“I had to be heard, of course, so the committee came all the way from Amsterdam to the closed institute in Tilburg to sit in a closed ward. . . . So in itself that people took the trouble [coming to me], but it actually only cost me. Because I was in a really bad state [mentally], and it [the procedure] cost me an awful lot of energy and it set me back a lot. It didn’t give me anything. It just cost me, I had to start bringing up all kinds of things that they [the Complaints Committee] just literally wanted to hear out of my mouth. I understand that, because of course that is necessary in proceedings when you accuse someone as an offender. So I do understand that from a legal point of view. But of course it hasn’t given me anything at all. It just cost me a lot.“
| procedural redress | claimant experiences – psychological burden of the Complaints Committee hearing |
↳Psychological burden of the Complaints Committee hearing
Actor: Annette
Item type: Quote from interview
Date: […]
DoJ Researcher: Naomi Ormskerk
DoJ Research project: [Sexual] abuse – The church (PhD)
Language: English
Context
In 2010, the disclosure of several cases of sexual abuse in institutions operated by the Dutch Catholic Church, ignited a national political debate and led to public outrage. With the disclosure of the abuse, victim- survivors demanded justice from Church authorities and the state. Nevertheless, the available justice measures are invariably solely aimed at primary victims. Whilst relatives are often concurrently named with survivors in redress schemes, it is not evident if and how multi-level narratives are established in justice measures. How do primary and secondary victims – such as family members, partners, and children of victim-survivors – experience justice measures allotted by the Church and the state? And what are ‘lessons learned’ when comparing two seemingly different cases of clergy abuse, namely (sexual) abuse in Church institutions and forced labour of former pupils of the Congregation of the Good Shepherd?
