Why has Latvia still not ratified the Istanbul Convention on preventing violence against women?

Seven years ago, Latvia signed, but still has not ratified, the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women. The case of the woman who was murdered on the Jēkabpils side of her ex-spouse, Leona Rusiņa, has prompted several non-governmental organizations to talk about it repeatedly, demanding the responsibility of politicians for the tragedy. However, as the “de facto” program of Latvian Television reports, several parties represented in the Saeima are not going to change their negative attitude towards the international agreement, which, apart from Latvia, has not been ratified by only five European Union (EU) member states – all from Central or Eastern Europe.

Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence – this is the full name of the Istanbul Convention. Four years ago, Egils Levits, still as a candidate for the position of the President of the Republic of Lithuania, answered in the negative in the debate on LTV whether he would invite the Saeima to ratify this intergovernmental agreement: “I think that the Istanbul Convention is very ideological, unnecessarily ideological. If Latvia seriously wants to tackle the problem of domestic violence, it can do so now. It could have been done a year ago, it can be done from Monday. There are corresponding measures, various legislative measures, various practical measures, which are also being carried out. For example, there are these places where the relevant persons can take shelter for a while – it has to be built. There is no need for some kind of convention, it just has to be done.”

Now, four years later, when society has been shaken by the murder of a woman in Jēkabpils, which was not prevented by the state authorities, Levits expresses almost the same phrases about the Istanbul Convention. When asked in LTV’s “Today’s Question” program whether the Saeima should now have supported the further development of the Istanbul Convention, the president said: “I think that all this should have been done and a law should have been adopted, where everything that the Istanbul Convention provides for is done… (.. ) The conventions themselves… There are, let’s say, such ideological issues, which in this case do not help. The question is if there are, for example, more institutions or places where a victim of abuse can take refuge – it is all possible to do, and it should be done.”

Ineta Ziemele, a judge of the Court of the European Union and former President of the Constitutional Court, does not agree with the fact that the Istanbul Convention contains any unclear ideological issues: “After reading this document correctly according to the method, I do not see any dangers or ideologies at this stage. Well, if we think so, then we can generally apply such designations to human rights as such. (..) And I am ready to discuss it and actually look for where are the stumbling blocks, with great pleasure. Not only with the President, but also with members of the Saeima.”

Only six of the EU member states have not ratified the Istanbul Convention – Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. On the other hand, from the composition of the Council of Europe, the convention is currently not valid in three more countries: Armenia, which has not ratified it; in Azerbaijan, which has not even signed it; and Turkey, which withdrew from the convention two years ago by decree of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

On behalf of the Latvian government, the Istanbul Convention was signed seven years ago by the then Minister of Welfare Jānis Reirs from “Vienotības”, because the Minister of Justice representing the National Union, Dzintars Rasnačs, opposed the signing of the document in every way. The Prime Minister at that time was Māris Kučinskis, representing the Union of Greens and Farmers (ZZS).

Now, as the Minister of the Interior, Kučinskis represents the United List, which is critical of the Istanbul Convention, in the government. The minister politically responsible for police work says that the adoption of the Istanbul Convention would not solve much: “The Istanbul Convention – under no circumstances should it be suggested that it is a standard. Wow, let’s accept it now, and everything will be over – no, it won’t be!”

Kučinskis disagrees with the statement that Latvia remains one of the last EU member states that has not ratified the convention: “Of course, Latvia is not one of the last, there are a whole series of countries, so it is an issue that most likely needs to be debated, and, if he is there, we will also talk. (..) Lithuania, Poland, Turkey, which are not European [Savienības] member state, but how [pilsētas] named after, and so on… Therefore, no document can be unequivocally evaluated as… There he talks about both good things and controversial things.”

