# Repressed Memories (of Sexual Abuse Against Minors) and Statutes of Limitations in Europe: Status Quo and Possible Alternatives

Driek Deferme, Henry Otgaar, Olivier Dodier, André Körner, Ivan Mangiulli, Harald Merckelbach, Melanie Sauerland, Michele Panzavolta, Elizabeth F Loftus

► To cite this version:

Driek Deferme, Henry Otgaar, Olivier Dodier, André Körner, Ivan Mangiulli, et al. Repressed Memories (of Sexual Abuse Against Minors) and Statutes of Limitations in Europe: Status Quo and Possible Alternatives. Topics in cognitive science, 2024, 16 (4), pp.630-643. 10.1111/tops.12715. hal-05084702

HAL Id: hal-05084702

https://nantes-universite.hal.science/hal-05084702v1

Submitted on 28 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Topics in Cognitive Science 16 (2024) 630–643

© 2024 The Authors. *Topics in Cognitive Science* published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Cognitive Science Society.

ISSN: 1756-8765 online

DOI: 10.1111/tops.12715

This article is part of the topic "Beyond Repressed Memory: Current Alternative Solutions to the Controversy," Olivier Dodier, Ivan Mangiulli, and Henry Otgaar (Topic Editors).

# Repressed Memories (of Sexual Abuse Against Minors) and Statutes of Limitations in Europe: Status Quo and Possible Alternatives

Driek Deferme,ª Henry Otgaar,ª,ᵇ Olivier Dodier,ᶜ André Körner,ᵈ
Ivan Mangiulli,ª,ᵉ Harald Merckelbach,ᵇ Melanie Sauerland,ᵇ
Michele Panzavolta,ª Elizabeth F. Loftusf

Received 20 October 2022; received in revised form 28 April 2023; accepted 29 November 2023

## Abstract

One of the most heated debates in psychological science concerns the concept of repressed memory. We discuss how the debate on repressed memories continues to surface in legal settings, sometimes even to suggest avenues of legal reform. In the past years, several European countries have extended or abolished the statute of limitations for the prosecution of sexual crimes. Such statutes force legal actions (e.g., prosecution of sexual abuse) to be applied within a certain period of time. One of the reasons for the changes in statutes of limitations concerns the idea of repressed memory. We argue that from a psychological standpoint, these law reforms can be detrimental, particularly when they are done to endorse unfounded psychological theories. The validity of testimonies is compromised many years

Correspondence should be sent to Henry Otgaar, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6220 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. E-mail: henry.otgaar@maastrichtuniversity.nl, henry.otgaar@kuleuven.be

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

<footnote>ªFaculty of Law and Criminology, KU Leuven</footnote>

<footnote>ᵇFaculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University</footnote>

<footnote>ᶜDepartment of Psychology, Literature, Languages and History, Université de Nantes</footnote>

<footnote>ᵈHochschule für Gesundheit und Medizin, Medical School Berlin</footnote>

<footnote>ᵉDepartment of Education, Psychology, Communication, University of Bari Aldo Moro</footnote>

<footnote>fSchool of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine</footnote>
after the alleged facts, and abolishing the statute of limitations increases the chance that even more
(false) recovered memories of abuse might enter the courtroom. We propose solutions to these changes
such as establishing an independent expert committee evaluating claims of sexual abuse.

*Keywords:* Repressed memory; Repression; False memory; Statute of limitations; Trauma; Therapy; Expert witness; Reasonable time

# 1. Introduction

In legal cases, testimonies of alleged victims of sexual crimes are oftentimes diametrically
opposed to the statements of accused persons (Brainerd, Reyna, & Ceci, 2008). Victims report
being abused by the accused, while suspects deny any involvement and sometimes even come
up with an alternative account. The truth cannot always be established by means of forensic
technical evidence (e.g., DNA samples, genital lesions) as it exists in only a minority of cases,
often less than 10% (Bidrose & Goodman, 2000; Saint-Martin, Bouyssy, & O'Byrne, 2007).
Under these circumstances, legal decision-making is primarily based on testimonial records.
For a judge, assessing the veracity of the victims' and defendants' recollections of events
is not an easy task. Besides the risk of intentional lies, another problem is that memory is
malleable to external factors. For example, suggestive pressure can lead to false memories or
memories for non-experienced events (Loftus, 2005). In the worst-case scenario, false mem-
ories of sexual abuse might contribute to false accusations (e.g., Pope & Tabachnick, 1995)
and thus wrongful convictions (Brainerd & Reyna, 2005; Otgaar et al., 2019).

In the past decade, some European countries (e.g., Belgium, the Netherlands, France) have extended or abolished the statute of limitations for the prosecution of sexual crimes against minors. Statutes of limitations require legal actions (e.g., prosecution of sexual abuse) to be taken or in many continental countries even completed within a certain period of time. These statutes are in place to make sure that—among others—claims are put before the court at a time when the evidence necessary for their fair adjudication is likely to be available (Ernsdorff & Loftus, 1993; see also for civil claims for damages U.K. Supreme Court, Ministry of Defence v AB and others, March 14, 2012).

