Zakon je veoma važan, ali neke prakse moraju da se menjaju
Foto: S. Djordjević
Zakon je veoma važan, ali neke prakse moraju da se menjaju
novembar 27 2017
Zakon o sprečavanju nasilja u porodici stupio je na snagu u junu ove godine. Za Medijski istraživački centar o Zakonu priča Nevena Petrušić, profesorka Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu, bivša poverenica za zaštitu ravnopravnosti.
MIC: Prošlo je nekoliko meseci od primene Zakona o sprečavanju nasilja u porodici. Kako Vama izgleda ovaj zakon?
Ja mislim da je bilo važno donošenje ovog Zakona. On je zapravo tu da učini onaj neophodan korak na koji se ukazivalo svih ovih godina, a to je da poboljša to koordinisano delovanje institucija sistema.
Prof. Nevena Petrušić
Pre ovog Zakona, kod nas je postojao jedan sistem zaštite još 2002. godine, kada je nasilje u porodici inkrisminisano kao posebno krivično delo, pa je 2005.donet porodični zakon, on je ustanovio te porodično pravne mere zaštite od nasilja u porodici. Kasnije je ustanovljen sistem koji podrazumeva kako se deluje, mislim na opšti protokol, i na posebne protokole, ali zapravo sve to nije bilo dovoljno da mi na zakonskom nivou imamo jednu ustanovljenu proceduru, i ovaj Zakon tu jednu prazninu popunjava. S druge strane, ono što je posebno važno je da nije bilo valjanih instrumenata dovoljno efikasnih do donošenja ovog zakona koji bi omogućili da se deluje pravovremeno. Dakle da onda kada ne samo da je nasilje učinjeno, nego kada se proceni da postoji opasnost od nasilja, da se donesu određene mere poput hitne mere udaljenja uz mogućnost da ona bude produžena. Dakle, to je taj jedan, čini se prvi korak, da bi žrtva s jedne strane bila zaštićena od ponavljanja nasilja ili od njegovog ispoljavanja, a da se s druge strane otvori jedan vremenski period kada se mogu preduzeti sve te mere koje inače postoje u našem zakonu. Ja mislim da je Zakon o sprečavanju nasilja u porodici rezultat nastojanja države da implementira standarde propisane Konvencijom o sprečavanju nasilja nad ženama i rodno zasnovanom nasilju, tzv. Istanbulskom Konvencijom koju je država ratifikovala i preuzela značajne obaveze. Ali isto mislim da je ovaj Zakon došao u vreme kada smo se kao društvo suočili sa činjenicom koliko je mnogo ubijenih žena. To nisu žene koje su ćutale o nasilju. Među ima mnogo onih koje su tražile zaštitu, dakle institucije sistema su znale da se u toj porodici događa nasilje. Taj postotak nije zanemarljiv, više od 1/3 je tražilo neki vid pomoći i podrške.
MIC: Zakon u svom nazivu ima reč sprečavanje, a kada smo kod sprečavanja, ima li prevencije u ovom Zakonu ili on deluje samo nakon što se nasilje dogodi?
Zakon se zove Zakon o sprečavanju nasilja, a prevencija se ogleda najpre u tome što taj zakon postoji. To se zove generalna prevencija. Kada vi donesete zakon i uredite jasan mehanizam, odredite tako kratke rokove, utvrdite ulogu svakog od aktera, i naročito ako se šalje poruka nasilnicima i onima koji bi to možda bili, da će se ovaj zakon primenjivati, da on sadrži dobra rešenja, delotvorne mehanizme, onda to deluje na potencijalne učinioce. Zakon pruža mogućnost da se reaguje, da insitucije počnu da deluju kako bi taj mehanizam otpočeo i onda kada postoji samo rizik, opasnost da će se nasilje ispoljiti. Dakle, postoji mogućnost da se reaguje čak i kada nije izvršen akt nasilja, nego su okolnosti takve da postoji rizik od ispoljavanja nasilja, a to procenjuju stručna lica, i u tom smislu je to preventiva. To bi bilo najpoželjnije, jer u praksi mi najčešće za nasilje saznamo kada se ono desi, onda se ono precesuira, krivični postupak se vodi, izdaju se mere zaštite. Ja moram da kažem da je i ranijim zakonima bilo moguće donositi privremene mere, ali istraživanja su pokazala da se to u praksi nije primenjivalo, i danas se retko primenjuje, i sada smo više oslonjeni na to kako će se reagovati i kako će funkcionisati ovaj jedan mehanizam. Vrlo je važno da on uključuje različite aktere, veoma je značajno da se putem jednog individualnog plana pomoći i podrške žrtvi pokaže da ona nije sama. To ohrabruje žrtve da prijavljuju nasilje, da ne trpe nasilje, i prva pozitivna iskustva žrtava koje su u ovom individualnom planu pomoći i podrške šalje poruku drugim ženama da imaju pravo na pomoć i podršku i da nasilje ne trpe već da ga prijave.
