Victim-Friendly Courts, Zimbabwe

According to the Zimbabwe Violence Against Children and Youth Survey (2017), 9.1% of girls and 1.1% of boys experience sexual violence in childhood. Among those, only 14.3% of girls had ever received help for an incident of sexual violence[1]. As in most contexts, sexual violence against children in Zimbabwe is typically perpetrated by people the child knows well - often a male family member or trusted figure. Among girls who experienced childhood sexual violence, the most common perpetrators of the first incident are male intimate partners (55.7%), followed by male family members (13.5%) [1]. 

Victim-Friendly Courts (VFCs) were established in the late 1990s and formalized in 2002 to address the challenges children face in the justice system. They aim to offer a multisectoral, survivor-centered approach to handling child sexual abuse, particularly cases of sexual violence by family members.

[1] There were too few cases of childhood sexual violence among boys to report a stable estimate of service receipt or perpetrators.

What it is and how it works

There are 22 VFCs in Zimbabwe. The VFCs have specialized legal infrastructures and protocols designed to reduce secondary victimization and improve access to justice for all victims and survivors of sexual violence, especially children. They provide services and carry out awareness-raising, including staff training for child-friendly support  to children who have been sexually abused by someone in their family. Key features include:

• Navigating court proceedings: Support staff guide victims and survivors through complex legal processes [3].
• Child-sensitive environments: Separate rooms and waiting areas for vulnerable witnessesSeparation rooms and the use of closed-circuit television to allow victims and survivors the choice to avoid potential retraumatization in being forced to face perpetrators in court [3].
• Specialized training: Judicial officers, law enforcement, and support staff receive training to handle cases sensitively and professionally [3].
• Integrated services: Partnerships with social workers and psychologists provide holistic support for victims throughout the judicial process [4].

Evaluation and program outcomes

A 2014 mixed-methods mid-term evaluation by Save the Children assessed the Victim Friendly System through stakeholder interviews across judicial, health, education, and social services sectors; focus group discussions with children and caregivers; court data review; and courtroom observations [4]. The evaluation found:

In 2018, researchers conducted a mixed-methods case study [2] through a semi-structured survey among 25 professionals from the 13 government agencies and civil society organizations collaborating to implement the Marondera District Victim-Friendly court and semi-structured interviews with 15 child survivors, their caretakers, and community child protection members. he study aimed to explore perceptions of how the VFC and related legal frameworks impacted the management of childhood sexual violence by a family member, and to identify recommendations for improved implementation. Key findings include:  

• The VFC was perceived to increase reporting and improve service delivery for cases of childhood sexual violence involving family members.
• The establishment of the VFC improved multisectoral coordination and management of cases of sexual violence against children by family members, though implementation gaps remain (see challenges).

VFCs have contributed to a more structured, coordinated, and survivor-sensitive response to child sexual violence in Zimbabwe. Their presence has raised public awareness, enabled more effective case management, and helped children avoid the retraumatization commonly associated with traditional court systems.

Challenges

• Resource and accessibility constraints: Limited financial and human resources hinder the full implementation of VFCs, often resulting in victims having to cover basic health and legal service costs themselves. Additionally, access is largely confined to urban centers, leaving rural populations underserved and at increased risk.
• Legal inconsistencies: The complexity of the legal and policy framework and contradictory laws (esp. marriage and child protection laws) impede enforcement.
• Overemphasis on punishment: Researchers noted that some participants expressed that the VFC system placed greater emphasis on punishing perpetrators rather than on providing treatment and support for survivors and opportunities for rehabilitation for those who caused harm [2].

Lessons learned

• Evidence: Robust evaluations and monitoring data are needed to understand outcomes and inform policies and implementation of VFCs [2, 4].
• Multisectoral collaboration: Improved linkages among service providers from pre- to post-trial would help ensure an effective and supportive response system for children [4].
• Community awareness: Communities need to be aware of the VFC system and child protection policy framework [2].
• Reducing loss to follow-up: Increased coordination is required to ensure children are not lost in the system [4].
• Capacity strengthening: Pre- and in-service training is needed for professional and lay staff to ensure the standardized, high-quality implementation of protocols and services [4].
• Public trust: Trust in the judicial system can be built through accessible, child-friendly reporting systems that ensure confidential, appropriate, professional, and gender-sensitive proceedings [4].
• Sustainable funding: Limited government funding and budget allocations for VFC increase reliance on donor funding [4].