In North Macedonia, gender-based violence and domestic violence remain major challenges. The main problems lie in the implementation of the law, the lack of genuine support for victims, and the inequalities faced by women from marginalized communities. Many cases remain unreported or are not pursued to the end, leaving victims exposed to repeated violence and severe consequences. On these and many other issues, Mollëkuqja spoke with Blerta Ahmedi, Professor of Criminal Law at the South East European University.
From your perspective, to what extent is the current legal framework in North Macedonia aligned with international standards for preventing and punishing gender-based violence, and where are the most problematic gaps?
“North Macedonia has made visible progress in normative terms, particularly following the ratification of the Istanbul Convention and the adoption of the Law on the Prevention and Protection from Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, as well as through the harmonization of the Criminal Code with the requirements of this Convention. From a formal standpoint, the legal framework is aligned with international standards and treats gender-based violence as a serious violation of human rights, providing for protective measures and clearly defined obligations for state institutions.
However, the main gaps emerge in terms of the real support provided to victims. One of the most serious shortcomings remains the lack of social and economic support for victims of domestic violence, who in the vast majority of cases are women. Many of them come from marginalized groups or have a low socio-economic status and are financially dependent on the perpetrator, which significantly hinders their ability to leave violent relationships.
Victims need concrete financial assistance, safe housing, support for childcare, and real opportunities for economic independence. The absence of these mechanisms leads to many cases of violence remaining unreported, not due to a lack of will, but because of the inability to survive independently. As a result, a high “dark figure” of unrecorded cases is created, as well as a “grey figure” of cases that are reported but not pursued or resolved by the competent institutions. In this sense, compliance with international standards often remains merely formal if it is not accompanied by effective social and economic support for victims.”
Do we have a problem with the legal norm itself, or with its implementation by the police, the prosecution, and the courts? Who bears the primary responsibility?
“Overall, the legal framework regulating domestic violence and gender-based violence is broadly constructed and provides for a clear punitive policy. However, the key problem at the level of the legal norm lies precisely in the regulation of the criminal offense of bodily injury when it is committed as domestic violence, gender-based violence, or violence against women, for which criminal prosecution depends on a proposal by the victim (Criminal Code, Article 130). This legal solution shifts the burden of initiating criminal proceedings onto the victim herself and represents a serious shortcoming that requires revision of the Criminal Code and the relevant procedural regulation.
In addition to this specific deficiency, the Criminal Code broadly criminalizes domestic violence and gender-based violence through a wide spectrum of criminal offenses, classified within crimes against life and body, against human and civil rights and freedoms, as well as against sexual freedom and morality. These include bodily injury and grievous bodily injury, stalking, sexual crimes, and the most extreme forms of violence, including murder as a result of domestic violence and the killing of women and girls as a result of gender-based violence (femicide), which are prosecuted ex officio and sanctioned with aggravated penalties.
According to the Criminal Procedure Code, when prosecution for a criminal offense depends on a proposal by the injured party, the public prosecutor cannot initiate criminal proceedings without such a proposal (Criminal Procedure Code, Article 22), as is the case with bodily injury committed as domestic or gender-based violence. In practice, when this is left to the will of victims, they in most cases do not initiate proceedings or withdraw due to fear, insecurity, economic dependence, responsibility for childcare, and the lack of social and institutional support. As a result, even when the police establish domestic violence and notify the prosecution, many cases remain merely recorded, without a judicial outcome. In such circumstances, criminal prosecution for bodily injury committed as domestic or gender-based violence should not depend on the victim’s initiative, but should allow for ex officio action by the prosecution, alongside the immediate activation of protective measures for the victim.”
How seriously do institutions treat cases of gender-based violence, especially when the victims are women from marginalized communities? Is there real equality before the law or institutional selectivity?
“In principle, institutions are obliged to treat all cases of gender-based violence equally and in accordance with the law. However, in practice, women from marginalized communities often find themselves in a more disadvantaged position due to objective factors affecting their access to justice. In many cases, these women are less informed about their rights and the protective mechanisms offered by the legal system, have a more pronounced economic dependence, and face family and social pressures that make reporting violence more difficult.
As a result of these circumstances, many cases are either not reported at all or are not pursued to the end, creating the impression of inequality in access to justice. Therefore, although equality before the law is formally guaranteed, its practical realization requires additional policies and supportive measures that take these objective differences into account and aim to empower women from marginalized communities, ensuring that protection from gender-based violence is truly equal for all.”
In practice, how effective are the legally prescribed protective measures for victims of violence, and are there cases where institutional failure has exposed them to repeated or even more severe violence, for example due to the lack of shelters?
“From a normative perspective, the law provides for a range of protective measures for victims of domestic and gender-based violence. These measures are important and form the basis of the institutional response to violence, especially in the initial stages after cases are reported.
However, in practice, the effectiveness of these measures is limited if they are not accompanied by concrete support mechanisms for victims. The absence or insufficient capacity of shelters, as well as the lack of sustainable programs for psychological, financial, and social support, often make it difficult for victims to truly remove themselves from violent situations. Without these forms of support, victims remain exposed to repeated violence and are often forced to return to unsafe environments due to economic dependence and the lack of real alternatives for independent survival.
Unfortunately, judicial practice in our country shows that there are cases in which women serve long prison sentences for acts committed in circumstances of self-defense or self-help, as a consequence of prolonged, systematic, and unreported violence by their partners. These cases are often linked to situations in which victims were not effectively protected by the system, had no access to support mechanisms, and saw no other way to end the physical and psychological violence against them. This represents a serious indicator of institutional failure to provide timely protection and genuine support for victims, resulting in severe criminal consequences for the very women who had long been victims of violence.”
Considering cases where institutions react only after public or media pressure, can we speak of an institutional culture that minimizes gender-based violence and often blames victims, and what concrete legal or structural changes would be urgent?
“In some cases, the impression is created that institutional responses become more visible only after public or media attention, which highlights the need for a more sustainable and equal approach to handling all cases of gender-based violence. Institutions must act proactively and consistently in every case, regardless of the level of public exposure, in order to avoid situations that create a sense of inequality or insecurity among victims.
Urgent changes should aim to strengthen standards of institutional response through the clear definition of obligations for ex officio action, continuous training for professionals, and more effective monitoring and accountability mechanisms. Such an approach would contribute not only to equal treatment of cases, but also to the prevention of ‘secondary victimization’, ensuring that victims’ interaction with state institutions does not become an additional source of stress or discouragement.”
Meanwhile, procedures have been initiated in the Assembly of North Macedonia for amendments and supplements to the Criminal Code, including changes related to gender-based and domestic violence, as well as further alignment with the Istanbul Convention.