MIC: Kada suprug usred noći u pijanom stanju napadne suprugu i nakon mere udaljenja Centar za socijalni rad ipak pokuša da ih pomiri, ili kada otac viđa dete u kontrolisanim uslovima, a preti majci tražeći joj češća viđanja, za šta ona ne sme da ga prijavi iako bi dobio kaznu zatvora, jer se boji posledica – šta zakon može u takvim situacijama?
To je slučaj kada su sami profesionalci pokušali da primene neprimereni metod da u takvim okolnostima dođe do izmirenja. Istanbulska konvencija jasno kaže da kada je reč o nasilju u porodici tu neki metodi mirnog rešavanja sukoba, prevazilaženja, kao što su medijacija, kao što je mirenje – da oni nisu primereni, i to treba jasno reći. Jer takve stvari zapravo šalju poruku da su tu oba partnera kriva, pa da tu treba naći nekakvo rešenje što naravno nije tačno. Mora se tačno znati ko je krivac, a ko je pretrpeo nasilje i čija su prava povređena. Ta praksa jeste prisutna, ali tu praksu treba menjati. Ženske nevladine organizacije stalno ukazuju na to da je to nešto što ponovo narušava prava žena i tera ih u jedan proces koji je neprimeren i koji ih povređuje. Kada je reč o drugom slučaju, i o raznim ucenama i pretnjama kojima su žene izložene, i kada je reč o njihom strahovima da će se po izlasku iz zatvora počinilac nastaviti sa nasiljem ili učiniti nešto gore, praksa pokazuje da ima dosta povratništva i da nakon te kazne koja je izrečena i koja se nekad u punoj meri sprovede, oni se ponovo vraćaju tim delima. Takođe, praksa i istraživanja pokazuju da te kazne nisu često adekvatne, nisu ni realne kazne zatvora, nego su uslovne osude. Kada se sve to posmatra, onda se postavlja pitanje da li se šalje dobra poruka nasilnicima, da li će oni moći da “računaju na razumevanje sudije” da će to ipak biti neka blaža kazna. Nema jednog odgovora koji bi značio imamo mehanizam koji će sprečiti pojavu o kojoj Vi govorite. Ako se država odlučila da da jedan sveobuhvatan odgovor na nasilje u porodici koje je poprimilo dramatične razmere onda sve skupa to mora da funkcioniše, i naravno kada se osoba vrati iz zatvora, to ne znači da mora biti prepuštena samoj sebi, ima različitih vidova postpenalne pomoći. Ta činjenica da je neko ko je bio u zatvoru zbog zastrašivanja mora biti činjenica koja izaziva pozornost nadležnih organa jer to može biti stepen rizika. Državni organi bi tada morali imati dužnost da sa posebnom pažnjom prate situaciju.
MIC: Kažete da su neke kazne možda neadekvatne. Da li bi ih trebalo pooštriti?
