Sept. 2016

Abbreviations and glossary

Glossary

Barring order (BO) When the Federal Act on Protection Against Domestic Violence was introduced, the Security Police Act was amended to include barring orders and eviction orders as a protection against violence (Section 38a). Police officers are thus authorised to evict persons constituting a danger from their place of residence and its immediate surroundings and to prohibit their return for 14 days. Persons experiencing violence are thus protected from suffering further violence. If additional protection is required, an application for an interim injunction can be filed, which extends the barring order to a period of four weeks. If children aged under 14 are experiencing violence, the barring order may also include kindergartens, schools and other childcare institutions.

Interim injunction (II) Victims of violence can contact the competent district court of their place of residence and apply for an interim injunction to extend the protection period covered by the barring order. Under the Act on Enforcement Procedures, three types of interim injunction can be issued as a protection against violence: interim injunction under Section 382b (protection against violence in the home), Section 382e (general protection against violence) and Section 382g (protection against invasion of privacy).

Domestic violence/intimate partner violence/violence in intimate social relationships The terms “domestic violence” and “intimate partner violence” are used synonymously in this report. In certain cases, the term “violence in intimate social relationships” is used. Violence in intimate social relationships and domestic violence mostly affect women and girls, therefore the term “gender-based violence” is used as well. This type of violence can be exerted in different forms and includes physical, sexual and psychological violence, such as psychological terror, humiliation, prohibitions and isolation. Any exertion of power, abuse of power, injury or use of force is regarded as violence. Experiencing violence results in various types of limitation for those concerned. The 2011 Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence therefore underlines the importance of gender-sensitive political prevention measures: “Parties shall undertake to include a gender perspective in the implementation and evaluation of the impact of the provisions of this Convention and to promote and effectively implement policies of equality between women and men and the empowerment of women.” (Council of Europe 2011, Article 6).

Perpetrator The Austrian Security Police Act in fact uses the term “Gefährder” (endangerer) rather than “abuser” or “perpetrator”. Barring orders can be issued as a preventive measure, i.e. before a person has committed an offence. It is thus not legally correct at that point to refer to the person concerned as a “perpetrator”. For easier reading, the term “perpetrator” is nevertheless used in the English translation. As 90% of all perpetrators are men, they are referred to with male pronouns.

Violence prevention centres/intervention centres As a consequence of the Federal Act on Protection Against Violence, intervention centres were established for each province to support victims of violence after the issue of barring orders. With the exception of Vienna, all intervention centres have meanwhile been renamed “violence prevention centres”, and the Vorarlberg centre is called “violence protection centre”

The Istanbul Convention The term “Istanbul Convention” relates to the Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. It is the first legally binding convention in this field in Europe, and was signed in Istanbul; it is therefore referred to as the “Istanbul Convention”. It was ratified by Austria in 2013 and entered into force in August 2014.

MARAC The abbreviation MARAC means multi-agency risk assessment conference. The first multi-agency risk assessment conferences were established in the United Kingdom, and in Vienna, a MARAC model has been developed that is adapted to the legal situation in Austria.

Victim/client It is not easy to find terms for persons who have experienced violence and need help that do not “objectify” them. In this report, the term “victim” is used in order to emphasise that an offence has been committed against them. However, victims of violence do not by any means passively endure violence: on the contrary, they try to protect themselves against the violence in numerous ways and to overcome the violence. We use the term “client” in the sense that, as a victim support organisation, we are on the side of our clients, and act on their behalf and with their approval. This is a fundamental aspect of our approach to empowerment, which focuses on human rights and the needs of those experiencing violence.

Abbreviations

BAG-OTA federal working group for perpetrator work oriented towards protecting victims

BMI Federal Ministry of the Interior

BMBF Federal Ministry of Education and Women's Affairs

BMJ Federal Ministry of Justice

EO eviction order

II interim injunction

PS police station

SPG Security Police Act