1. Introduction
Recognised globally as a fundamental human right, which supports the enjoyment of other human rights (Flynn & Lawson 2013; Lima & Gomez 2020), access to justice is defined as ‘[t]he ability of people to seek and obtain a remedy through formal or informal institutions of justice, and in conformity with human rights standards’ (United Nations Development Programme 2005: 5). Hence, access to justice enables people to have their voices heard and to exercise their legal rights enshrined in national legislation and international human rights conventions. As critically important as this is, there is still little knowledge, understanding and research focussing on access to justice for disabled women in connection with the reporting, investigation and prosecution processes of gender-based violence. This is the case internationally as well as in Iceland, where the research reported here was conducted. This interdisciplinary research employs a human rights approach through combining disability studies, gender studies and disability law and policy, together with qualitative methods, to gain a comprehensive view of this topic. The emphasis on access to justice is of particular importance as very few studies have focused on this issue but, instead, examined the forms, frequencies and experiences of violence and access to support services (Barrett et al. 2009; Snæfríðar-Gunnarsdóttir et al. 2023; Traustadóttir & Snæfríðar-Gunnarsdóttir 2014; Woodin & Shah 2014). As noted by Flynn and Lawson (2013), barriers to justice encountered by disabled people tend to vary based on intersectional positions (such as class, gender, race/ethnicity, age, etc.) and types of impairments. Research shows that disabled women are at high risk of experiencing violence and encounter significant challenges in accessing justice and protection (McCulloch et al. 2021; McGowan & Elliott 2019; Wulandari 2018). Among frequent obstacles to accessing justice faced by disabled women are the failures to provide procedural and reasonable accommodations, problematic reporting procedures and intimidation by perpetrators and law enforcers (Committee on the Rights of People with Disabilities 2016, para 52; Wulandari 2018). Furthermore, as argued by McGowan and Elliott (2019), police inaction can place disabled women at greater risk of ongoing violence. Indeed, the accessibility and efficiency of justice services directly affect the way gender-based violence against disabled women is addressed, such as whether violence is reported, and how far cases proceed. Thus, understanding effective access to justice requires a focus not just on the outcome but also on the process and its accessibility and flexibility in adjusting to the needs of disabled women. This paper aims to deepen understanding and expand knowledge of the issues faced by disabled women by analysing the support and assistance provided by Rights Protection Officers (hereafter RPOs) (Is. Réttindagæslumaður) throughout the journey of accessing the justice system in Iceland.
As part of enabling access to justice, Article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) (2006), which Iceland ratified in 2016, requires that states ensure effective access to justice for disabled people on an equal basis with others through the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodations in all stages of legal proceedings. Flynn (2013) identified independent statutory advocacy schemes as an example of a type of procedural accommodation that States might adopt in the implementation of Article 13 of the CRPD. Reinforcing Flynn’s argument about the benefits and importance of such schemes, we identify the provision of RPOs as an example of these schemes, and a particularly important procedural accommodation for disabled women attempting to access justice in Iceland.
The RPOs are state-appointed public officials who work in the Right’s Protection Agency of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour and assist with the protection of rights of disabled people. Their provision forms part of the Act on the Protection of the Rights of Disabled Persons (PRDP) no 88/2011. Thus, as argued elsewhere (Gjecaj et al. 2023), this provision is a distinctive Icelandic innovation, due to it being statutory based, broader in scope and open to assist any disabled person. There are similar provisions in other countries but they seem to operate on a volunteer or non-statutory basis, or support only people with certain impairments (Flynn 2015). However, relatively little has been written about such schemes. Some research studies have written about RPO’s role in cases of intellectually disabled parents and child protection services (Stefánsdóttir, Sigurjónsdóttir, & Rice 2022; Sigurjónsdóttir & Rice 2023). In the findings of our recent publication (Gjecaj et al. 2023), where we analysed the process of a successful court case involving sexual violence against a disabled woman, the role of the RPO emerged as a particularly important procedural accommodation which was crucial in the success of the case. Building and expanding on this, we decided it was important to understand the ways in which the RPO system functions in supporting and guiding disabled women in accessing justice. Based on qualitative interview data with RPOs, other justice workers and disabled women, as well as an analysis of human rights law and Icelandic legislation, this paper provides a detailed examination of the role of RPOs in supporting and protecting the rights of disabled women when reporting and prosecuting violence.