While there may be noble reasons behind the idea of extending the statute of limitations for sexual crimes, we will show why extending or abolishing statutes of limitations in sexual abuse cases can have negative effects in the courtroom from a memory perspective. Finally, we provide recommendations for alternative pathways for handling cases concerning alleged sexual abuse that happened long ago.

# 2. The controversial topic of repressed memory

False memories of sexual abuse are prominent in the scientific discussions on how traumatic experiences are remembered. In the 1990s, a fierce debate, sometimes referred to as the *memory wars* (Crews, 1995), revolved around the controversial topic of repressed memories or the idea that psychological trauma can lead to an unconscious banishment of
memories (e.g., Loftus & Ketcham, 1996). The debate unfolded when victims started filing
claims adducing repressed memories of sexual abuse that they (allegedly) had recovered only
following therapy treatment (Loftus, 1994). In many of these cases, patients did not have
recollections of the abuse before starting therapy but recovered such memories during the
course of treatment. Scholars argued that in these cases, therapists might have used highly
suggestive interventions, such as dream interpretation or recovered memory therapy that
might have fostered false memory formation (e.g., de Rivera, 2000; Mazzoni, Loftus, Seitz,
& Lynn, 1999; Otgaar et al., 2022). Indeed, studies show that when participants are told
that they experienced a fabricated event, about 30% of them fall prey to these suggestions
producing false autobiographical memories (Scoboria et al., 2017). Importantly, researchers
have succeeded in producing false memories in lab settings that share critical characteristics
with false memories of abuse such as that they can be shameful, negative, and painful
experiences (Otgaar et al., 2022).

Although recovered memories might in fact be therapy-induced false memories (see Lilienfeld, 2007; Otgaar et al., 2022), we want to stress that recovered memories can refer to authentic experiences. This is vital because the debate on repressed memory is sometimes so heated that unfounded and extreme views emerge such as that memory recovery processes are by definition dangerous (e.g., Lindsay & Briere, 1997). In fact, claims of repressed memory of sexual abuse can be explained by plausible alternative mechanisms, which are in line with the view that recovered memories can be about true experiences (see other papers in this special issue). Nonetheless, the idea that traumatic memories can be repressed stands in stark contrast with research showing that traumatic experiences are seldomly completely forgotten (Goldfarb, Goodman, Larson, Eisen, & Qin, 2019; McNally, 2005). Furthermore, claims of repressed memory are sometimes confused with strategies that victims use when experiencing a traumatic event. Specifically, victims of abuse often delay disclosure of the experience because of shame or because they are threatened by the perpetrator. Also, victims of abuse oftentimes do not want to think about the event (Goodman-Brown, Edelstein, Goodman, Jones, & Gordon, 2003). Importantly, these strategies are unrelated to the concept of repressed memory (e.g., McNally, 2005).

Memory experts generally agree that there is no convincing evidence for the existence of repressed memories (e.g., Patihis, Ho, Loftus, & Herrera, 2021). Despite overwhelming evidence showing that unconscious repressed memories are scientifically questionable, such theories retain popularity in academic, clinical, and legal settings (see for a discussion: Brewin, 2021; Otgaar et al., 2019; Otgaar et al., 2021). For instance, the concept of (unconscious) repressed memories—sometimes also called, dissociative amnesia—is oftentimes endorsed by clinicians (for a discussion on this matter, see Brand et al., 2018; Mangiulli, Otgaar, Jelicic, & Merckelbach, 2022), and it is often accepted by professionals from other disciplines (e.g., clinical psychologists, police), but also laypeople (Mangiulli, Jelicic, Patihis, & Otgaar, 2021; Otgaar et al., 2019; Sauerland & Otgaar, 2022). A strong belief in repressed memories can be perilous in clinical and legal settings. Possible consequences include the foundation of false memories of sexual abuse resulting in false accusations. Another and perhaps even more pervasive legal development concerns the extension or abolishment of the statute of limitations in cases concerning sexual crimes such as child sexual abuse.
**3. Statute of limitations and repressed memory**

When charges are filed sometime after the alleged crime, the statute of limitations might create a barrier to their adjudication. The statute of limitations dictates that legal actions can be pursued—and, in some countries, completed—only within a specific period of time, that normally starts to run at the time when the crime was committed. These limitations are introduced to prevent adjudication of controversies at a time when the crime has already faded into oblivion. These statutes also take into account that the passing of time creates a problem in the collection of reliable evidence. For example, scientific evidence becomes more difficult to obtain, potential eyewitnesses might no longer be alive, and memories of decades-old experiences might be untrustworthy (e.g., Ernsdorff & Loftus, 1993).