The welfare ministers who came after Reir, namely Ramona Petraviča, who now represents the “Latvia First” party, and Gatis Eglītis, the current leader of the “Conservatives”, more or less openly criticized the Istanbul Convention. Now the ministry has again come under the control of “New Unity”, but Minister Evika Siliņa is aware that this Saeima might not have enough votes to ratify the convention, so she is not in a hurry to send it to the parliament: “But we, as the Ministry of Welfare, have started an evaluation of the norms, it could be called such compliance assessment of what is with our laws and the situation in Latvia in general. (..) Some time has really passed since it was signed, the Constitutional Court has recognized that the Istanbul Convention does not conflict with the Latvian Constitution, and we could really move forward with such an up-to-date wording. We also have to look at what has happened over the years, so we will also start the procedure that each ministry has done, what is happening…”

Meanwhile, in the Saeima, the “Progressives” faction, which is in opposition, proposed a vote at the end of April on the task for the government to immediately push the Istanbul Convention for ratification. The issue did not appear on the agenda yet, as the majority of the Saeima rejected it, but the party promises to raise the issue regularly. “This case in Jēkabpils, I hope, has opened the eyes of a lot of people and their conscience has also spoken. Because we see that it is also a matter of values. It’s not just about these cases, it’s about where we’re going. Do we go in the direction of Western European values, where the 37 countries that have already ratified, or do we stay in the other direction, where rather under the influence of propaganda we go [Ungārijas prezidenta Viktora] In Orban’s company or in the company of Russian propaganda,” says “Progressive” MP Leila Rasim.

Rasima adds – “if the politicians have driven themselves into that corner, then there is no need to dig deeper into that corner,” and calls on the parties that have previously scared their voters with the Istanbul Convention to start explaining to people what the document really means, first of all aiming it at National Union.

However, there is no lack of skeptics of the convention in other parties. For example, former Jēkabpils councilor Līga Kļaviņa (ZZS) abstained from the Saeima vote on the “Progressive” proposal, and explains it as follows: “I have personally read this document both in Latvian and in English, and I see really hidden underwater rocks there, why I also I can’t vote unequivocally “for”. (..) And this is the concern that also scares me, that in connection with the implementation of this Istanbul Convention, we will again definitely overexert ourselves by 250 percent and spend resources where they are not needed. The currently existing laws, as the professionals in our ZZS faction have convinced me, that by fully complying with these existing laws and regulations, absolutely everything could be done to protect this woman in Jēkabpils.”

Kļaviņa admits that the use of the term “gender” or “social gender” in the convention discourages her. Already seven years ago, several conservative organizations and the authors of the legal opinion commissioned by Rasnačs feared that the adoption of the Istanbul Convention would pave the way for same-sex marriage or even the introduction of polygamy in Latvia. Such and similar concerns have already been rejected several times by officials of the Council of Europe.

Meanwhile, the representative of the National Union, Jānis Dombrava, sees other risks in the convention. “For example, with regard to increasing the severity of the punishment committed against the relevant groups of society. There, the list is wide enough, it does not only affect women and children, but, for example, various minorities. What does it mean? If two people have a conflict, they are defeated, but in the end, one person will be sentenced to a much greater punishment just because, for example, he will have been involved in this conflict with a minority,” says the head of the National Security Commission of the Saeima.

Most likely, Dombrava has misunderstood something, because the convention provides for introducing stricter liability for offenses against a person who is vulnerable due to special circumstances, because perpetrators of violence often choose them as a target, knowing that it is unlikely that they will be able to defend themselves. Representatives of national or ethnic minorities are only one example in the list of vulnerable groups among pregnant women, persons with disabilities, children, the elderly, people from the countryside, the homeless and others, and the convention is not about a simple “battle”.

On the other hand, former Justice Minister Rasnačs’ concerns about the Istanbul Convention’s inconsistency with the Constitution, which he expressed seven years ago in his dissenting opinion on the government’s decision to sign the document, are not maintained by the current leadership of the Ministry of Justice. This is “de facto” confirmed by the parliamentary secretary of the ministry, Lauma Paegļkalnas: “The Constitutional Court has bindingly evaluated the compliance of the Istanbul Convention with both the Latvian legal system and the basic values ​​protected by the Latvian Constitution, precisely those fundamental values ​​that the public is often worried about when talking about the Istanbul Convention. (..) And the Constitutional Court has recognized that the Istanbul Convention in no way imposes a certain type of family or marriage model, or does not impose a certain type of understanding, thought or consciousness.”