sou · H6B369 · 2018-08-29 00:00:00 — För att vara effektivt bör ett sådant utreseförbud vara straffsanktionerat och medföra inskränkningar av möjligheten att erhålla och inneha pass. Vi föreslår därför vidare dels att den som för ut ett barn ur i strid med ett utreseförbud, eller främjar att ett barn reser utomlands i strid med ett sådant förbud, döms till böter eller fängelse i högst , dels att passhinder och skäl för passåterkallelse ska uppstå för ett barn som har meddelats ett reseförbud. De föreslagna ändring- arna av passlagen (1978:302) medför även att pass ska kunna om- händertas och spärras i dessa situationer. Enligt vår bedömning bör samma ordning som vi föreslår för vanliga pass gälla även för sådana tjänste- och diplomatpass som utfärdas av respektive främlingspass och resedokument vilka utfärdas av Migra- tionsverket. Det ska även nämnas att vi i samband med vår översyn av reglerna för pass och andra resehandlingar har funnit att åtgärder på detta område inte ensamt är tillräckliga för att motverka att barn förs utomlands i de aktuella syftena. När det gäller vuxna personer är en motsvarande ordning (som den vi föreslagit ska införas för barn) inte lika angelägen. Utred- ningen föreslår därför inte något utreseförbud eller ändringar av pass- reglerna m.m. för denna grupp. Våra bedömningar avseende myndigheternas samverkan, arbetsmetoder och ansvarsområden Lagstiftningen utgör en viktig del i arbetet med att förebygga och bekämpa hedersrelaterat våld och förtryck och dess olika uttrycks- former. Men problematiken kräver också andra åtgärder. Att identi- fiera och förebygga hedersrelaterat våld och förtryck är ett arbete som ankommer på många samhällsaktörer och inte bara de brotts- bekämpande myndigheterna. och arbetsmetoder m.m. kan i viss mån förbättras Det pågår ett utvecklingsarbete inom och Åklagar- myndigheten för att öka förutsättningarna för lagföring av äkten- skapstvång, vilseledande till tvångsäktenskapsresa och könsstymp- ning. Enligt utredningen bör detta arbete fortgå, bl.a. vad gäller framtagandet av ett gemensamt metodstöd. Det finns vidare anledning för att överväga att koncentrera ärenden om äktenskapstvång, vilseledande till tvångs- äktenskapsresa och könsstympning (liksom det föreslagna barnäkten- skapsbrottet) till ett mindre antal åklagarkammare för att handläggas av särskilt utsedda åklagare. Dessutom bör ett kompetensnätverk inrättas för de åklagare som handlägger dessa brott. Samverkan med andra myndigheter kan förbättras inom skolan, hälso- och sjukvården, samt utrikesförvaltningen Viktiga steg har tagits för att förbättra samverkan mellan berörda myndigheter när det gäller hedersrelaterat våld och förtryck. Det finns dock områden inom vilka det finns behov av förbättrad sam- verkan med andra myndigheter. Det handlar om skolan samt hälso- och sjukvården som är viktiga aktörer när det gäller att fånga upp att någon riskerar att utsättas för hedersrelaterat våld och förtryck. För att dessa ska förmedla information och även i övrigt samarbeta med andra myndigheter krävs det etablerade rutiner och kännedom om frågor som hedersrelaterat våld och förtryck aktualiserar. och bör därför inom ramen för sitt pågående arbete beakta behovet av tydliga samverkansrutiner avseende bl.a. risken för att elever, vårdsökande m.fl. förs utomlands för att ingå äkten- skap eller könsstympas. Samverkan och metodiken kan även förbättras när det gäller arbetet med att hjälpa personer som förts utomlands för att ingå barnäktenskap, tvångsäktenskap eller könsstympas. Det finns ett be- hov av en förbättrad övergripande samverkan mellan främst Utrikes- departementet och när det gäller frågor om nödställda som har förts utomlands för att t.ex. giftas bort eller könsstympas. Sådana internationella ärenden aktualiserar en rad övergripande frågor, såsom bl.a. ansvars- och arbetsfördelningen mellan socialtjänsterna och utrikesförvaltningen utifrån gällande regelverk. Vi bedömer därför att en övergripande samverkan i dessa frågor bör ske i fast och strukturerad form. Också när det gäller hanteringen av enskilda ärenden finns det utrymme för en förbättrad samverkan, mellan främst socialtjänst- erna och utrikesförvaltningen för att hjälpa den som förts utomlands hem till . Även om samarbetet ofta synes fungera väl före- kommer det att problem uppstår. Detta hänger främst ihop med att kunskaperna i dessa frågor varierar hos landets socialtjänster. Vi bedömer att därför bör ges i uppdrag att utveckla socialtjänsternas möjligheter att samverka effektivt med bl.a. utrikes- förvaltningen genom att ta fram metodstöd för hanteringen av dessa ärenden. När det gäller utrikesförvaltningens arbetsmetoder finns det en ordning som innebär att det på och utvalda ambassader finns tjänstemän vilka arbetar särskilt med kon- sulära ärenden om bl.a. barn- och tvångsäktenskap. Den ordningen bör permanentas. Ett sådant upplägg främjar ökad kompetens och förbättrade arbetsmetoder i ärenden om att återföra personer som är nödställda i utlandet av hedersrelaterade s.k. familjekonfliktsskäl. Vi bedömer därför att regeringens satsning inom familjekonfliktsområ- det för åren 2018–2020 bör utvärderas för att undersöka om en stadig- varande ordning med tjänstemän specialiserade inom frågor om bl.a. barn- och tvångsäktenskap samt könsstympning bör införas inom utrikesförvaltningen. I behovet av samverkan ligger också att ansvarsfördelningen mellan olika myndigheter måste vara tydlig och att frågor inte faller mellan stolarna. Vi har därför undersökt ansvarsfördelningen mellan Social- styrelsen, , i och Nationellt centrum för kvinnofrid. Även om det förekommit vissa mindre överlappningar mellan de berörda myndigheternas uppdrag synes det inte finnas några större problem vad gäller roll- eller ansvarsfördelningen myndigheterna emellan. Däremot finns det ett behov av en övergripande permanent resurs- eller kompetensfunktion med uppgift att på olika sätt främja arbetet mot hedersrelaterat våld och förtryck genom