The tendency to extend the statutes of limitations for sexual crimes appears in several European countries (e.g., Belgium, the Netherlands, France).¹ Strengthening the interests of victims was a central aim of these reforms. Yet, the idea of repressed memories also emerges as one of the reasons (e.g., Belgium: Deferme & Otgaar, 2020; France: Dodier & Tomas, 2019; the Netherlands: Otgaar, De Ruiter, Howe, Hoetmer, & van Reekum, 2017). Study-ing the recent adaptations in statutes of limitations and the underlying motivations can offer an instructive lesson for legal psychologists because these developments demonstrate how psychological topics (e.g., repressed memory) may impact legal proceedings.

**4. Statute of limitations in Europe**

**4.1. Belgium**

In Belgium, the law of November 14, 2019, abolished the statute of limitations for serious sexual offenses against minors that has been in place since 1878.² Sexual offenses against minors are added to the list of imprescriptible offenses, that is, offenses for which statutes of limitations do not apply (art. 21bis Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure), next to genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The abolition of the statute of limita-tions converges with a legislative trend extending the limitation periods for sexual offenses and offenses committed against minors³ (Deferme & Otgaar, 2020; Meese, 2017), a trend also endorsed at the international level.⁴ The Belgian legislator did not raise fundamental questions about the pros and cons of extending statutory limitations. The legislative choice was nonetheless recently upheld by a decision of the Constitutional Court.⁵

Interestingly, the Belgian legislator had addressed the issue of statutes of limitations only a few years before (in 2017) and it had then decided not to abolish the statute of limitations completely (though it had extended the limitations significantly), despite already existing proposals in that direction. Although barring prosecutions may under some circumstances be unfair to victims, it was considered necessary at the time for the proper administration of justice in line with the traditional view on statutes of limitations that emphasizes legal pro-tection. At the same time, extralegal initiatives started to accommodate the needs of victims. For example, in 2017, a Sexual Abuse Arbitration Center (*Centrum voor Arbitrage inzake*
Seksueel Misbruik) was founded, mainly for sexual abuse cases relating to the Catholic Church. Their purpose was to acknowledge the suffering of victims of time-barred offenses and to provide financial compensation when the courts and tribunals could no longer hear the offenses due to the statute of limitations. Because of the previous legislative debate in the Belgian parliament, some concerns were expressed about the desirability of abolishing the statute of limitations in 2019.⁶

## 4.2. The Netherlands

The Netherlands made sexual offenses against minors imprescriptible in 2012 (Act of November 15, 2012, Article 70, paragraph 2, 2° of the Penal Code).⁷ This adaptation was in line with the previous prolongation of the statutes of limitations for crimes against minors in 2005 (Act of November 16, 2005). The Dutch legislature reasoned that time did not erase all traces and evidence of the crime and that modern techniques of tracing evidence, including audio and visual registration such as photo, film, or video and DNA material, restricted the negative influence of the passage of time on evidence.⁸ The motivation of the Dutch legislature was to strengthen the position of victims,⁹ whereas the traditional arguments in favor of the statute of limitations were weighed less strongly.¹⁰

Some legal scholars criticized this shift in legislation long before the abolition (Groenhuijsen, 2002). Specifically, the imprescriptibility of sexual crimes reflects a one-sided emphasis on the victim perspective in that it protects the interests of the victim in a disproportionate way relative to the potential costs for innocent suspects and offenders (cf. van Koppen & Malsch, 2001). In addition, the question arises to what extent victims actually benefit from the extension of the statute of limitations (Groenhuijsen, 2002). Recently, members of the Dutch parliament urged the government to install an independent investigative body to investigate claims of alleged victims of ritual abuse (e.g., Grapperhaus, 2021). Some of the claims concerned events that ostensibly happened many years ago and were recovered in therapy.

## 4.3. France

In France, the statute of limitations for sexual offenses against minors was extended to 20 years in 2004¹¹ and then to 30 years in 2018¹², starting from 18 years of age (i.e., age of majority in France).¹³ The legislator considered that with these extensions, victims would have more time to file a complaint.¹⁴ One reason why victims would need more time to file a complaint concerning the recognition of repressed traumatic memory as a plausible mechanism that would delay the report of sexual abuse¹⁵ (see Dodier & Tomas, 2019). Similar to the Dutch legislator, the law emphasized new technological developments (e.g., DNA) contributing to the gathering of evidence.¹⁶

Parliamentary debates around child sexual abuse were resumed in 2021 following a media case involving a revered professor and politician accused of repeated sexual abuse of his stepson that allegedly happened in the 1980s.¹⁷ Because the offense was statute barred,¹⁸ the issue of the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse was revived to the point that the French President and the Minister of Justice publicly expressed their interest in reforming
the laws on this issue. As a result, the statute of limitations for a first offense was extended to the expiration of the statute of limitations for the second offense.¹⁹,²⁰ This is a novel mechanism, which will make it possible to avoid impunity for sexual predators with a long criminal history who are sometimes only caught for the most recent offenses (Bonfils, 2021; Detraz, 2021).²¹

