One of the main challenges of modern criminal justice systems consists of guaranteeing effective access to justice without turning the judicial process itself into a new source of suffering for the victim. Although the legal system recognizes rights and establishes protection mechanisms for those who have suffered domestic violence, violence against women, or sexual crimes, reality shows that, on numerous occasions, the criminal process ends up reproducing the same harm it intends to repair.
So-called revictimization or secondary victimization occurs when the victim, as a consequence of the intervention of the institutions in charge of investigating and prosecuting the crime, re-experiences the suffering derived from the events initially reported. It is not only an emotional harm, but an impact on their dignity, psychological stability, and trust in the justice system.
In practice, a victim of gender-based violence or a sexual crime usually recounts the events on multiple occasions. Initially, they do so before the police officers who receive the complaint; subsequently, before the prosecutor in charge of the investigation; then they are interviewed by forensic psychology professionals to determine the emotional aftermath derived from the assault; in some cases, they must appear before medical examiners; later, they must testify during the coercive measure hearing; further on, in the preliminary hearing, they narrate the events again; and finally, during the trial on the merits, they must once again face the questioning of the parties and testify before the court.
Each of these appearances forces the victim to relive deeply traumatic episodes. Remembering and verbalizing a sexual assault, a beating, or years of psychological violence does not constitute a simple procedural act; it represents an emotionally devastating exercise that can reactivate symptoms of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, fear, and even feelings of guilt or shame.
Added to this is a particularly harmful element: the obligation to physically encounter their aggressor at every stage of the process. The mere presence of the accused can generate fear, intimidation, and a profound psychological impact, especially when there is a history of violence, threats, or control over the victim. In many cases, the judicial process becomes a space where the victim relives the cycle of violence they were precisely seeking to overcome.
More Read
Paradoxically, while mental health professionals work to help the victim process the trauma and regain their emotional stability, the judicial system itself forces them, repeatedly, to reconstruct the events over and over again. This dynamic contradicts modern principles of comprehensive victim protection and significantly hinders their recovery process.
Various international instruments recognize the need to avoid revictimization. The United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power states that victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity, seeking to minimize the inconvenience resulting from their participation in the criminal process. Similarly, the Belém do Pará Convention imposes on States the duty to adopt effective measures to guarantee women a life free from violence, which also includes the actions of judicial institutions.
However, the criminal procedural legislation of many countries still responds to a traditional model focused exclusively on the immediacy of evidence, without developing sufficient mechanisms to emotionally protect those who have suffered especially traumatic crimes. The unnecessary repetition of testimony is often justified under the argument of the right to defense and the principle of contradiction, but both rights can coexist with procedural mechanisms that reduce the impact on the victim.
More Read
New procedural trends incorporate tools such as anticipated evidence without the need to demonstrate danger, urgency, or facts justifying that it could not be available in later stages. The use of audiovisual recordings of statements made with all procedural guarantees, unique interviews for vulnerable victims, special testimony rooms, videoconferences, and other modalities allow for the preservation of the right to defense without requiring the victim to indefinitely reproduce their traumatic experience.
It is evident that the protection of the defendant’s rights must not be built at the expense of the victim’s mental health. Due process requires a balance between the guarantees of all parties, but such balance disappears when a person must appear repeatedly to narrate the same assault before different officials and courts, facing again and again the person who allegedly attacked their physical, psychological, or sexual integrity.
A legislative reform is urgently needed to limit the unnecessary repetition of testimony from victims of domestic violence, violence against women, and sexual offenses. Efforts should be made to ensure that, once testimony has been obtained with all legal guarantees, it can be used in the various stages of the proceedings, avoiding new statements unless there is a strictly justified procedural necessity. Likewise, mechanisms that allow for remote appearance, the use of special protection rooms, and any other measure aimed at reducing direct contact between the victim and the aggressor must be strengthened.
A truly humane justice system cannot demand that a victim repeatedly demonstrate the pain they have already suffered. The search for truth and the protection of procedural guarantees must be harmonized with respect for human dignity and the right of every person to rebuild their life after having been a victim of violence. Legislating to prevent revictimization does not constitute a privilege for victims; it represents an obligation of the State and an indispensable condition for justice to cease being, in itself, another form of violence.
Mariela M. Ramos Ventura
Public Prosecutor