Najpre želim da kažem da imamo u vidu da od kako je počeo da se primenjuje Zakon o sprečavanju nasilja u porodici, da mi još uvek nemamo nekakvu povratnu informaciju, celovit uvid u to kakve efekte daje ovaj zakon. Otprilike treba da prođe jedno godinu dana da bi se pristupilo istraživanju koje bi omogućilo da se na objektivan način uz primenu adekvatnih metoda utvrdi kako taj mehaniziam funkcioniše, uključujući i uvid u to da od kako je zakon donet, da li je došlo do promene u kaznenoj politici, da li su kazne povećane ili su na istom nivou kakve su bile. Dakle, mi nemamo uvid u to da li je došlo do nekakvih promena u kaznenoj politici od kada je ovaj Zakon stupio na snagu iako sam zakon ne reguliše nijedno krivično delo niti propisuje sankcije, već samo povezuje rad institucija i uvodi neke posebne mere. Ono što su uvidi iz ranijih perioda jeste da su iako je vremenom došlo do povećanja tih kazni u smislu da su sve manje bile novčane kazne, sve manje uslovne, a sve više realne kazne zatvora, može se reći da je u odnosu na opšti kriminalitet, da kazne još uvek jesu blage, posebno imajući u vidu stepen opasnosti dela, patnju koju je počinilac naneo žrtvama, i da se retko desi da je kazna izrečena u zakonskom maksimumu. Čak je bilo pojava da se ide i ispod zakonskom minimum za kaznu. Zbog tih blažih kazni u odnosu na druga krivična dela, čini se da nasilnici još uvek mogu da računaju na razumevanje sudije, što se vidi i kako mnoge sudije obrazlažu svoje odluke. U njima ćete retko naći da se ukazuje na otežavajuće okolnosti dela, ali je zato mnogo olakšavajućih okolnosti na koje se ukazuje, pa čak i neprimerenih olakšavajućih okolnosti kao što je “počinilac je otac dvoje maloletne dece”. To može biti i otežavajuća okolnost budući da je otac dvoje maloletne dece počinio delo nasilje u porodici u prisustvu dvoje maloletne dece, dakle to mu se ne može uzeti kao olakšavajuća, već naprotiv, treba je uzeto kao otežavajuću okolnost.
MIC: Kada pričamo o otežavajućim i olakšavajućim okolnostima, u slučaju kada žena ubije muža jer je godinama trpela nasilje, ona u praksi gotovo uvek uz sve otežavajuće okolnosti dobije maksimalnu kaznu. Kako Vi kao pravnik gledate na to?
Odavno mi nemamo neko relevantno istraživanje koje bi pokazalo kako izgleda kada se desi obrnuto. Činjenica je da se u praksi to delo kvalifikuje kao najteže delo, kao svirepo ubistvo zato što žene zbog svoje slabije fizičke konstitucije zapravo tada koriste načine izvršenja dela koji su otežavajući – npr. kada suprug spava, ili kada koriste razno oružje, oruđe. To se zbog toga kvalifikuje kao svirepo ubistvo.
Zapravo, žena nema drugog načina, ona taj način bira kao jedini, i praksa je pokazala da žene bilo da su tražile pomoć ili ne, bilo da su pokušale da odu da napuste nasilinika i pokušaju da pronađu tj. da povrate svoj život bez nasilja, one biraju ovakav oblik ponašanja jer ne prepoznaju drugi izlaz. I one su jako efikasne u tome. Vi nemate pokušaja ubistava od strane žena. Ono što je problematično je što se u procesuiranju tih dela ne sagledava dovoljno taj vremenski period koji je prethodio ubistvu, te okolnosti u kojima su živeli. Ponekad se u glavama tih žena to videlo kao jedini izlaz, nekad sa motivom da se zaštite deca. Tada na žalost deca gube i majku i oca, i ono što društvo mora da čini jeste da radi na prevenciji . Svuda se nasilje događa, čak i zemljama koje su daleko uređenije od naše, ali broj ubistava žena u Srbiji je zaista dramatičan, i mora se raditi na prevenciji, posebno ako se ima u vidu da se nasilje u porodici usvaja pa nastaje i vršnjačko nasilje i razni drugi oblici nasilja. I zato je jako važno da pratimo primenu Zakona koji je donet ove godine.
MIC: Jedan poseban oblik nasilja u porodici je kada žene starije od 60 godina trpe nasilje, a nasilnici su najčešće sinovi. Zašto je ovaj vid nasilja najmanje vidljiv?
Kada govorimo o takvoj vrsti nasilja kada se maltretiraju ostareli roditelji, ovako nasilje najčešće vrše muškarci, a najčešće žrtve su opet žene, dakle majke. Međutim, za razliku od partnerskog nasilja kada su muškarci nasilnici, a žrtve žene, ovde su nasilnici opet muškarci, ali su žrtve i žene tj. majke i muškarci očevi. Često se desi da su podjednako nasilju izloženi i otac i majka i da to traje godinama. To je najnevidljiviji oblik nasilja jer roditelji ne žele da prijave svoju decu, zato što ih je sramota, zato što ih vole, zato što ne žele da njihova deca imajuj posla sa institucijama sistema, budu procesuirani i kažnjeni i mislim da treba time malo više da se bavimo. Posebno što je ovo jedna pojava koja je nedovoljno istražena. To je samo pokazatelj kako se jedan nasilnični obrazac koji je dete usvojilo sada kao odrastao primenjuje. Međutim, osim što znamo da postoji, da je raširena, još uvek nemamo prave uvide u to šta su specifičnosti, koje su odlike ovog oblika nasilja, ali ono što primećujemo da kada epilog bude krivični postupak protiv nasilnika je da sudije su sklone da teže kazne one koji tuku svoje roditelje, u odnosu na kazne za partnersko nasilje.
