Persecution. Do we have effective tools to protect ourselves from it?
There is a common perception that only public, famous and popular figures are most likely to face persecution. However, this latent illegality is quite widespread in society and almost anyone can be a victim of stalking.
Persecutors can not only be those who have experienced an unhappy love or marriage, but also, for example, parents towards their children. According to the Lithuanian Centre for Human Rights, almost one in ten people will be persecuted in 2021. Persecution has long been beyond social status or gender. Social space and various media platforms are a particularly favourable and comfortable environment for persecution.
What should we do when such intense attention may prove to be not only unwanted, but also cause negative experiences, discomfort, and ultimately the risk of a real threat, and do we have effective legal means to protect ourselves from such actions?", says Karolina Laura Briliūtė, lawyer at AVOCAD .
Stalking is generally understood as repeated, unwanted behaviour directed at a specific person. The Criminal Code elaborates on the elements of this offence in more detail: stalking is understood as an act of systematically carrying out, against a person's express will and without lawful justification, a series of acts which have the effect of forcing the victim to change his or her place of residence or work or educational institution or have any other negative impact on his or her social life or emotional state.
Although the Criminal Code used to criminalize acts of stalking (systematic intimidation), the criminalisation of stalking as such is relatively recent, dating back to 2021. In 2024, a draft amendment to this article was registered, with a view to strengthening the liability and introducing imprisonment of up to three years as an alternative punishment. However, a glance at the explanatory memorandum of the amending law shows that the assumptions behind the need to increase liability are exclusively related to maintaining the consistency of the Penal Code, the norms, the sanctions for the commission of offences, but not to taking into account the widespread extent of persecution in society, the investigation and trial of such acts in the courts, and the corresponding assessment of the need to increase liability.
How is persecution treated in case law?
Since the amendment of the Criminal Code, the Court of First Instance has heard 5 cases in which people have been found guilty of persecution. In a number of cases, other offences have been committed in connection with persecution. In the light of these court decisions, it is clear that, in order to be found guilty, the person experiencing the unlawful acts should, at the time of their occurrence, keep a record of the acts in the following ways: 1) keep correspondence, calls, record calls if possible, take screenshots; 2) film and photograph unwanted visits; and 3) tell the people around them and their relatives as much as possible about the acts of persecution, in order to be able to confirm them in the pretrial investigation and in the courts if needed.
However, although there are court decisions finding individuals guilty of persecution, there are several important points to bear in mind: on the one hand, the court decisions reviewed do not reflect the reality that a significant number of individuals are victims of persecution and are afraid or avoid going to the pre-trial investigation authorities; on the other hand, criminal measures should only be seen as a last resort. It is therefore certain that there are a number of cases where pre-trial investigators refuse to open pre-trial investigations because of the possibility of prosecution. Thus, persons subjected to acts of persecution continue to be immune from such acts being used against them.
As a conditional alternative, the Protection from Domestic Violence Act provides for the possibility of obtaining a domestic violence protection order, which is designed to protect people at risk of violence if there is a sufficient risk that domestic violence may be used.
Under the scope of the law, acts of harassment could fall within the definition of violence (intentional mental exposure resulting in non-pecuniary damage). Such a warrant could, inter alia, order the person carrying out the stalking to stay away from a specified distance, to refrain from communication and to refrain from seeking contact. However, this option also has several drawbacks: firstly, such a warrant, even if issued, would only be issued for a period of 15 days; secondly, the warrant could only be issued to persons living in close proximity, which excludes persons who are not known to the applicant, or who are not well-known, and who are carrying out such unlawful acts.
Thus, an assessment of the legal framework for protection against persecution shows that it is not sufficient to fully protect those suffering from such acts. This is all the more so when the acts of victimisation are not only physical but also extend to social media and, moreover, go beyond the immediate environment. Often, such unlawful acts are not always sufficient to trigger a prosecution or criminal measures.
Given the prevalence of this act and in order to protect individuals, amendments to the Law on Protection against Domestic Violence could be initiated. Namely, by providing for additional cases in which a protection order against domestic violence could be issued, broadening the range of persons against whom it could be issued. Accordingly, it is likely that, once a warrant of this kind has been issued in respect of a particular person, and if the indications of persecution persist and a pre-trial investigation is requested and the case is brought before a court, the fact that a warrant has been issued would be seen as an additional circumstance in support of the persecutor's guilt.