re-victimization

Connecticut General Statutes § 54-86g provides special procedures to protect children under the age of twelve who are testifying in prosecutions for assault, sexual assault, or child abuse. At the request of either party, and with judicial approval, the child’s testimony may be taken in a separate room rather than in open court. The testimony must occur under the supervision of a judge and be televised or recorded for presentation to the jury. The statute authorizes several accommodations to reduce the child’s stress and risk of re-traumatization.

The prosecutor is appealing a ruling of not guilty in a sexual abuse case. The not guilty ruling had been based largely on inconsistencies between the initial testimony of the victim and her testimony at trial. This court found that, because the victim was not provided appropriate and comfortable conditions to give oral testimony (she was made to testify in front of a public audience and with the defendant in view), her testimony entailed a re-victimization, which influenced her ability to provide complete and accurate facts.

Law No. 14,245 of 22 November 2021 (Mariana Ferrer Law), amends the Brazilian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Law of Special Civil and Criminal Courts to protect victims and witnesses, especially in cases involving crimes against sexual dignity, during judicial proceedings.

Docket: 23508 Extraordinary appeal to review the sentence of one hundred months in prison for violent carnal access, Criminal Cassation Chamber, Supreme Court of Justice, Colombia (2009)

Judgment T-126/18 Colombian Commission of Jurists (CCJ) representing a protected person v. the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cundinamarca, Constitutional Court of Colombia (2018)

File: T- 6.326.145

The Sexual Violence Legislation Act 2021 (the “Amending Act”) makes changes to the Evidence Act 2006 to introduce greater protection to complainants in criminal proceedings involving offenses of a sexual nature (“sexual cases”) to avoid re-traumatization.

A police inspector contrived to have the fiance of a young girl locked up, and after doing so, went to her hotel room and raped her.

Mechling was convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery against his girlfriend. On appeal, it was argued that the lower court wrongfully allowed the admission of the victim’s statements regarding alleged battery. The State determined that Mechling was guilty of domestic battery through the testimony of others who heard the victim report the abuse, but she did not appear in court or testify at trial; therefore, there was no opportunity to cross-examine her.

In this case, the Delhi High Court addressed the manner in which child witnesses should be examined in trials involving sexual offenses. The Court stressed that extreme caution must be exercised to avoid re-traumatization or intimidation of the child. It held that questioning must be simple and clear, avoiding long or complex formulations that might confuse or unsettle the witness. The Court permitted reasonable breaks during testimony and suggested measures such as the use of a screen to shield the child from directly viewing the accused or the larger courtroom.

A former President of the Davao City Chamber of Commerce and Industry was accused of raping an employee in 1996. The case remained at the trial court level for eight years before the Regional Court of Davao City acquitted him in 2005. The Court scrutinized the victim’s testimony with “extreme caution,” and challenged her credibility because the sexual act itself seemed to be “improbable.” The Court declined to apply existing Filipino Supreme Court precedent by stating that the victim had many opportunities to escape her attacker.