The paper begins by outlining the human rights approach to disability, continues with a description of the research methodology, followed by a discussion of relevant Icelandic legal context. The findings describe the role and function of RPOs in facilitating effective access to justice for disabled women, discusses of some of their limitations and concludes by accounting for the disabled women’s experiences in relation to the RPO scheme.
2. Interdisciplinary Human Rights Approach
The interdisciplinary research presented here employs a human rights approach to gain a comprehensive view of access to justice for disabled women subjected to gender-based violence. The human rights approach is both driven and supported by the CRPD (O’Mahony & Quinn 2017), which introduced a paradigm shift towards a new understanding of disabled people (Degener 2016). This human rights treaty signalled a ‘new era for people with disabilities’ (Lawson 2007), recognising disabled people and explicitly reiterating their standing as rights holders (Kanter 2014). Thus, the Convention encapsulates a human rights perspective on disability and uniquely combines it with the social understanding of disability (Degener 2016; O’Mahony & Quinn 2017).
As summarised by Traustadóttir (2009: 5) the social-relational understanding of disability, often referred to as the social model, focusses on the interaction between the individual and the social context and emphasises social barriers that need to be removed. The human rights approach, as articulated in the CRPD, goes beyond the reach of the social approach, providing additional means of reaching the goal of full disability equality and fundamentally changing the position of disabled people from recipients of welfare to having entitlements (Degener 2016; Kanter 2014). Unlike the social model, the human rights model includes a clear recognition of the ‘different layers of identity’ (Degener 2016: 10), recognising the aggravated forms of discrimination often faced by disabled persons on the basis of the combination of disability with other factors (Degener, 2017). This means recognising the multiple discriminations resulting from the intersection of disability and gender (and possibly other factors) faced by disabled women, which can lead to violence and social injustice (Allen 2001). Accordingly, gender-based violence against disabled women is the outcome of the violation of the right to freedom from violence and access to justice as called for by CRPD’s Articles 6 on Women and Girls with Disabilities, Article 13 on Access to Justice, and Article 16 on Freedom from Exploitation, Violence and Abuse. Addressing gender-based violence against disabled women means that states that have ratified the CRPD need to pay particular attention to the intersection of gender and disability-specific measures required to ensure disabled women full enjoyment of their right to be free from violence and to access the justice system to report and or prosecute violence. Both articles 13 and 16 CRPD require states to adopt legislation and policies which ensure that disabled women get the adequate support needed to detect violence, and that their reports are taken seriously. More specifically, Article 13(1) requires that states ensure effective access to justice for disabled people on an equal basis with others through the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodations. The interpretation of article 13 that has been proffered by the CRPD Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities demonstrates that procedural accommodations include support for disabled women throughout the process of detecting, reporting, and prosecuting violence, including before and during court proceedings (Flynn 2018). An example of this is the provision of RPOs to assist disabled women with the protection of their rights, as will be outlined in this paper.
3. Methods
This research is part of the first author’s doctoral research, which focuses on access to justice for disabled women who have been subjected to gender-based violence in Iceland. The research was carried out between 2019 and 2022, with the aim to gain in-depth knowledge about the experiences of disabled women, as well as the experiences of those who supported them through detection, reporting, investigation, and prosecuting violence. The research employed three qualitative methods: semi-structured interviews, document analysis and field observation (Taylor et al. 2016). A total of 36 semi-structured interviews were carried out with three groups of participants: 16 interviews with disabled women with a range of different impairments (including physical, sensory and intellectual), age, gender identity, ethnic background, education, and socio-economic status; 15 interviews with professionals working in support frameworks focusing on disabled women who have been subjected to violence, and justice workers (e.g. RPOs, lawyers, police, prosecutors, judges), and five interviews with experts in the field of disability and violence. Although all the data collected informs our analysis, this paper focuses primarily on data regarding the role of RPOs as a new and innovative way to support disabled women throughout the justice system. This includes interviews with six RPOs, document analysis of relevant Icelandic legislation and guidelines, and international human rights treaties as well as information from field observations during court proceedings and visits to different victim/survivor support centres. Information is furthermore drawn from interviews with the professionals working within the justice system in the reporting/prosecuting structures as complimentary regarding RPO’s role in supporting disabled women to access the Icelandic justice system.