## 4.4. Summary

Some of the extensions that were adopted in certain countries (the Netherlands and France) emphasized technological changes. This entails that statutes of limitation in criminal law should no longer accommodate the problem of evidence because of technological advances in collecting evidence. With the help of DNA testing, for instance, a successful criminal prosecution is less dependent on (the reliability of) witness statements. However, a DNA match by itself is insufficient for a conviction. Additional evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, is still needed to link the DNA to the crime. However, this evidence is subjected to the passage of time. For sexual offenses, evidence remains difficult to secure, when a long period elapsed between the crime and its report by the victim. As a result, technical (DNA) evidence is often lacking.²² A long time lapse also complicates the collection of rebuttal evidence by the suspect. In sexual offenses involving minors, often only the victim's statement and the suspect's denial statement exist.²³ This frequently leads to one person's word against another's (but see Saunders, 2018, for a critical view of this statement).²⁴ Such situations emphasize the importance of psychological research into the reliability of memory in the legal system.

## 4.5. Legal and psychological perspective to extending or abolishing the statute of limitations

Tolling the statute of limitations may not have a direct impact on the way in which judges assess the guilt of the accused.²⁵ However, in the absence of statutes of limitations, judges have to decide on the merits of allegations on the basis of evidence that may be incomplete due to the lapse of time (European Court of Human Rights, hereinafter: ECtHR, October 22, 1996; Declercq, 2014). In Belgium, the legislator acknowledged the risk of weak evidence but decided that it was more important to lower the threshold for victims to file a complaint with the police.²⁶

The absence of statutes of limitations may lead to an increased importance of some evidentiary sources at the expense of others, this could potentially impair the ability to defend oneself. For example, greater importance might be placed on victims' memories of abuse that allegedly occurred long ago. In such cases, the diagnosis of dissociated amnesia would provide the court with a “carte blanche.” This is because the idea of repression cannot be falsified. The presence of repression cannot be tested because the idea is that traumatic memories are unconsciously stored and are inaccessible. The only way to test repressed memories is when they are recovered—but then they are not repressed anymore. We argue that it might be difficult for a court—especially with lay people—to assess the veracity of such a claim/testimony, even with the help of an expert witness.
From a psychological perspective, another problematic issue is how accurate memories for a traumatic event can be assessed after several decades have passed. Like all memories, they are subject to alterations with time (Kensinger & Ford, 2020). Furthermore, forgetting and the likelihood of distortions and creation of entire false memories can increase as time passes (Brainerd et al., 2008). This is because there would be more opportunities for a victim to be confronted with misinformation concerning the pertinent event. For example, a victim might talk with family or friends who ask suggestive questions, thereby fostering the creation of false memories (Dodier & Patihis, 2021; Loftus, 2005). Furthermore, people with mental health issues might seek help from a therapist who might suggest that their problems result from repressed memories of abuse that happened many years ago (e.g., Houben et al., 2021; Loftus, 1994; Otgaar et al., 2019). Thus, our knowledge about the effects of time passage on eyewitness and victim memory does not support the idea of extending statutes of limitations beyond the already existing long periods of limitations.

The abolition or extension of the statute of limitations has sometimes directly been motivated by problematic ideas about memory, such as repressed memory. Although it is true that victims often do not want to talk about the abuse, this is different from—and not comparable to—repressed memory (McNally, 2005). The problematic idea of repression can cause therapists to suggest to patients that they have been abused at some point in their childhood while they have no memory for it. Such suggestions, in turn, can lead to false memories of abuse (Otgaar et al., 2019).

# 5. Alternatives to the statute of limitations

## 5.1. Reasonable time²⁷

Next to the traditional statutes of limitations, the right to be tried within “reasonable time” (Article 6 § 1 European Convention of Human Rights) offers a tool for preventing excessive delay in the criminal proceedings. Independently of statutory bars, every person has the right to have their case dealt with within a reasonable period of time. The main differences with statutory bars are that the reasonable time requirement begins to run from the commencement of criminal proceedings (and not from the moment of the alleged offense), and it entails a case-by-case assessment based on the criteria established by the ECtHR in its case-law. When assessing the reasonable time period, the judges should in particular consider the complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused, and the conduct of the judicial authorities.

