The passive role played by victims in the processes: pressures on victims

Rape victims were mostly submissive in the “out of court settlements” and were often used to facilitate the release of offenders. This was rendered possible by pressure placed on them to participate in the negotiations or simply to withdraw their cases and/or recant. Many victims submitted to pressure due to their vulnerability but some resisted. The research study revealed that many victims found themselves in a state of vulnerability after the rape. This was caused by various factors, including hostile social attitudes, the fear of retaliation, a lack of financial resources and the absence of support from the justice system. The interviews revealed that many victim-survivors were marginalised in their

750

Prosecution case file RONPJ 009582/S1/15/NJ/NY.J.

751

Case file, C.18.

752

community and blamed for their rape. The victims were also in fear of being attacked again by their assailants. HAGURUKA files753 further revealed a number of rape victim- survivors complaining of death threats. In addition, many experienced a lack of financial resources to follow up their cases. All this combined with the absence of support from the criminal justice system (see Chapter 3), and other emotional effects of rape, put many victim-survivors in an additional state of vulnerability that facilitated the pressure put on them during the “out of court settlements.”

The pressure was mostly exerted by families and, in some instances, by prosecutors and local authorities who also intervened in the processes, directly or indirectly. The research revealed many instances of family pressures on victims to withdraw their complaint. Victims were subjected to pressure from offenders’ relatives and friends, or their own relatives (acting in complicity with offenders’ families). A number of elite interviewees acknowledged the passivity of victims in the “out of court settlements.” For example, PROSEC5 noted that:

…Families meet and make an agreement of reconciliation, and the woman writes a letter of forgiveness… it starts with close friends in both families, who influence other family members to do everything possible to avoid prosecution. The following exchange with SURVIVOR1 shows her own passivity in the settlement of her case:

After it happened... his parents came home to ask for forgiveness. My parents agreed and forgave them, then asked them to use parental authority so that their child never again does such a thing. His parents said that they would discipline him. Afterwards, they comforted me. His mother asked for forgiveness and I forgave her.

Question: If your parents had not forgiven them, what would you have done? Answer: I would not have forgiven him. I wish the judicial authorities continued the case and called me for follow up.

753

This exchange shows that SURVIVOR1 only acquiesced to her family’s decision, but it was not her choice to “forgive” the assailant.

Family pressure on victims can be particularly compelling in cases of domestic sexual violence. LAWYER6 gave an instance of rape by a stepfather where the victim was obliged by her mother to withdraw and recant:

In one case I remember, the complainant’s mother told her daughter not to continue accusing her husband otherwise she would expel her from home. When we went to court, the daughter changed her version and the court acquitted the defendant.

Pressures on victims may sometimes come from multiple sources and be very difficult to resist. For instance, SURVIVOR10 testified that she was pressured by both her own family, the offender’s family and other people in the community, to the point that she escaped her home and her neighbourhood:

After the incident, my father harassed me because I caused the arrest of the offender who was influential in the local community. He told me: ‘How do you dare cause the arrest of such an important person?’ He wanted to force me to withdraw the complaint and to say that the rape did not take place...I did not do it. I left home and stayed with the neighbours until I fled to Kigali...

The offender’s relatives told me to go to the police to testify that he did not rape me. I replied: ‘If I change, it is me who will be arrested. Is that what you want?’ That day I said yes. Soon after, I decided to leave the neighbourhood and went to Kigali to find a job. I escaped. Even my family did not know that I left. I was wanted by the offender’s family and I was very scared, which is the reason why I escaped. A local authority told me that if I did not prompt the release of the suspect I would never have peace…

He was in jail and people were criticising me in the neighbourhood.

This survivor was able to resist the pressures but the price was very high because she left school and her home and escaped to the capital city. Luckily, she was found by a

government institution754 which has been supporting and protecting her. Further evidence of pressure on victims was found in a number of other case files (see examples given in the sections below).

In addition to family pressure, the present study examined the role of neighbourhood leaders and local authorities in the out of court settlements. Analysis of a sample of files revealed that in many cases, they were the first to receive the victims, even before the police and medical examiners. They typically supported victims and helped them to reach the police station. They sometimes gave information to the police to assist investigations. Nevertheless, at a later stage, when the offender or his relatives approached them to request assistance in settling the matter out of court, they also sometimes cooperated. On the one hand, it is fair to appreciate that local authorities make efforts to reconcile people within the community. However, in matters of rape, they should be careful not to pre- empt criminal proceedings. For example, in the case of N.M.,755 a local authority went as far as to write a “certificate to stop the accusation”756 containing the following statement:

Considering the letter written by I.D [the complainant] on 1st August 2013, and after hearing her in person…I certify that I.D. withdraws her complaint of rape against N.M. and that she will never again accuse him for any reason.757

The document was signed by the complainant, four other people and the local leader. It is unclear how the complainant was invited to sign this letter, whether she was summoned by the local authority, or brought there by the offender or his family members. Such intervention by local authorities presents the potential of intimidating complainants who may feel obliged to respect the authority.

The interviews also uncovered allegations of pressure from prosecutors. Two survivors said that prosecutors pressured them to settle the matter out of court. SURVIVOR9 stated:

After I filed the complaint, I waited to be called by the prosecutor or the court. Once the prosecutor called me and asked if I forgave the offender. I answered that I never forgave him.

754

The name of the institution is concealed to protect anonymity of the interviewee.

755

Prosecution case file RONPJ 04378/S3/13/NR/UR.

756

Case file, C.27.

757

It is very dubious for the prosecutor to call the complainant only to ask her if she forgave the accused. It was revealed in Chapter 3 that rape victims are generally marginalised and that prosecutors almost never question them. This sudden interest in the complainant and the enquiry about forgiveness of the accused are questionable.

SURVIVOR5 also denounced the prosecutor in charge of her case in these terms: There was pressure. Yes. From the prosecutor’s side. The prosecutor strongly asked me if I wanted to settle the case out of court. It was not best for me to accept the offer. It was humiliating.

In addition to interview data, there were a few case files where the victims complained that they had been influenced by criminal justice authorities to withdraw their complaint.758 It is concerning that some criminal justice personnel may contribute to influencing victims to settle their issue out of court. This is an indication of a limited understanding of the problem, given that the outcome of these settlements is often to serve the interests of the offenders to the detriment of the victims (see below). For this reason, prosecutors should not encourage the practice.