The killing of 27-year-old Arlinda Zekaj in Peja has brought the role of institutions in preventing violence against women and the handling of reported cases back to the center of public debate. Alongside calls for institutional accountability, comments by Justice Minister Donika Gërvalla also sparked discussion after a short video clip from a parliamentary debate began circulating.
Activist Rron Gjinovci responded in a written statement, saying that at first he had accepted the interpretation of the video. He said that after the minister’s press conference, he realized that her remarks had been made in response to MP Time Kadriaj and had been presented without their full context.
Të lidhura
None found
According to Gjinovci’s account of Gërvalla’s clarification, the minister had not said that Arlinda Zekaj had complained to the government. Rather, she was responding to remarks by MP Kadriaj. Gjinovci said that reports omitting this part led the public to understand the statement differently.
The activist acknowledged that he, too, had misinterpreted the video and criticized the way the media had presented it. He said the focus had shifted away from the fundamental issues: institutional accountability and patriarchal attitudes.
“For several days, I took at face value the video in which Donika Gërvalla spoke tactlessly and said that, if Arlinda Zekaj had complained to the government, perhaps everything would not have ended so tragically for her. Given Gërvalla’s intellectual level, I could not understand how she could express herself so tactlessly, tastelessly and incoherently. Of course, I had only seen the video that was being shared, in which she appeared and could be heard saying those words,” Gjinovci wrote.
He said he understood only after the minister’s clarification that the video showed her response to a statement by Time Kadriaj. According to Gjinovci, the media had not explained this context to their audiences.
“The part of the debate between the minister and the MP was completely missing. I don’t know whether any media outlet provided the context. It was presented as if Donika Gërvalla had stood up right then to say things that made no sense. Hundreds and thousands of posts against her followed, with various insults, as well as dozens of statements from activists and public figures who, perhaps like me, did not know the context,” he said.
Gjinovci stressed, however, that clarifying the remarks should not shift attention away from the institutions’ obligation to account for cases of violence against women. He said calls for resignations, dismissals or punishment should be accompanied by clear reasons and meaningful reforms in the work of institutions.
As one necessary step, he proposed developing an institutional doctrine against patriarchy. According to the activist, it should establish the responsibility of people who assist or support domestic violence, or choose to remain silent in the face of it.
“The time has come for institutions themselves to fight patriarchal attitudes within their ranks. We need an anti-patriarchal institutional doctrine to protect women—that is, half the population—from violence. It should clearly distinguish between social relationships and criminal categories in institutional proceedings, particularly criminal proceedings. Mother, father, brother and sister are social relationships; in criminal proceedings, there are perpetrators and co-perpetrators of criminal offenses, people who fail to report them, and victims,” Gjinovci said.
He called for family members not to be exempted from responsibility when they support abusers, pressure victims or help commit criminal offenses. Their family relationship to the perpetrator, he said, should not affect how their role is assessed.
Gjinovci extended this call to neighbors as well. He argued that ongoing violence should not be treated as a private family matter and that it should be investigated whether others knew about it but failed to notify the police.
“A neighbor who hears for weeks, months or years that the man next door is beating his wife and does not notify the police should be treated as having committed the offense of failing to report it. When violence occurs in a family, anyone at or near the scene who does not notify the authorities—especially in apartment buildings—should be interviewed as a suspect in the failure to report a criminal offense. We must put an end to the primitive patriarchal mindset that one should not interfere in family matters,” he emphasized.
The police, prosecution and judiciary were also the focus of his criticism. Gjinovci called for officials to be held accountable if they fail to take violence cases seriously or are influenced by family or social ties to suspects.
He said institutional inaction and the treatment of violence as a private matter could create conditions for serious cases to happen again. For that reason, he called for concrete measures against officials who fail to carry out their duties.
“A prosecutor who considers it acceptable for a criminal to be supported by his family, or who delays proceedings because the man has photos with the powerful people in the village, will lead us very quickly to another killing. He must be removed,” Gjinovci wrote.
He also criticized some police officers who, he said, do not see the families of abusive men as people who may exert psychological pressure or become involved in other punishable acts.
Regarding the judiciary, Gjinovci expressed dissatisfaction with protective measures, which he said do not ensure sufficient safety for victims. In particular, he referred to protection orders and the two-meter distance requirement.
The activist urged ministers and the responsible institutions to amend the laws and review the guidelines followed by the police, courts and prosecution offices. The aim, he said, should be to prevent family ties from being used to excuse abusers’ behavior.
In conclusion, Gjinovci said the response to tragic cases cannot end with isolated suspensions and resignations. He called for a collective effort by society to fight patriarchy and ensure institutional accountability.
“If all of us, especially men, do not address the root of the problem—patriarchy—and the fact that power is in men’s hands, while accountability is absent because a system made up mostly of men and led by patriarchal thinking protects them—that is, protects us—then we will make no progress. If we do not demand mechanisms and institutional doctrines that genuinely work against patriarchy, and are satisfied with only suspensions and resignations after each case, we will once again end up mourning over videos and audio recordings from at least 155 other high-risk cases that the institutions were apparently aware of,” he concluded.
Gjinovci warned that without changes to institutional practices and society’s attitude toward domestic violence, the risk of such cases recurring will remain.