The protection of the reasonable period of time could nonetheless act as a buffer when abolishing the statute of limitations. The reasonable time requirement gives greater discretion to the courts than for limitation periods. Whereas the judge does not have to deal with all the specific circumstances of the case when dealing with the statute of limitations, this does not necessarily hold for the reasonable period of time. The judge can, therefore, motivate in greater depth why it is unreasonable to decide on a case given the lengthiness of the proceedings.
A core question when examining abuse cases in court is whether the position of victims would improve if the reasonable time safeguard replaces the statute of limitations or remains the only tool available against lengthy proceedings. Victims may have a greater understanding of the rejection of the criminal proceedings if the court explains in detail why the reasonable time limit was exceeded and which specific circumstances were taken into account. Victims could then feel less uneasy about the judicial system. The interest in reasonable time as a decision criterion is, therefore, growing (Deferme & Otgaar, 2020; Meese, 2006).

## 5.2. An independent committee as a counterweight

The introduction of an independent committee of experts that examines contentious allegations of abuse could address evidentiary problems stemming from extending or abolishing statutes of limitations. Such a committee has existed in the Netherlands since 1999. The so-called National Expert Group Special Abuse Cases (Landelijke Expertisegroep Bijzondere Zedenzaken—LEBZ; Nierop, van den Eshof, & Brandt, 2021) consists of psychologists (cognitive, forensic, investigative, clinical) with expertise in the validity of statements and memory in cases of abuse, and experienced police officers (sexual crime investigators). This committee advises the court and the Public Prosecution Service on the validity of statements. The committee provides advice concerning sexual abuse allegations on details if (1) the known facts about the alleged offense are ambiguous (e.g., it is unclear when the first statement about the alleged abuse occurred), (2) there is limited evidence available, and (3) it is unclear how the police should continue the investigation. The allegations brought to the committee oftentimes involve recovered memories of abuse, ritual abuse, and historic sexual abuse cases (Nierop et al., 2021). Although the advice of the LEBZ is not binding, public prosecutors virtually always follow its advice (Nierop et al., 2021).

Critics might argue that the introduction of an additional committee leads to more complexities and that such a committee is unnecessary. Indeed, judges themselves are already at liberty to appoint experts at their discretion. However, the choice and quality of such experts and how they write reports and testify in court can vary greatly and depend on the case. The advantage of a committee is that it consists of a permanent group of vetted experts with specific knowledge about statement validity and memory. This better guarantees the quality of the advice. Another advantage lies in the fact that the committee frequently becomes active at an early stage, namely at the investigative stage in an assisting role to the police and the public prosecution (for further information, see Nierop et al., 2021).

## 5.3. Legal psychologists and memory experts as expert witnesses

Another safeguard against prosecuting cases with invalid testimonies of abuse could be a recommendation (or even an obligation) for judges to consult legal psychologists or memory experts for assessing the validity of statements and testify about this evaluation through written or oral testimony. Introducing clear rules for when judges have to appoint expert witnesses would be helpful.
When legal psychologists serve as expert witnesses, they can assess the validity of testi-
monies by examining the context of the first disclosure and inspecting whether suggestive
tactics were used (Otgaar et al., 2017). Furthermore, they can provide advice on interview-
ing alleged victims of abuse that happened with empirically validated interview protocols
(Dodier & Otgaar, 2019). In short, legal psychologists might serve a critical role in evalu-
ating the validity of testimonies of alleged abuse. There is controversy about biases among
experts and their place in legal systems. This does not negate their added value, but it does
point to their selection and procedures for minimizing biases (Vredeveldt, Van Rosmalen, van
Koppen, Dror, & Otgaar, 2022).

**6. Concluding remarks**

We have illustrated that the extension and abolishment of the statute of limitations for sexual crimes is partly based on flawed assumptions when it is done solely to allow for the litigation of cases based on repressed memories. One assumption is that longer periods of possible prosecution can serve the victims. However, because the quality of evidence (i.e., eyewitness testimony) tends to decrease over time, it might well happen that it becomes impossible to reach a conviction, hence frustrating the victims' expectations. We argue that truly victim-oriented measures, such as honestly communicating the chances of prosecution and introducing specialized centers, such as the Sexual Abuse Arbitration Centre in Belgium, might ultimately serve victims in a better way.

The second assumption in favor of the extension and abolishment of the statute of limita-
tions often put forward is that traumatic memories of abuse can be repressed and accurately
remembered many years later and that, therefore, victims need more time to file a complaint.
Yet, there is no empirical evidence that repressed memory exists (e.g., McNally, 2005; Otgaar
et al., 2019; Piper, Lillevik, & Kritzer, 2008). Rather, the evidence that people remember
experienced trauma relatively accurately is overwhelming.

It is problematic that the disputed ideas of repression and dissociative amnesia have started
to make their way into European jurisdictions. Changes in statutes of limitations might make
it more likely for factfinders to encounter more cases in which claimants report events that
happened decades before and whose recollection they have just recovered. However, the
validity of such testimonies is likely to be compromised because memory fades over time,
while reliance on external post-event misleading information increases. Additionally, false
memories of abuse due to therapy or misinformation because of the lapse of time are more
likely to find their way into the courtroom. This could fuel the occurrence of wrongful
convictions.

