Before the tragic week of gender-based crimes, the new Equality Minister Ana Redondo stated that women often feel blamed more than they deserve for the harm they face, raising a critical question: will survivors be victimized again by what others did or failed to do? This framing invites a broader conversation about accountability across society and government institutions. The core issue is whether the voices of survivors are being heard and acted upon with urgency rather than dismissed or minimized by those in power.
Is anyone listening to these women after years of speaking out? Some say that the system has provided some support, while others insist that survivors are not believed unless they can present a highly visible injury report. The realities are more nuanced: fear of retaliation, economic dependence on abusive partners, learned helplessness, distorted thinking, immigration status, social exclusion, and disability all intersect to shape a survivor’s experience. Many report not only fear for themselves but concern for their children as well, complicating every decision and every moment of reporting or seeking help.
Long before the current Ombudsman raised concerns about vulnerability in the Administration of Justice, there were complaints about how justice system actors interpret and handle cases involving abuse. Allegations have been made that some lawyers and prosecutors fail to treat sensitive cases with the care they deserve, sometimes leaving survivors feeling unsafe or doubly victimized by the very processes meant to protect them. The call is for a justice system that honors the gravity of these experiences and responds with integrity, empathy, and timeliness.
For many years, women have described navigating a labyrinth where safety repeatedly collides with procedural obstacles. In some instances, perpetrators have faced acquittals, and for survivors, legal pathways can feel like dead ends. This reality pushes some toward separation or divorce to safeguard themselves, only to confront additional vulnerabilities in custody disputes that can stretch over long periods and affect their ability to rebuild their lives.
It is easier to point to individual mistakes than to acknowledge systemic gaps that persist. The public discussion should move beyond a single incident and examine how high-risk cases are identified and managed. Quick decisions made on isolated facts can overlook the broader history of violence, leaving victims under-protected. An explanation is needed for why restraining orders are issued so rarely or kept in place only briefly, and why forensic assessments sometimes emphasize physical injuries over the full spectrum of abuse. The goal is a justice system that sees prevention and gender perspective as essential, not optional. Survivors deserve protection, thorough investigations, and trials that proceed without unnecessary delays. Real solutions should come from crisis committees and policymakers who prioritize concrete action over empty talk.