The participants were identified through formal and informal networks and recruited using purposive sampling, which allows for the selection of people who have experience of relevance to the study at hand (Creswell 2007). Alongside data collection, the grounded theory approach has been used to guide the analysis of the interview data (Charmaz 2014), which aims to generate theories, concepts and hypotheses from the data (Creswell 2007).
Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Iceland’s Scientific Ethics Committee in April 2020. The initial recruitment e-mails and conversations with participants included the provision of an information sheet and a consent form. The information sheet contained the aims and objectives of the study, voluntary participation, procedures for anonymity and confidentiality and the right to withdraw from the study, data storage and use of information. Consent forms were signed at the beginning of the interview or returned to the researcher by email. Interview questions were open-ended and exploratory in nature, investigating the experience of RPOs when supporting disabled women who have been subject to violence. The interviews also addressed issues such as RPO actions, support services, access to justice structures, provision of gender-appropriate, procedural, and reasonable accommodations, legislation, and public policies. Each interview lasted approximately 1–2 hours and was audio recorded with consent.
Some of the Icelandic legislation has an official English translation. The Icelandic legislation and other written materials for analysis, which were not in English, were translated into English by a research assistant with a law degree. Any quotes from these documents used in this paper are drawn from the English translations.
4. Relevant Icelandic Legal Context
This section outlines and discusses aspects of Icelandic law and guidelines relevant to the role of Rights Protection Officers and provides important contextual information for the more detailed discussion of their role and function.
4.1 Act on the Protection of the Rights of Disabled Persons, no. 88/2011 (PRDP Act 2011)
The purpose of this act, as set out in Article 1, is to ensure the protection of rights of disabled people and making sure they have appropriate support in safeguarding their rights. In doing so, the act requires the CRPD to be considered. The act provides for protection of rights through the set-up of a Rights Monitoring Unit within the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour, which is responsible for the supervision of the RPOs, alongside the administrative implementation of the Act, and carrying out educational, informational functions, and training to all involved in supporting and protecting the rights of disabled people (Art. 3).
The RPOs are public officials with knowledge and expertise of the disability field. As stated in Articles 4 and 5, RPOs have the task of monitoring the situation of disabled people and assisting them in all matters concerning their services, personal finances and rights issues in general. Thus, they are ideally placed to assist a disabled person in defending and accessing their rights. Furthermore, Article 6 states that anyone witnessing, hearing, or being told about an incident of right infringements of disabled people must report it to the RPOs and or to the police. When informed of a violation of the disabled person’s rights, RPOs are required to support them in seeking redress. The RPOs can also take up cases on their own initiative. If the RPO considers a case to be of such a nature, they may deliver to the party concerned instructions on how to remedy the situation, with a deadline by which these are to be complied with. If these remedial instructions are not acted upon, the RPO will help the disabled person to pursue further actions for example with a formal complaint. This act is the basis for the function of RPOs, however, it is not part of criminal procedure, and thus, not obligatory regarding access to justice for disabled people.
4.2. State Prosecutor’s guidelines and amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure
The Icelandic State Prosecutor issued in 2018 Guidelines on the handling of sexual offense cases involving disabled people (Ríkissaksóknari 2018). For present purposes, the most important guideline requires involving a RPO from the early stages of a given case. This is, in effect, a recommended procedural accommodation for the benefit of disabled people, which the CRPD obliges States parties such as Iceland to impose on those working in the justice system, alongside those providing other types of publicly available service and facility. As outlined above the role of RPOs is to support and assist disabled people to access and protect their rights. In doing so, RPOs can request reasonable and procedural accommodations to enable access to justice. The State Prosecution Guidelines include other recommendations that enhance the role and actions of the RPOs in supporting disabled people, especially during the reporting and police statement. The recommendations include to assess whether the impairment of the victim calls for ‘special measures’ to be taken by police, adapt the investigation to each individual case and individual victim, and respect the will and wishes of the person in question, among others (Ríkissaksóknari 2018). It must be emphasised, however, that these guidelines are not legally binding and are only for cases involving sexual violence.
