Chapter VI Investigation prosecution procedural law and protective measures | Article 56 Measures of protection | Riga Revision 1.0

🚧 RIGA REVISION 1.0 [FIRST DRAFT]
Complete analysis using 8-Point Evaluation Framework with systematic gender asymmetry review.

ORIGINAL TEXT (Istanbul Convention, adopted May 11, 2011)

Article 56 – Measures of protection

1 Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to protect the rights and interests of victims, including their special needs as witnesses, at all stages of investigations and judicial proceedings, in particular by:

a providing for their protection, as well as that of their families and witnesses, from intimidation, retaliation and repeat victimisation;

b ensuring that victims are informed, at least in cases where the victims and the family might be in danger, when the perpetrator escapes or is released temporarily or definitively;

c informing them, under the conditions provided for by internal law, of their rights and the services at their disposal and the follow-up given to their complaint, the charges, the general progress of the investigation or proceedings, and their role therein, as well as the outcome of their case;

d enabling victims, in

a manner consistent with the procedural rules of internal law, to be heard, to supply evidence and have their views, needs and concerns presented, directly or through an intermediary, and considered;

e providing victims with appropriate support services so that their rights and interests are duly presented and taken into account;

f ensuring that measures may be adopted to protect the privacy and the image of the victim;

g ensuring that contact between victims and perpetrators within court and law enforcement agency premises is avoided where possible;

h providing victims with independent and competent interpreters when victims are parties to proceedings or when they are supplying evidence;

i enabling victims to testify, according to the rules provided by their internal law, in the courtroom without being present or at least without the presence of the alleged perpetrator, notably through the use of appropriate communication technologies, where available.

2 A child victim and child witness of violence against women and domestic violence shall be afforded, where appropriate, special protection measures taking into account the best interests of the child.
[Source: CETS No. 210, Article 56]

8-POINT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

Evaluation Criteria: This article is assessed using the following 8 criteria with proper citation of sources:

1. Definitions: Are terms clearly defined? Is a sound logical framework present? Which logical fallacies appear? Citations required.
2. Legal Clarity: Is the convention legally clear and understandable for enforcement? Can it be implemented consistently? Legal precedents cited.
3. Sovereignty Impact: Does this respect diverse legal systems and state sovereignty? International law sources cited.
4. Victim Protection: Does this genuinely enhance safety and protection for victims? Research evidence cited.
5. Bad Actor Exploitability: Can this be weaponized for repression, manipulation, or false accusations? Case studies cited.
6. Practical Feasibility: Can states actually implement this with realistic resources? Implementation data cited.
7. Unintended Consequences: What negative externalities might emerge? Policy analysis cited.
8. Cultural Sensitivity: Does this allow for legitimate cultural variation while maintaining core protections? Comparative studies cited.
🎓 CITATION REQUIREMENTS:
All analyses must include:

  • Academic sources (peer-reviewed journals, legal scholarship)
  • Primary sources (legal documents, official reports, case law)
  • Diverse perspectives (multiple ideological and cultural frameworks)
  • Implementation data from multiple jurisdictions
  • Expert opinions from various stakeholder groups

ISSUE IDENTIFICATION

Score: 0 (Negative-only scoring: each issue = -1 point)

v1.05 includes systematic gender asymmetry review

Issues Identified:

No significant textual issues identified in initial review.

PROPOSED REVISIONS

Revision principles: Clarity, consistency, cultural sensitivity, sovereignty respect, victim protection, exploitability reduction

Option A: [Gender-symmetric revision with rationale and sources]

Option B: [Alternative approach with rationale and sources]

Option C: [Minimalist revision with rationale and sources]

Each option includes: Legal precedents, implementation feasibility, cultural impact assessment, stakeholder perspectives

💭 STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES:
Consider views from: Victim advocacy groups, legal scholars, cultural/religious communities, implementation practitioners, state sovereignty advocates, human rights organizations, gender equality advocates, and others affected by this article.

About Riga Revision 1.0: Comprehensive article-by-article critique using the 8-Point Evaluation Framework, rigorous technical documentation standards, and multi-stakeholder perspectives. This is a FIRST DRAFT prepared with AI assistance. Version 2.0 and beyond will be prepared by human experts.

Resources: Evaluation Framework | 8 C’s of Technical Writing | All Articles

Disclaimer: This analysis represents critical examination from multiple perspectives and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources and qualified legal professionals.

Related Articles

Article 78 – Reservations

Article 78 – Reservations No reservation may be made in respect of any provision of this Convention, with the exceptions provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3. Any State or the European Union may, at the time of signature or when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, by a declaration addressed to…

Article 76 – Accession to the Convention

Article 76 – Accession to the Convention After the entry into force of this Convention, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe may, after consultation of the Parties to this Convention and obtaining their unanimous consent, invite any non-member State of the Council of Europe, which has not participated in the elaboration of…

Responses

dainis w michel