From a psychological perspective, violence is often understood as a means through which a perpetrator establishes dominance and control over a victim.
Gender-based violence involves the violation of a person’s rights on the basis of their gender and/or sex, and it is rooted in hostile gender narratives that remain present in the Western Balkans. These narratives are frequently shaped by patriarchal structures and traditional views of gender roles. Another important dimension is unprocessed transgenerational trauma, which continues to influence attitudes toward violence.
The social construction of gender still reflects a power imbalance, positioning men as dominant and women as subordinate. In Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), gender-based violence is most commonly experienced by women and girls. A significant proportion of femicides are committed by current or former intimate partners. Many cases of violence remain unreported or are inadequately punished.
During the war in BiH (1992-1995), the majority of conflict-related sexual violence was inflicted on women and girls. Available data suggest that more than 20,000 women experienced wartime sexual violence, a recognized war crime. In a broader societal context where women’s suffering is often minimized and their silence expected or even praised; survivors of violence face a wide range of psychological and social consequences.
Radmila Žigić is the director of the Lara Foundation in Bijeljina and a long-time women’s rights advocate with extensive experience working with victims of gender-based violence. Although individual psychology can partially explain how someone becomes an abuser, Žigić emphasizes the importance of also considering the broader societal context that normalizes violence against women as justified or even portrays it as a masculine virtue. In a culture that constantly reinforces such patterns of behavior—through fairy tales, films, and songs—Radmila and her colleagues often encounter professionals who divide women into “real victims” and those who are “victims, but bad ones, so it’s deserved.”
Experts seek to explain why violence occurs in order to support prevention efforts and the rehabilitation of perpetrators. However, Žigić stresses that any justification that renders violence acceptable must be categorically rejected: violence is, quite simply, unacceptable.
She adds that some women also internalize similar values, perceiving violence against them as partly their own fault. Such rhetoric within abusive relationships further deepens and complicates the issue.
Violence in a Post-Conflict context
In addition to women who face violence in their everyday lives, many were victims of wartime sexual violence during the 1990s. The War Crimes Chamber of the Criminal Division of the Court of BiH was established in March 2005 and continues to prosecute such cases. Jelena Krezić, a psychologist and psychotherapist, works in the Witness Support Department. Although she handles cases involving various criminal offenses, war crimes remain a priority.
In her work with survivors of war crimes, Krezić says the greatest challenge is “navigating human differences.” She explains that each individual may have a different understanding of what is appropriate to wear when testifying, what psychological support entails, or even what is meant when someone asks about their well-being.
More than 30 years have passed since the end of the war. Some survivors testify decades after the crime, and revisiting such memories can be an extremely difficult and traumatic process. Žigić notes that many women have rebuilt their lives and do not wish to risk disrupting them by participating in court proceedings. When some women choose not to speak out, this too must be respected.
Krezić emphasizes that her primary role is not to motivate witnesses to testify but to provide support. “It is highly irresponsible to probe into something a person doesn’t wish to talk about, especially if we don’t have the space to process and bring it to closure,” she explains.
Genuine Remorse or Fear of Punishment
In both everyday and wartime contexts, convictions of perpetrators are extremely important for survivors. Žigić and Krezić stress that while the harm done to survivors is irreversible, recognition and justice can provide a form of satisfaction.
“A sentence can bring a sense of catharsis—the possibility of closing one chapter of life and moving forward,” Žigić explains.
Whether the perpetrator feels remorse is of little importance to survivors; what matters most is accountability. Neither financial compensation nor other forms of reparation can replace the acknowledgment that the crime occurred. “It’s the moment when they hear the verdict- that the perpetrator is guilty,” Krezić adds.
She also notes that even when the court is unable to deliver a conviction, this does not necessarily invalidate the survivor’s experience. Sometimes, due to a lack of evidence or the nature of the evidence itself, a guilty verdict cannot be reached. “At the moment of delivering the verdict, there are essentially two audiences, and regardless of the outcome, one side is almost always dissatisfied,” Krezić explains.
Up until the verdict, survivors remain in a process of seeking truth—the validation that what happened to them did, in fact, happen. In the absence of punishment, they may remain tied to that chapter, unable to fully close it.
In her encounters with perpetrators, Žigić notes that she has rarely, if ever, seen genuine remorse. On the contrary, some have even boasted about their actions. “A change in behavior most often occurs when perpetrators are confronted with the possibility of punishment: confinement, loss of social status, or employment. At that point, they may try to justify it, promise that the violence will not happen again, express remorse, and even temporarily control their behavior, as long as they fear punishment,” she explains.
Many perpetrators use guilty pleas strategically to reduce their sentences. However, particularly in the context of war crimes, those who refuse to admit guilt are often celebrated as heroes, while those who confess are labeled as traitors. This perpetuates a culture of normalization and denial of violence.
Krezić explains that one’s immediate social environment can be a double-edged sword: it can either encourage survivors to speak out or silence them.
The “Ideal Victim”
As a psychologist, Krezić cautions against common preconceived notions about what an “empowered victim” should look like. She explains that someone crying in the courtroom does not necessarily mean they will struggle to testify.
She adds that regardless of the severity of the trauma, how a survivor copes largely depends on their personality, their capacity to process trauma, and the level of support they receive from those closest to them.
“Some arrive strong and ready to speak but break down during the trial, while others come anxious and unprepared yet do remarkably well,” she says.
Every individual has an inherent capacity for resilience and recovery. In this context, practical support can play a crucial role in easing the psychological burden of the legal process. “Preparing a survivor of a detention camp for something as simple as a security check at the courthouse entrance can be very important,” Krezić notes. In a system which often lacks transparency, people are surprised when they encounter genuine empathy.
“They’re skeptical and don’t expect kindness,” she explains.
One of the greatest challenges Žigić highlights in her work with survivors is helping women “free themselves from feelings of guilt and the need to justify the abuser.” She adds that this is often something stronger than the individual and it reflects “values transmitted by our society, which unconsciously shape us into gender roles where we assume responsibility for others’ violence because ‘we’re not good enough.’”
Ultimately, the relationship between society and survivors is of crucial importance and plays a decisive role in whether, and how, they are able to continue living their lives. Žigić emphasizes that consistent societal condemnation of violence is essential. She adds that there must be ways to ensure that “through a culture of remembrance, specific memorials, public campaigns, and all forms of collective action, the burden of resistance is not placed on those who have already experienced violence.”
It is the responsibility of every individual not to promote narratives that normalize violence, not to stigmatize survivors, and to remain aware of their own biases and actions.