After the data for this study were collected an amendment no. 61/2022 was made to the Code of Criminal Procedure no.88/2008 based on the Prosecutor’s guidelines. The main changes allows a disabled defendant or a witness to bring a qualified support person, while testifying before the police (Art 61) or before a court (Art. 113) and allows a judge to summon an expert to assist with questioning (Art. 123). Although RPOs are not mentioned directly in the Code of Criminal Procedure their role is made clear in the accompanying bill regarding the aforementioned articles.
5. Findings
This section presents the findings on the role and scope of RPOs. It describes how they become involved, their support and assistance at the different stages of the justice system, the limitations to their role, and provides an account of the experiences of the disabled women regarding the RPO scheme.
5.1 Establishing contact, consent and follow up actions
The RPOs role and function is described as falling under the CRPD’s Articles 12 on Legal Capacity and 13 on Access to Justice. This positions the RPOs to assist disabled women regarding supports and services and being equal before the law while respecting their will and preference. One RPO stated:
First of all, as a rights protection officer, my key role is supporting disabled people according to Articles 12 and 13 of the UN CRPD … in Article 13 we have the role to help people in the justice system, and to go through, for example, police interrogation … and when people go to court, to support them in having a say in the matter … so they have more equal access to the system than they did before.
All the RPOs provided examples of how the process took place, beginning with how their involvement was requested. Although this paper focuses solely on the RPOs’ role regarding disabled women who were victims of violence, it is important to note that RPOs also support disabled defendants. The RPOs do not have a strict procedure. Instead, there is a flexible structure in terms of how they work with cases.
The reporting process often begins when the disabled women, family, co-workers, organizations, police or other individuals contact the RPOs. RPOs can also initiate cases if they learn about or witness violations of rights. Hence, there are multiple ways the RPOs are contacted and involved. Once the contact is made, an RPO is assigned to the disabled woman. RPOs are located in different regions of the country and most often the disabled woman is assigned to an RPO within the region where she lives. Although RPOs are randomly assigned to a given case, the RPO’s expertise and gender, and the disabled person’s preference of RPO, are taken into consideration. In addition, during the first contact of an RPO with a disabled woman, she is informed that she has an option to have a woman RPO if she prefers, and she can also request a disabled RPO, or a non-disabled one, or not having an RPO involved at all. This suggests a strong sensitivity concerning gendered power relations in this process.
An important part of the assigning of the case involves the RPO seeking consent from the disabled person to be involved. Included in the process of gaining consent is explaining who the RPOs are, their role, and the type of supports the RPO could provide. In particular, the RPOs emphasise the need to have the consent from the violated person, as stated by one of the RPOs:
She [the woman who was violated] told her father and mother and they came to me and asked for help. I told them “we can talk but we always talk to the disabled person at the centre of the case”. As Rights Protection Officers we cannot do anything unless the disabled person agrees.
RPOs state that additional measures are taken in gaining consent from non-verbal women and in cases involving immigrant disabled women who do not speak Icelandic. In cases where the police initiate the contact with the RPOs, they use the same procedure of explaining their role in order to gain consent from the disabled woman to be involved in her case. One RPO said: ‘It’s the same process (if the police initiate the contact), because we always have to ask the individual if she wants to have us there’. Thus, if the police call them without having gained the disabled woman’s consent, the RPO then explains their role to her:
You have a right to have us here, but you can also deny having us here. You have your lawyer that will support you, but we will support you in this interview, and we can also assist you in getting the right support, for example psychological assistance, social assistance and so on and so forth.
The RPOs highlighted the importance of gaining the trust of the disabled person and their acceptance to assist them with the protection of their rights or in accessing the justice system.
After being assigned and having gained the consent of the disabled woman, six main categories can be identified regarding the role of RPOs: (1) follow-up actions after obtaining consent from the disabled women; (2) provision of information and advice to police before conducting the police statement; (3) informing and requesting the provision of procedural and reasonable accommodations throughout the process; (4) follow-on actions after the statement has been given to the police; (5) assistance when cases are dropped at the prosecution stage; and (6) support before and in court if the case is prosecuted. The categories reflect processes and structures influencing the support provided to the women by the RPOs, as well as aspects the RPOs considered important.