MIC: SOS telefoni su nekad bili jedino mesto gde žene mogu da se požale za nasilje nad njima. Koliko ovakav vid pomoći zaista pomaže ženama koje trpe nasilje?
SOS telefoni za žene, decu žrtava nasilja bili su zapravo prve nevladine organizacije i prvi ti neki servisi izvan institucija koji su pružali neku podršku i nekako se sada zaboravlja da je to jedan servis i da i Istanbulska konvencija propisuje dužnost države da podrži te specijalizovane servise I pomoć I podršku koju pružaju I nevladine organizacije, psoebno ženske nevladine organizacije koje zaista imaju veliku ekspertizu u ovoj oblasti. Ono na čemu treba insistirati, to nekako stalno treba isticati i podsećati državne organe da u lokalnim zajednicama tamo gde S.O.S službe postoje treba podržati njihov rad i obezbediti im kontinuitet u radu, a tamo gde ne postoje, treba inicirati njihovo osnivanje. Dvadesetpetogodišnje iskustvo u radu S.O.S. telefona pokazuje da su oni bili prva karika gde su žrtve mogle da se obrate i da očekuju odgovarajuću pomoć i podršku. Mreža svih tih ženskih nevladinih organizacija koje se bave ovim imaju jedno ogromno znanje i ogromno iskustvo koje država mora iskoristiti.
Piše: Jelena Đukić Pejić
Foto i video: Saša Đorđević
ENG
The law is very important, but some practices need to be changed
The Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence came into force in June this year. Nevena Petrusic, a law professor at the Law Faculty in Nis, a former commissioner for the Protection of Equality, talks about the Law to Media Research Center.
MIC: It has been several months since the implementation of the Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence. How does this law look like to you?
I think it was important to pass this law. It is actually here to make the necessary step that has been pointed out all these years, that is to improve the coordinated functioning of system institutions.
Prior to this Law, there was a system of protection in our country in 2002, when domestic violence was incriminated as a separate criminal offense, so in 2005 the family law was established, it established these family legal measures for protection against domestic violence. Later a system has been established that implies how it works, I mean the general protocol, and the special protocols, but in fact all this was not enough for us to have an established procedure at the legal level, and this law fills that one blank. On the other hand, what is particularly important is that there were no valid instruments that were sufficiently effective until the adoption of this law that would allow it to work in a timely manner. So when not only violence is done, but when it is estimated that there is a risk of violence, certain measures such as an emergency removal can be made, with the possibility of it being prolonged. So, this is that one, it seems the first step, that the victim on the one hand be protected from repetition of violence or from its manifestation, and on the other hand it opens a period of time when all the measures that exist in our law can be taken. I think that the Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence is a result of the state's efforts to implement the standards prescribed by the Convention on the Prevention of Violence against Women and Gender-Based Violence, so called Istanbul Convention ratified by the state and assumed significant obligations. But I also think that this law came at a time when we as a society faced the fact of how many women were killed. These are not women who have been silent about violence. Among many of them, there were those who sought protection, that is, the institutions of the system knew that violence was taking place in that family. This percentage is not negligible, more than 1/3 sought some kind of help and support.
MIC: The law in its name has the word prevention, and when we are talking about prevention, is there any prevention in this Law or it only work after the violence occurs?