konkret stöd till berörda myndigheter, kommuner och landsting. Att närmare ange formerna för hur en sådan funktion bör organiseras omfattas inte av vårt uppdrag. Den frågan bör dock ses över. Vi bedömer därför att det finns ett behov av att den kommande utvärderingen av i läns uppdrag att an- svara för det Nationella kompetensteamet (vilken har planerats äga rum efter 2020) tidigareläggs. The purpose of our remit has been to examine whether there is a need to take measures to ensure stronger protection from child marriage, forced marriage and offences with honour motives. In this context, our remit has included: •evaluating the application of the penal provisions on coercion to marry and luring a person into travelling abroad for the purpose of a forced marriage; •examining to what extent honour motives are taken into account by the , prosecutors and courts; •considering whether a special ground for more severe penalties for offences with honour motives should be added to Chapter 29, Section 2 of the Swedish Penal Code and, irrespective of what conclusion we draw on the matter, presenting a proposal of how to frame such a provision; •following ongoing development work in the Swedish Authority and the Swedish Prosecution Authority and assessing whether additional measures need to be taken to increase the possibilities of taking legal proceedings for the offences of coercion to marry and luring a person into travelling abroad for the pur- pose of a forced marriage; •examining how the collaboration between the various authorities affected is functioning; and •analysing the possibilities of statistics of honour-related offences and, if judged possible, proposing how to produce such statistics. In supplementary terms of reference the Inquiry was given a broader remit to the effect that the Inquiry was also to analyse and consider the international dimension of forced marriage and genital mutilation. In particular, this part of the Inquiry has included: •analysing and considering the possibilities of introducing more effective tools for preventing and stopping people with ties to being forced to marry or to be subjected to genital muti- lation abroad, such as seizing, withdrawing and blocking pass- ports and issuing bans for the purpose of protection, as well as measures to force or facilitate a return of the person concerned to ; •analysing and considering how collaboration between judicial authorities, the social services, schools and the in matters concerning forced marriages with international aspects can be developed and how working methods can be im- proved; and •analysing and considering how working methods can be improved and collaboration developed between the relevant actors in matters concerning genital mutilation. Our remit has also included proposing legislative amendments when required. For more information about our terms of reference, see annexes 1 and 2. In we presented proposals for further restrictions of the possibilities of recognising child marriages entered into abroad in our interim report Utvidgat hinder mot erkännande av utländska barnäktenskap [Extended impediments to the recognition of child marriages entered into abroad] (SOU 2017:96). The Inquiry's assessments and proposals The term honour-related violence and oppression is now clearly established and can generally be described as being linked to honour norms, which build on strong patriarchal and heteronormative perceptions. Characteristic features are that the interest of the indi- vidual is held to be subordinate to that of the family; that the acts of the individual are held to affect the good name of the whole of the family; and that the sexuality of the individual is a matter for the whole of the family. These norms include the view that the repu- tation and good name of the family and of relatives are dependent on the chastity and virginity of female family members and their actual and alleged behaviour in relation to these norms. Forced marriage, child marriage and genital mutilation are different expressions of honour-related violence and oppression. A penal provision regarding child marriage should be introduced The risks of child marriages and relationships similar to marriage (or informal marriages) are many and well-known (see for example, section 4.4 of the Inquiry’s interim report, SOU 2017:96). Despite this view of marriage entered into with children, there is no separate penal provision that is aimed at the case where someone a child or is complicit in the marriage of a child. The question of whether to introduce a special child marriage offence has been considered on several occasions (see, for instance, SOU 2008:41 and SOU 2012:35). Child marriages are almost exclusively instances of parents or relatives forcing teenagers to get married or pressuring them to do so. Therefore child marriage is forced marriage to a great extent, and this means that the penal provisions on coercion to marry (Chapter 4, Section 4 c of the Penal Code) and luring a person into travelling abroad for the purpose of a forced marriage (Chapter 4, Section 4 d of the Penal Code) are also applicable to the vast majority of cases of child marriage. Against this background it is justifiable to ask whether criminalisation is reasonable. There are, however, several circumstances that can justify the introduction of a separate child marriage offence. The prime concern is the probative difficulties encountered more or less as rule in matters concerning coercion to marry and luring a person into travelling abroad for the purpose of a forced marriage with a child as the injured party (see, for example, the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Southern of in case B 1382-17). The prosecutor has to show that the child has been induced into entering a valid marriage or a relationship similar to marriage by some improper means; unlawful coercion or exploitation of the vulnerable situation of the child. It is not unusual for there to be pressure that is not punishable. Examples that can be mentioned are parents explaining that the family will be shamed if the child does not marry the person designated by the family or the child being excluded from the family group. It can also be the case that the young person does not dare to express their unwillingness to get married at all. The protection that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (the CRC) seeks to give children also includes protection from early marriages. The CRC requires States Parties to work to combat traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children (Article 24.3). Child marriage has been identified as one such practice. A criminalisation of child marriage is a clear signal from legislators that child marriage is not tolerated. A penal provision can have a deterrent effect on a person who is considering being an accomplice in a child marriage. This can strengthen families that need help to resist pressure from others to marry off a minor family member. The same can apply to a person who is being pressured by other people to marry a child. A penal provision can also strengthen children who do not want to get married and give them a tool to oppose the marriage. The overall assessment of the Inquiry is that child marriage should be criminalised and that there is a sufficiently large scope to be able to justify a penal provision. As regards the framing of a special penal provision, it is natural so start from the present regulation of coercion to marry but to remove the requirement of coercion or exploitation of a vulnerable situation in the case of offences directed at children. A design of that kind, where responsibility for the offence thus does not require that the perpetrator has used some improper means, is in line with the regulation of human trafficking, where there is no requirement of such means in the case of offences aimed at children. Another natural starting point is that primarily the person who bears the main responsibility for bringing about a child marriage should be punished. Whether the child itself consents to entering into the marriage is of no importance. It is therefore reasonable to punish the person who induces a child to enter into a marriage without requiring coercion or exploitation of a certain situation. In many cases the child’s custodian is also the person who has induced the child to enter into the marriage. But it is also possible to conceive of cases in which it is not possible to prove that the custodian induced the child to enter into the marriage or where their measures are not to be considered to be inducement. The Inquiry therefore proposes providing that a person who “permits” a child to enter into a marriage can be punished for a child marriage offence. The term “permits” is aimed at actions. Examples of actions that can include permitting are when a custodian gives their consent to the marriage or is present at a marriage ceremony. Therefore responsibility for a child marriage offence should be borne by the person who “induces” or “permits” the child to enter into a marriage. Child marriages that have been entered into after coercion or exploitation and that do, in fact, meet the requirements for coercion to marry should also be covered by the provision on child marriage offences. This solution is preferable since it leads to unified treat- ment of all coercion to marry offences aimed at children. Informal marriages shall also be covered by the provision (cf. Chap- ter 4, Section 4 c, second paragraph of the Penal Code). It actually appears to be the case that this is where the penal provision will have the greatest effect since it is no longer possible to enter into legally valid child marriages in and the proposed tightening of the rules concerning child marriages entered into abroad will have the consequence that child marriages entered into abroad will, in prin- ciple, never be recognised. The penalty proposed for the offence is imprisonment for at most four years. Special ground for more severe penalties for offences with honour motives should be introduced The provisions on sentencing are set out in Chapter 29 of the Penal Code. Present legislation already allows the existence of certain motives to have an impact on the assessment of an offence. This is because the intentions or motives of the accused should be taken into account in the assessment of penal value under Chapter 29, Section 1, second paragraph, first sentence of the Penal Code. So it is already possible, at present, to take account of honour motives in assessing penal value since the motive for an offence is itself a factor that expressly has to be taken into account. The study carried out as part of our investigation (see annex 3) also shows that the courts do make some use of honour motives as a basis for more severe penalties. Honour-related violence and oppression is a social problem and combating offences that have honour motives should be a priority. Against this background it is desirable for the seriousness of the criminal activity taking place in the name of honour to be reflected clearly and regularly in its penal value. Moreover, the individual victims of honour-related criminal activity suffer greatly. On account of the collective nature of this criminal activity, the crime victims, who are mainly young women and girls, may often suffer more than is otherwise the case. It is also important, in view of this, that there is scope to assign offences with honour motives a higher penal value than corresponding criminal activity that is not honour- related; having a special ground for more severe penalties for offences with honour motives can help to ensure this. Such a new ground for more severe penalties can also be seen as a step towards clarifying the particularly great vulnerability of these crime victims and towards strengthening the protection of rights of those affected. The