The RPOs constantly referred to and repeated the fact that they use different ways to accommodate the person seeking their help. An RPO explained:
It depends on what the person wants, maybe it goes straight to the police, maybe to counselling, maybe to the social services if you want to change your house or get some kind of help from them… and maybe it’ll go to Bjarkarhlíð [Family Justice Centre for survivors of violence]. It depends on the person … it’s their choice what to do.
Another RPO also highlighted that the most important role of the RPO is to support the disabled individual and listen to them and their needs. An example of the kind of support provided was described by one of the RPOs, who stated that after introducing their role and gaining consent from a disabled woman who had been sexually violated, the following process took place:
My job was to contact the local social services and asked them to provide the person with the sort of social support needed. Then we went to the police and had the statement in a special location in Reykjavik, that is not the police station, where the person got support from both, me and her family, and the staff of the [Centre for Survivors of Sexual Violence]. When the statement was over, I went over to the social services and explained the case, after asking the person if she wanted me to do that.
These follow-up actions are also provided by RPOs when the violence has first been reported to the police, which has then contacted the RPOs and asked them to be involved in the case, as it will be described next.
5.2 Before, during and after police statement
The RPOs are frequently a part of the case from the very beginning, before a case comes to the attention of the police and often support disabled women to report to the police. As the State Prosecutor’s Guidelines are not legally binding, it depends on each police officer whether to contact the RPOs or not. Thus, before Amendment no. 61/2022 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whether or not a disabled woman would be supported by an RPO could depend on the willingness of the individual police officer. An RPO stated:
The process usually starts with the person or the police. For example, in the case of violence the police contact us and asks us to be a part of the investigation, to support the individual in the interview, to evaluate and to provide knowledge about the individual, so they can receive the right support.
One of the police officers described the important role of RPOs in preparing to take the police statement from the disabled woman, in particular regarding advice on how to communicate with the disabled person, where to take the statement, what kinds of words to use, personal details that could help to break the ice, and so on. There is no protocol about what information the RPOs have to provide the police officers in a given case. However, RPOs find it crucial to inform police officers about specific important information regarding the individual characteristics and needs of each disabled woman. For example, one RPO informed the police officer in charge about the disabled woman needing extra time to think and express herself, and allow her to describe things in her own words. In the RPO’s words:
I knew she needed time to think about her answers; it didn’t mean that she doesn’t know the answer or that she doesn’t want to answer, just that she needs time. I knew that, so I could deliver that information both to the police and to the lawyer, to wait for her to finish and to encourage her to describe things with her own words.
Such advanced preparation highlights the role of RPOs in informing the police and requesting procedural and reasonable accommodations before and during the police statement to meet the needs of the disabled woman. Regardless of how a case went to the police, communication between RPOs and police involves exchanging and gathering information on each disabled woman and her needs for accommodations and supports in preparation for the police statement. A RPO explained:
When they [police] are investigating the case then it’s our job to make sure that the police do things in the way that is right for the person. And that can be maybe not going down to the police station, if you are afraid of the police, or ask them not to wear police uniform… We tell the person “you can choose what’s best for you”. We also take into account people who are autistic: what’s the lighting like, what’s the sound like, to make everything as easy as it can be for the person.
Thus, in addition to supporting disabled women to report the violence the RPOs also inform, advise, and request the needed reasonable accommodations to be provided by the police. The RPOs listed a number of different reasonable accommodations requested and provided depending on the case. This includes the use of different communication devices, sign language interpreters, and to conduct the interview at people’s homes or the RPO’s office. In cases involving disabled immigrants, interpreters have been used. The State Prosecution Guidelines recommend the provision of ‘special measures’ which can be interpreted as the provision of procedural and reasonable accommodations (Ríkissaksóknari 2018).