The law is called the Law on the Prevention of Violence, and prevention is reflected primarily on the fact that this law exists. This is called general prevention. When you pass the law and make a clear mechanism, set such short deadlines, determine the role of each of the actors, and especially if the message is sent to the perpetrators and those who might be one of them, that this law will apply, that it contains good solutions, effective mechanisms , then it works on potential perpetrators. The law provides an opportunity to react, that the institutions begin to act in order for this mechanism to begin even when there is only a risk, the risk of violence being manifested. Therefore, there is the possibility of reacting even when the act of violence has not been implemented, but the circumstances are such that there is a risk of the manifestation of violence, and this is assessed by experts, and in that sense it is a preventive measure. This would be most desirable, because in practice, we often find out about the violence after it occurs, then it is processed, criminal procedures are being conducted, and protection measures are issued. I have to say that it was possible to make provisional measures in earlier laws, but research has shown that this was not applied in practice, and is rarely applied today, and now we are more reliant on how it will react and how this one mechanism will work. It is very important that it involves various doers, it is also very important that through an individual assistance plan and support to the victim, it shows that she is not alone. This encourages victims to report violence, not to endure violence, and the first positive experiences of victims, who in this individual assistance and support plan, send a message to other women that they have the right to help and support, and not to endure violence, but to report it.
MIC: When a husband attacks his spouse in the middle of a night in a drunken state, and after the removal measures, the Center for Social Work tries to calm them down, or when the father sees his child in controlled conditions, and threatens child’s mother asking for more frequent meetings, for which she cannot report, although he would receive a prison sentence, because she is afraid of the consequences - what can the law do in such situations?
This is the case when the professionals themselves tried to apply an inappropriate method to make a reconciliation in such circumstances. The Istanbul Convention clearly states that when it comes to domestic violence, some methods of peaceful resolution of conflict, overcoming, such as mediation, such as reconciliation - are not appropriate, and this should be clearly stated. Because such things actually send a message that both partners are guilty, so that there should be some sort of solution, which is of course not true. It must be known who exactly is the culprit, and who has endured violence and whose rights have been violated. This practice is present, however it should be changed. Women's NGOs constantly point out that this is something that again violates the rights of women and puts them in a process that is inappropriate and hurts them. When it comes to the other case, and the various blackmails and threats to which women are exposed, and when it comes to their fears that after the exit from the prison, the perpetrator will continue with violence or do even something worse, the practice shows that there is a lot of recidivism and that after the sentence that was imposed and which is sometimes fully implemented, the perpetrators sometimes return to these acts again. Also, practice and research show that these sentences are not often adequate, nor are real prison sentences, but are conditional convictions. When all this is observed, then the question arises as to whether a good message is sent to the perpetrators, whether they will be able to "count on the judge's understanding" that this would be some kind of a milder punishment. There is not one answer that would mean we have a mechanism that will prevent the phenomenon that you are talking about. If the state decides to give a comprehensive response to domestic violence that has taken on dramatic situations, then it must all work together, and of course, when a person returns from prison, that does not mean that he has to be left to himself, there are different types of post-penal assistance. The fact that someone who was in jail for intimidation has to be a fact causing the attention of the authorities as it can be a degree of risk. State authorities should then have the duty to monitor the situation with special care.
MIC: You say that some sentences may be inadequate. Should they be tightened?
First of all I want to say that we have in mind that since the Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence has been applied, we still do not have any feedback, a comprehensive insight into the effects of this law. Approximately one year should pass for accessing the research that would enable, in an objective way, the application of adequate methods to determine how this mechanism functions, including the insight that from the time the law was passed, whether there was a change in the penal policy, whether the sentences are increased or are at the same level as they were. So, we do not have any insight into whether there have been any changes in the penal policy since this law came into force, although the law itself does not regulate any criminal offense nor prescribes sanctions, but only links the work of institutions and introduces some special measures. What is seen from the earlier periods is that although, over time, there has been an increase in these sentences in the sense that there were less money penalties, less conditional sentences, and more real sentences of imprisonment, it could be noticed that in relation to general crime, the sentences are still mild, especially given the degree of danger of the acts, the suffering the perpetrator has inflicted on the victims, and that it rarely happens that the sentence is pronounced at the legal maximum. There were even cases where it went below the legal minimum for punishment. Because of those milder sentences in relation to other crimes, it seems that the perpetrators can still count on the judge's understanding, as can be seen by how judges explain their decisions. There you will rarely find it to indicate the aggravating circumstances of the act, but there are many mitigating circumstances to which it appears, and even inappropriate mitigating circumstances such as "the perpetrator is the father of two minor children." This can be an aggravating circumstance since the father of two minor children committed the act of domestic violence in the presence of two underage children, which cannot be considered as mitigating, but on the contrary, it should be taken as an aggravating circumstance.
MIC: When we talk about aggravating and mitigating circumstances, in the case when a woman kills her husband because she has suffered violence for years, in practice, she always gets the maximum punishment with almost all aggravating circumstances. How are you as a lawyer looking at it?