fact that honour motives can already be taken into account at present within the wording of Chapter 29, Section 1 of the Penal Code should not be seen as an obstacle to the introduction of a new special ground for more severe penalties. The provision in Chapter 29, Section 1 of the Penal Code is expressed in general terms and covers a great variety of circumstances, leading to both more severe and more lenient treatment, so there can be uncertainty about the full significance of the fact that an offence has been committed with honour motives. If a new special ground for more severe penalties is introduced, there will be no doubt that the existence of honour motives is of significance in the assessment of penal value. A clari- fication of that kind can first and foremost contribute to the , prosecutors and courts giving more attention to honour motives – for example, through the securing of evidence about the motive in preliminary investigations and the imposition of more severe sanctions by the courts. The introduction of a special ground for more severe penalties for offences with honour motives also draws attention to the public institutions standpoint that criminal activity of that kind can never be accepted and ought to be able to influence the view that both society as a whole and certain groups have of criminal activity with honour motives. Against this background we propose adding a new point, point 9, to Chapter 29, Section 2 of the Penal Code to the effect that, in the assessment of penal value, particular consideration shall be given as an aggravating circumstance to whether a motive for the offence was to preserve or restore the honour of a person or of a family, relatives or some other similar group. The proposed text of the legislation is mainly linked to the definition of honour-related criminal activity that the and prosecutors use and is based on the character and purpose that such criminal activity possesses. However, the fact that the proposed wording refers to the term of honour (and connects, in doing so, to a view of honour that is not shared by most people) does not mean that the legislators are to be viewed as accepting the notion that honour can be an acceptable reason for violence and oppression. On the contrary, the message of the special ground for more severe penalties is that honour motives are not defensible and it expresses a clear rejection of those ideas about honour. The Inquiry has therefore chosen to use the term honour. If there is, nevertheless, a wish to stress that the public authorities do not give their backing to that meaning of the term honour, we have pro- vided alternative wording that starts from a perception of honour. As regards the question of the introduction of a special honour offence, i.e. special regulation in the Penal Code aimed at honour- related criminal activity, this falls outside our remit. Despite this we have considered the question briefly in our report and found that there are objections worthy of attention to the introduction of such a penal provision; to cover the whole range of the violence and oppression exercised in the name of honour the penal provision would, to begin with, need to be designed so broadly that it is questionable whether a special classification of an offence is the most suitable solution. Moreover, problems concerning scope and competition would arise since such a penal rule would risk overlapping with the gross violation of integrity offences. For the purpose of protection a ban on leaving the country should be introduced for children at risk of being taken abroad to enter into marriage or be subjected to genital mutilation Even though both forced marriage and genital mutilation have been criminalised and there is no requirement of dual criminality, there are instances of children with ties to being force to marry or being subjected to genital mutilation abroad. Numerous difficulties can be linked to this fact; for instance, public authorities often have small possibilities of helping a person who is outside . At present the possibilities of intervening with preventive measures appear to be limited. The rules in the Care of (1990:52), the coercive measures in penal procedure (such as bans under Chapter 25 of the Code of Judicial Procedure) and the possibility of issuing non-contact orders do mean that coercive measures can be applied in some cases. Despite these rules there are instances of children being taken abroad to be subjected to forced marriage or genital mutilation. One reason for this may be that none of the above-mentioned sets of regulations is specially designed to avert someone being taken out of for these purposes. With the exception of the Care of they are not aimed at persons in need of protection either, but are aimed at suspects or possible perpetrators. do the regulations for passports and other documents contain provisions to protect individuals in these situations. In this light, it is important to take measures so as to be able to prevent children being taken abroad to be forced to enter into marriage or undergo genital mutilation. Such measures should also cover children who are taken abroad to enter into a marriage that they appear to consent to; one reason is that it is generally harmful for children to marry and they should not be awarded the capacity to consent to the far-reaching consequences resulting from marriage. So there is a need to be able to restrict the possibility of travelling abroad for children at risk of being taken out of the country to enter into marriage or a relationship similar to marriage or to undergo genital mutilation. The Inquiry therefore proposes including a ban relating to these cases in the Care of . The proposal is mainly based on the current structure of that Act, which means that a ban will generally be issued by an administrative court but that in urgent cases a temporary ban can be issued by the municipal social welfare committee.