Moreover, during the police statement, the lawyer and the RPO can interfere if, as one lawyer said, ‘the victim is being pushed or not well treated, or asked questions that are leading or are insulting or are prejudiced’ to avoid secondary victimisation. The importance of the assistance, advice, exchange of information with RPOs, and the provision of accommodations, have been confirmed by all the interviewed police officers. Highlighting their importance, one police officer described the role of RPOs as facilitating communication and understanding: ‘they guarantee understanding both ways’. The police officer added that lawyers often lack disability-based knowledge and may find it difficult to understand their clients. The police officer therefore found it necessary to have a RPO involved to assist him in the communication with the disabled person. He also stated that the lawyers are usually quiet during the police statement and emphasised the importance of the RPO in such circumstances.
The lack of disability-based knowledge among lawyers was also highlighted by RPOs. An RPO commented that they sometimes advise the police what kind of lawyer is needed and, when possible, suggested a lawyer with knowledge about disability issues. This collaboration between some police and RPOs is important for the enhancement of disability rights, and as one police officer described it: ‘we are respecting each other’s field, in my opinion’.
After the police statement has been taken, the investigation stage begins. Parallel to the investigation, there are various follow-up actions that RPOs take in supporting the disabled women such as various support services, counselling, and safe housing.
5.3 Prosecution stage: Case sent back or dropped
Depending on the type of violence and the evidence, police can send cases directly to court or drop them at the investigation stage. Cases involving sexual violence are always sent to the prosecution. However, participants stated that most of these cases were dropped at the prosecution stage. This was due to various reasons, including lack of evidence and potential inconsistency of victim’s statement in court. One prosecutor explained that they ‘have to evaluate the case, is it likely or not likely to lead to a guilty verdict’. If ‘yes’, they send it to court. If not, they consider if there is more evidence that can make a difference to the outcome and if the answer is ‘no’, then they drop the case. In the prosecutor’s words:
I’m not allowed to take a case to court unless I think that I can prove it, so that’s what we are always thinking. We drop the case if we think it’s not strong enough. All victims of sexual offence cases that are dropped and not taken to court are invited to come and meet us, where we tell them that we are not taking the case further and explain the arguments. We go over it openly with them and give them the opportunity to ask questions.
The RPOs have also been invited to these kinds of meeting to support the disabled person. The possessive RPOs role is to make sure the process is accessible to the disabled woman, figuring out ways to convey key details needed in a case, but also to point out what has not been looked at during the investigation, which in turn could help to support the claim of the disabled woman. The prosecutor can decide to send the case back to police for further investigation or drop the case. If the woman doesn’t want to go further, the case is closed. But if she wants to appeal, the case is sent to the Directory of Public Prosecution for review.
As outlined in section 4.2, the State Prosecution Guidelines recommend the involvement of RPOs at investigation and prosecution stages of sexual violence cases involving disabled people (Ríkissaksóknari 2018). Hence, similar as with individual police officers, it depends on the prosecutor of a given case whether or not to involve the RPO if they decide to send the case back to police for more evidence, drop the case, or send it to court.
5.4 Before and in court
The RPOs play an important role in supporting disabled women and requesting procedural and reasonable accommodations before and in court. However, as there is no policy nor procedure in place, it depends on the disabled woman, her spokesperson (if required), and her lawyer whether to involve the RPO during the preparation for court. In cases where the RPO has been involved at the police stage, it is more likely that they continue to be involved in the preparation for court. In order to facilitate this, the lawyer has to inform the RPO about the case going to court, the date for court hearing, and invite the RPO to take part in the preparations. However, permission for the presence of RPOs in the court room during the hearing must be requested from the judge of the given case. An RPO stated: ‘The lawyer had to ask the judge if it was ok for me to be present in the courtroom because that’s not required by the law’. The PRDP Act and the State Prosecutor Guidelines (2018) are neither obligatory nor apply to court. Similar to the police and prosecutors, it is at the discretion of the individual judge to accept such a request and issue a permit for the RPO to be present in court. Yet again, the involvement of RPOs is dependent on individual justice workers.