Long since, we do not have any relevant research to show what it looks like when it happens the other way out. The fact is that in practice this act qualifies as the most difficult offense, as a cruel murder because women, because of their weaker physical constitution, actually use the methods of performing the act that are aggravating - for example, when a husband is sleeping, or when using various weapons, tools. This is why it is qualified as a cruel murder.
In fact, the woman has no other way, she chooses this way as the only one, and practice has shown that whether asking for help or not, whether they tried to leave the abuser and tried to find a way to regain their lives without violence, they choose this kind of behavior because they do not see the other way out. They are also very effective in this. You do not have attempts of murder from the side of women. What is problematic is that in the processing of these acts, the period of time which preceded the murder is not considered enough, nor the circumstances in which they lived. Sometimes in the minds of these women it was seen as the only way out, sometimes with a motive to protect children. Unfortunately, in this way children lose both mother and father, and what society has to do is to work on prevention. Violence takes place everywhere, even with the countries that are far more orderly than ours, but the number of women's killings in Serbia is really dramatic and it must be worked on prevention, especially if one takes into account that domestic violence is adopted, and therefore peer violence can appear and various other forms of violence. And that is why it is very important that we monitor the application of the Law passed this year.
MIC: One particular form of domestic violence is when women over 60 are suffering violence, where perpetrators are most often sons. Why is this form of violence the least visible?
When we talk about such type of violence where elderly parents are maltreated, such violence is most often done by men, and most often victims are again women, that is, mothers. However, unlike partner violence where men are violators and victims are women, males are again violators here, but victims are both women, that is mothers and males, fathers. Often it happens that both father and mother are exposed to violence equally and that it lasts for years. It is the least visible form of violence because parents do not want to report their children because they are embarrassed and they love them and they do not want their children to deal with the institutions of the system, to be prosecuted and punished, and I think that we need to deal with this more. Especially because this is the phenomenon that is insufficiently explored. This is only an indication how the violent pattern that the child has adopted, now as an adult is applied. However, apart from knowing that it exists, that it is widespread, we still do not have real insights into what are specificities, what are the features of this form of violence, but what we note is that when the epilogue is a criminal proceeding against a perpetrator, judges are prone to harder punishment for those who beat their parents, compared to penalties for partner violence.
MIC: SOS phones were once the only place where women could complain about violence against them. How much does this kind of help really help women who suffer from violence?
SOS phones for women and children of victims of violence were actually the first non-governmental organizations and first so to call services outside the institutions that provided some kind of support and somehow now it is forgotten that it is a service and that the Istanbul Convention prescribes the state's duty to support these specialized services and assistance and support provided by non-governmental organizations, especially women non-governmental organizations that really have great expertise in this field. What needs to be insisted on, it should somehow be repeatedly asserted and reminded by the state authorities that in local communities where the SOS service exists, they need to support their work and ensure their continuity in work, and where they do not exist, their establishment should be initiated. Twenty-five years of experience of the work of S.O.S. phone shows that they were the first link where the victims could contact and expect appropriate help and support. The network of all these women's non-governmental organizations dealing with this has a huge amount of knowledge and a huge experience that the state must use.
Rezultati monitoringa medija Mreže za izveštavanje o različitosti pokazuju da je od maja 2022. do decembra 2023. godine u Srbiji zabeleženo 113 slučajeva govora mržnje.
Na krajnjem jugu Srbije u jednoj od opština poznatoj po nezaposlenosti, u vreme najveće ekonomske krize, grupa žena rešila je da se „izdigne iz pepela“. Lebančanke iz Udruženja Žena Ruža su uz pomoć veštih ruku obezbedile svoj dinar za sebe. Tako je nastala Radanska ruža, preduzeće koje danas svoje organske proizvode izvozi i van granica Srbije.
“Motivaciju i želju da progovorim javno o tome šta se desilo mom detetu kada je imao nepune četiri godine dobila sam kada sam pročitala u čet grupi za žene na Fejsbuku pitanje jedne majke koje je glasilo: ‘Moje dete se već drugu godinu jako boji da uđe u stan u kojem živimo, počne da se trese, ne može da spava… Šta mislite da je u pitanju?’. Pomislila sam da se dešava, na žalost, ono što se mom detetu desilo i poželela da što više ljudi sazna da je seksualno nasilje nad decom realnost”.