We discussed several solutions to remedy this problem, for example, establishing an inde-
pendent expert committee that advises the court on the validity of testimonies. Their advice
can prevent the damaging consequences that the belief in repressed memories can exert and
help reduce the chances that innocent people are wrongfully convicted. We would like to
stress that our arguments in this paper should not necessarily be extended to all other criminal
activities law (e.g., homicide, genocide, and more generally crimes against humanity).
Recent changes or attempts to initiate a shift to be more victim-orientated or child-orientated have led to demanding challenges for forensic experts in the court. For example, by changing statutes of limitations, more weight will be placed on the assessment of testimonies of abuse of alleged victims. Instead of further prolongation or the gradual erosion of basic legal principles such as the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof principle, we call for better training of those involved in the legal system and related disciplines on issues such as the reliability of statements. Only in a fruitful exchange with lawyers, therapists, social workers, scientists, and forensic experts, victim protection will become a success.

## Acknowledgment

This paper was supported by a C1 and FWO Research Project grant awarded to Henry Otgaar.

## Notes

1. Although beyond the scope of the current article, in the Supporting Information, we have also discussed the statutes of limitations in Germany and Italy (see https://osf.io/3uj9d)

2. Law of November 14, 2019 amending the Law of April 17, 1878 on the preliminary title of the Code of Criminal Procedure as regard the abolition of the limitation period for serious sexual offenses against minors, Official Gazette December 20, 2019 (entry into force December 30, 2019). The text of the provision has recently been adjusted to the general reform of the sexual crimes (see Law March 21, 2022, Official Gazette March 30, 2022). The tenor of the provision remains however unchanged.

3. Starting with Law February 5, 2016, Official Gazette February 19, 2016.

4. See, for instance, art. 33 of the Lanzarote Convention (Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, October 25, 2007, CETS No. 201); art. 58 of the Istanbul Convention (Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, May 11, 2011, CETS No. 210).

5. Constitutional Court, June 9, 2022, nr. 76 (ECLI:BE:GHCC:2022:ARR.076).

6. Verslag namens de commissie [report on behalf of the committee], Parl. St. Kamer 2019-20, No 55-0439/003, 5-6.

7. Act of November 15, 2012 amending the Penal Code in connection with the adjustment of the rules governing the limitation period, Stb. 2012, 572, publication November 22, 2012.

8. Memorie van toelichting [explanatory memorandum], *Kamerstukken II* 2001-02, 28495/3, 3-4. (See also, Memorie van toelichting, *Kamerstukken II* 2010-11, 32.890/3, 4-7.)

9. Nota naar aanleiding van het verslag [note following report], *Kamerstukken II* 2004-05, 28.495/9, 6.
10 Memorie van toelichting [explanatory memorandum], *Kamerstukken II* 2001-02, 28.495/3, 5.

11 Act No. 2004-204 of March 9, 2004 adapting the justice system to changes in crime, JORF No. 59 of March 10, 2004, 4567.

12 Law No. 2018-703 of August 3, 2018 strengthening the fight against sexual and gender-based violence, JORF No. 0179 of August 5, 2018.

13 For a detailed overview: Etude d'impact de 19 mars 2018, *Project de loi renforçant la lutte contre les violences sexuelles et sexistes*, JUSD1805895L, 6-7.

14 Exposé des motifs, *Loi n° 2018-703 du 3 août 2018 renforçant la lutte contre les violences sexuelles et sexistes*, JUSD1805895L.

15 See http://www.justice.gouv.fr/bo/2018/20180928/JUSD1823892C.pdf

16 Etude d'impact de 19 mars 2018, *Project de loi renforçant la lutte contre les violences sexuelles et sexistes*, JUSD1805895L, 14.

17 https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2021/01/04/olivier-duhamel-l-inceste-et-les-enfants-du-silence_6065166_3224.html.

18 Although the accused person admitted committing the facts (https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2021/04/14/olivier-duhamel-reconnait-devant-la-police-des-faits-d-inceste-sur-son-beau-fils_6076805_3224.html), the statute of limitations resulted in the public prosecutor ultimately dropping the charges ("l'enquête classée sans suite"): https://www.lemonde.fr/police-justice/article/2021/06/14/affaire-duhamel-l-enquete-classee-sans-suite-pour-prescription_6084069_1653578.html.

19 More specifically art. 7 paragraph 3, art. 8 paragraph 3, and art. 9-2 Code de procédure pénale français.

20 Two conditions apply, namely that (1) the statute of limitations for the first offense has not expired when the second offense is committed and (2) the two offenses were committed by the same perpetrator. It is irrelevant that the different offenses concern different victims. The same applies for the second offense if a third offense occurs etc.

21 The French legislator also made some changes concerning the interruption of the statute of limitations. Interruption is a mechanism wherein certain taken actions will generally result in the renewal of the limitation period; in other words, the limitation period will start running anew.

22 This comment was also made by the Dutch Council of State: Advies Raad van State en reactie van de indieners, *Kamerstukken II* 2003-04, 28495/5, 6.

23 Memorie van toelichting, *Kamerstukken II* 2010-11, 32.890/3, 11.

24 For example, Court of appeal Amsterdam April 29, 2015, ECLI:NL:GHAMS: 2015:1597.

25 Memorie van Toelichting [explanatory memorandum], *Kamerstukken II* 2010-11, 32.890/3, 12.

26 Verslag namens de commissie [report on behalf of the committee], Parl. St. Kamer 2019-20, No 55-0439/003.

27 For more detail see the compilation by the European Court of Human Rights of their essential case law around this topic: https://rm.coe.int/echr-reasonable-time-
of-proceedings-compilation-of-case-law-of-the-eur/native/1680a20c21. (See further: Henzelin & Rordorf, 2014).

## References

Bidrose, S., & Goodman, G. S. (2000). Testimony and evidence: A scientific case study of memory for child sexual abuse. *Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14*(3), 197-213.

Bonfils, Ph. (2021). Protéger les mineurs des crimes et délits sexuels et de l'inceste. Présentation de la loi n° 2021-478 du 21 avril 2021. *Droit de la famille*, n° 6.

Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2005). *The science of false memory*. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Ceci, S. J. (2008). Developmental reversals in false memory: A review of data and theory. *Psychological Bulletin*, *134*(3), 343-382.

Brand, B. L., Dalenberg, C. J., Frewen, P. A., Loewenstein, R. J., Schielke, H. J., Brams, J. S., & Spiegel, D. (2018). Trauma-related dissociation is no fantasy: Addressing the errors of omission and commission in Merckelbach and Patihis (2018). *Psychological Injury and Law*, *11*(4), 377-393.

Brewin, C. R. (2021). Tilting at windmills: Why attacks on repression are misguided. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, *16*(2), 443-453.

Crews, F. (1995). *The memory wars: Freud's legacy in dispute*. London, England: Granta Books.

Declercq, R. (2014). *Beginselen van strafrechtspleging [Basics of criminal law]*. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Deferme, D., & Otgaar, H. (2020). Seksuele misdrijven op minderjarigen. Enkele kritische overwegingen over de onverjaarbaarheid [Sexual crimes to minors. Some critical reflections on statutes of limitations] *Nieuw Juridisch Weekblad*, *424*, 474-483.

Detraz, S. (2021). Le dédoublement des agressions sexuelles. Commentaire de certaines des dispositions de la loi du 21 avril 2021 visant à protéger les mineurs des crimes et délits sexuels et de l'inceste. *Droit pénal*, n°6.

Dodier, O., & Otgaar, H. (2019). The forensic and clinical relevance of evidence-based investigative interview methods in historical sexual abuse cases. *Clinical Psychological Science*, *7*(6), 1244-1248.

Dodier, O., & Patihis, L. (2021). Recovered memories of child abuse outside of therapy. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, *35*(2), 538-547.

Dodier, O., & Tomas, F. (2019). When psychological science fails to be heard: The lack of evidence-based arguments in a ministerial report on child sexual abuse. *Psychiatry, Psychology and Law*, *26*(3), 385-395.

de Rivera, J. (2000). Understanding persons who repudiate memories recovered in therapy. *Professional Psychology: Research and Practice*, *31*(4), 378-386.

Ernsdorff, G. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1993). Let sleeping memories lie–Words of caution about tolling the statute of limitations in cases of memory repression. *The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology*, *84*, 129-174.

Goldfarb, D., Goodman, G. S., Larson, R. P., Eisen, M. L., & Qin, J. (2019). Long-term memory in adults exposed to childhood violence: Remembering genital contact nearly 20 years later. *Clinical Psychological Science*, *7*(2), 381-396.

Goodman-Brown, T. B., Edelstein, R. S., Goodman, G. S., Jones, D. P., & Gordon, D. S. (2003). Why children tell: A model of children's disclosure of sexual abuse. *Child Abuse & Neglect*, *27*(5), 525-540.

Grapperhaus, F. B. J. (2021). Seksuele intimidatie en geweld kindermishandeling. *Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal*.

Groenhuijsen, M. (2002). Verlenging of afschaffing van verjaringstermijnen in het strafrecht. *Delikt En Delinkwent*, *8*, 813.

Henzelin, M., & Rordorf, H. (2014). When does the length of criminal proceedings become unreasonable according to the European Court of Human Rights? *New Journal of European Criminal Law*, *5*(1), 78-109.

Houben, S. T., Otgaar, H., Roelofs, J., Wessel, I., Patihis, L., & Merckelbach, H. (2021). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) practitioners' beliefs about memory. *Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice*, *8*(3), 258-273.
Kensinger, E. A., & Ford, J. H. (2020). Retrieval of emotional events from memory. *Annual Review of Psychology*, *71*, 251–272.

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2007). Psychological treatments that cause harm. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, *2*(1), 53–70.

Lindsay, D. S., & Briere, J. (1997). The controversy regarding recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse: Pitfalls, bridges, and future directions. *Journal of Interpersonal Violence*, *12*(5), 631–647.

Loftus, E. F. (1994). The repressed memory controversy. *American Psychologist*, *49*, 443–445.

Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. *Learning & Memory*, *12*(4), 361–366.

Loftus, E., & Ketcham, K. (1996). *The myth of repressed memory: False memories and allegations of sexual abuse*. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Mangiulli, I., Jelicic, M., Patihis, L., & Otgaar, H. (2021). Believing in dissociative amnesia relates to claiming it: A survey of people's experiences and beliefs about dissociative amnesia. *Memory*, *29*, 1362–1374.

Mangiulli, I., Otgaar, H., Jelicic, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2022). A critical review of case studies on dissociative amnesia. *Clinical Psychological Science*, *10*, 191–211.

Mazzoni, G. A., Loftus, E. F., Seitz, A., & Lynn, S. J. (1999). Changing beliefs and memories through dream interpretation. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, *13*(2), 125–144.

McNally, R. J. (2005). Debunking myths about trauma and memory. *The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry*, *50*(13), 817–822.

McNally, R. J. (2005). *Remembering trauma*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Meese, J. (2017). *De verjaring van de strafvordering uitgeklaard [Statute of limitations in law explained]*. Antwerp, Belgium: Intersentia.

Meese, J. (2006). *De duur van het strafproces [The duration of the criminal proceeding]*. Gent, Belgium: Larcier.

Nierop, N., van den Eshof, P., & Brandt, C. (2021). A practical approach to sexual abuse allegations: Netherlands Expert Committee for Equivocal Sexual Abuse Allegations. *Psychiatry, Psychology and Law*, *28*(6), 841–853.

Otgaar, H., De Ruiter, C., Howe, M. L., Hoetmer, L., & van Reekum, P. (2017). A case concerning children’s false memories of abuse: Recommendations regarding expert witness work. *Psychiatry, Psychology and Law*, *24*(3), 365–378.

Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Patihis, L., Merckelbach, H., Lynn, S. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Loftus, E. F. (2019). The return of the repressed: The persistent and problematic claims of long-forgotten trauma. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, *14*(6), 1072–1095.

Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Dodier, O., Lilienfeld, S. O., Loftus, E. F., Lynn, S. J., Merckelbach, H., & Patihis, L. (2021). Belief in unconscious repressed memory persists. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, *16*(2), 454–460.

Otgaar, H., Curci, A., Mangiulli, I., Battista, F., Rizzotti, E., & Sartori, G. (2022). A court ruled case on therapy-induced false memories. *Journal of Forensic Science*, *51*(1), 1–8.

Patihis, L., Ho, L. Y., Loftus, E. F., & Herrera, M. E. (2021). Memory experts’ beliefs about repressed memory. *Memory*, *29*(6), 823–828.

Piper, A., Lillevik, L., & Kritzer, R. (2008). What's wrong with believing in repression?: A review for legal professionals. *Psychology, Public Policy, and Law*, *14*(3), 223.

Pope, K. S., & Tabachnick, B. G. (1995). Recovered memories of abuse among therapy patients: A national survey. *Ethics & Behavior*, *5*(3), 237–248.

Saint-Martin, P., Bouyssy, M., & O'Byrne, P. (2007). Analysis of 756 cases of sexual assault in Tours (France): medico-legal findings and judicial outcomes. *Medicine, Science and the Law*, *47*, 315–324.

Saunders, C. L. (2018). Rape as 'one person's word against another's': Challenging the conventional wisdom. *The International Journal of Evidence & Proof*, *22*(2), 161–182

Sauerland, M., & Otgaar, H. (2022). Teaching psychology students to change (or correct) controversial beliefs about memory works. *Memory*, *30*(6), 753–762.

Scoboria, A., Wade, K. A., Lindsay, D. S., Azad, T., Strange, D., Ost, J., & Hyman, I. E. (2017). A mega-analysis of memory reports from eight peer-reviewed false memory implantation studies. *Memory*, *25*(2), 146–163.
Van Koppen, P.J., & Malsch, M. (2001). De verjaringstermijn moet blijven [The statutes of limitations should stay]. *Nederlands Juristenblad*, **76**, 525.

Vredeveldt, A., Van Rosmalen, E., van Koppen, P., Dror, I. E., & Otgaar, H. (2022). Legal psychologists as experts: Guidelines for minimizing bias. *Psychology, Crime and Law*. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2114476