Examples of the support provided to disabled women by RPOs before court include meeting with her and her lawyer before court to explain her rights, provide information about all persons involved, visiting the court room before the hearing and explaining where she, the judge, the lawyer and RPO will be sitting, informing her that the perpetrator will be removed from the courtroom during her statement and that she will have extra time to think and answer questions during the court hearing. One of the RPOs described how she prepared a disabled woman before appearing in court:
I have been in court with this one woman and I could be by her side. I also prepared her beforehand. We went to the court, I showed her around, I got permission to show her the place before she went there. So, here you will sit and here I will sit here, and the judges are there.
This RPO stressed the importance of visiting the court in advance, especially for autistic women. Similar to informing and advising the police in how to interact with the disabled women during the investigation stage, the RPOs can do the same with lawyers, prosecutors and judges during the court stage. The RPO explained:
I knew that she does long pauses when she talks … she needs time, and I knew that so I could deliver that information to the police and to the lawyer. Before the hearing, I told the judge and the attorneys that she will need her time to answer, and she needed time to think to answer.
Another RPO highlighted informing lawyers, prosecutors, and sometimes judges about different communication methods and needs of individual disabled women. In particular, if the woman does not use speech but uses an alternative form of communication.
Accommodations in court are usually welcomed but it depends on the judge. The RPOs also highlighted the increasing collaboration with judges and the potential improvement of access to justice if judges are informed and advised. This collaboration between judges and RPOs is crucial, particularly due to recent amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure No 88/2008 allowing for the court statement from a disabled victim to be held in “specially equipped premises” if it is considered more convenient (Art. 9, Amendment 61/2022). It has proven important to involve RPOs to advise on the suitable location depending on the needs of the disabled woman rather than act upon the request of the victim’s lawyer, who may not have disability-rights-based training and may request the use of the children’s courthouse facility (Is Barnahús). The RPOs regard it highly troubling when a place for children is considered as acceptable and advocate for an age-appropriate venue for adult disabled women. Thus, the role of RPOs is vital in enabling effective access to justice for disabled women, in requesting accommodations throughout the process of reporting and prosecuting violence, and in informing and advising justice workers why and how these accommodations need to be provided.
5.5 Limitations of RPOs
While the role and scope of possessive RPOs engagement is fairly broad and important in safeguarding disabled people’s rights, we also found some significant limitations. One of them being the lack of knowledge and awareness of the scope of their role. Asked about engaging RPOs, one police officer stated: ‘if it’s needed you are allowed to’. This highlights the lack of understanding the purpose of involving RPOs, which is first and foremost to support the disabled woman and then to advise and assist the police. The same misunderstanding also applies to many legal professionals. Another participant, a professional who was court appointed as a special judge and who had presided over many cases involving disabled women, expressed similar lack of awareness. He knew about the existence of RPOs and their role in supporting disabled people in relation to support services, but not their role regarding access to justice, and stated that he does not see the RPOs as helpful nor as part of the justice system. In his words:
I’m never convinced that they are helpful… they are not crucial in any way for the investigation or the proceedings or the final outcome. I don’t see their work or the influence of their work, it may well be there … I’m unsure. I don’t really see them as a part of the justice system.
Thus, the role of RPOs is neither fully known or understood by many justice workers nor by those who use their help and support. To amend this, disability-rights-based training and awareness needs to be provided by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour as outlined in Article 3 of the PRDP Act (2011) and required by CRPD Article 13 on Access to Justice. Such training is particularly urgent in order to inform justice workers about the new Amendment 61/2022 to the Criminal Procedures identifying RPOs as potential support person at police and court stages. Furthermore, lack of formal authority to follow-up on their recommendations is also a limitation to the RPO scheme. All the RPOs called for the need of their role to be strengthened. One RPO emphasised: ‘there’s more authority needed, yes, to the Rights Protection Officers’. Another RPO expressed the feeling of tied hands and powerlessness. Confirming the lack of authority:
We can request information and we can have conversations, and we can appeal positions and things like that, but we cannot demand change. We can suggest changes, but we cannot say: ‘You have to.’
This lack of authority also affects the role of RPOs when requesting procedural and reasonable accommodations to support disabled women and its provision by justice workers.
5.6 Disabled women’s experiences and RPOs
Initiatives such as the RPO scheme can be crucially important in assisting disabled women to report violence and navigate the justice system. This was reflected in the experience of the women in the study who reported the violence. They sought the assistance of an RPO and found their support helpful and even crucial in difficult situations and for a positive outcome. The women who had knowledge or direct experience of working with RPOs expressed a high-level of trust in them and stated that they trusted the RPOs rather than the police. One of the women with an intellectual disability said: ‘I would first go to the Rights Protection Officer because the police would never believe people with intellectual disability.’ Many of the women feared not being believed or listened to, or even being subjected to a second victimisation by the police. They viewed the RPOs as protecting them from negative or harmful treatment when going to the police to report the violence. One of the disabled women, whose case went through the entire justice system, identified the support and on-going assistance from an RPO as a key to her positive experience of the justice system and successful court case outcome. She highlighted feeling safe and secure throughout the process due to the support and guidance of the RPO. Another example of helpful support from an RPO was from a woman who was subjected to domestic violence by her partner. Her case was successfully solved by removing her partner from their home. The woman commented ‘I saved the situation … with the help of a realty good Rights Protection Officer’.
Although some of the disabled women had positive stories and experiences of RPOs, that was not true for all of them. In fact, many of them either did not know about the RPOs or they lacked information about their role and the scope of their work and, therefore, did not seek their assistance. Some did not know they could report the violence to the RPOs and some of them first learned about the existence of the RPOs at the outset of reporting the violence, when police or service professionals informed them. The disabled women who did have knowledge about the RPOs had usually learned about them from their involvement in disabled people’s organisations. This means that the women who did not engaged with the disability movement were less likely to know about RPOs and their roles. In addition, some of the women who lived outside the Reykjavík capital area had never heard about the RPOs. This echoes the limitations of the RPOs outlined above about the lack of awareness and understanding of RPOs and the scope of their work, not only among justice workers, but also among disabled women. This raises alarming concerns about the uneven access to justice for disabled women who have been subjected to violence.
6. Conclusion
This paper has analysed and highlighted the Rights Protection Officer scheme and identified it as a procedural accommodation in enabling effective access to justice for disabled women who have been subjected to gender-based violence in Iceland. Our conclusion is that the RPOs role can be crucial in supporting disabled women and protecting their rights when reporting and/or prosecuting violence. RPOs provide information on detecting violence and where to report it, assist with reporting and during the initial police statement, and request accessibility accommodations throughout the process. All of this is provided in agreement with the disabled woman in an on-going collaboration. In particular, we regard as essential the RPO’s assistance in seeking supports and reasonable accommodations to meet the needs of disabled women within the justice system. Simultaneously, RPOs can also play a key role in informing and advising other justice workers in how to facilitate and accommodate the needs of disabled women who report violence.
This study found that the involvement of RPOs often depended on the views of individual police, prosecutors and judges. This dependency on particular justice workers limits the role of RPOs, which, in turn, limits the access to justice for disabled women and results in uneven access to justice. Effective access to justice is needed throughout the process and not only at selected stages. RPO’s role needs to be strengthened and given more authority. Their role is not fully known or understood by many justice workers. Thus, disability-rights-based training and awareness on the role of RPOs should be provided in line with the PRDP act (2011) and CRPD’s article 13 on Access to Justice.
A main concern, however, is the fact that the RPO scheme is not well known among disabled women resulting in uneven access to justice. According to international research (Emerson & Llewellyn 2023) disabled women are among the most vulnerable victims of gender-based-violence and their path to justice fraught with significant and complex barriers (McCulloch et al. 2021; Flynn & Lawson 2013). Innovative schemes such as the RPOs, aiming at protecting their rights and support them in accessing the justice system, are crucial to overcome such barriers. However, our analysis of the experiences of disabled women with regard to the RPO scheme shows that it is not sufficient to establish innovative procedural accommodations. In order for them to make a difference, disabled women must have knowledge about them and find them accessible and trustworthy. Raising awareness about RPOs among disabled women would be a vital step in supporting more equal access to justice.
Funding Information
This research received funding from the European Union through Marie Curie Initial Training Network (Grant agreement 814249) DARE (Disability Advocacy Research in Europe). The research also received funding from the Icelandic Gender Equality Fund (Grant no. 230652-5501).
Competing Interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare.