Read the Greek version here:
When justice processes fail to protect victims from further harm, the system risks reproducing the very violence it is meant to address.
A high-profile case in Greece involving the non-consensual dissemination of intimate material has attracted significant public attention. The victim, a well-known influencer, has made it clear that she never consented to either the recording or the distribution of the material. Two individuals are accused: her former partner, who allegedly knew about the recording, and a third party who is believed to have filmed it without her knowledge. This case is not isolated. On the contrary, it reflects a broader and deeply rooted pattern of abuse, often hidden behind a layer of shame experienced by victims.
In recent days, media reports have indicated that the material at the centre of the case was viewed eight times during the court hearing. Eight times. Even if considered part of procedural requirements, this raises serious concerns about how such sensitive evidence is handled and about its impact on the victim. The proceedings may have taken place behind closed doors, but this does not eliminate the risk of secondary victimisation. Repeated exposure to traumatic material, especially in a courtroom setting, can intensify harm and undermine the victim’s dignity and sense of safety.
Such practices do not only discourage victims from reporting crimes. They also erode trust in justice systems and institutions more broadly. Secondary victimisation often leaves deep and long-lasting consequences, psychological, social, and legal, adding further harm to the original offence.
As consistently highlighted by Victim Support Europe, there is an urgent need for a victim-centred, trauma-informed and gender-sensitive approach that ensures respect for victims at every stage of proceedings. This includes limiting unnecessary exposure to harmful evidence, handling testimonies with care, and genuinely safeguarding the dignity of victims. Too often, the very system that is meant to protect victims ends up burdening them further, through disbelief, victim-blaming, retraumatisation during proceedings, or irresponsible and harmful media coverage.
Safeguards for victims are not optional. They are a legal obligation under EU law. Article 18 of the Victims’ Rights Directive requires Member States to protect victims and their family members from secondary and repeat victimisation, intimidation and retaliation, including psychological harm, and to ensure their dignity throughout proceedings. The protection of victims is not just a legal duty. It is a measure of democracy. In the context of ongoing discussions at EU level, ensuring that these protections are effectively implemented in practice is more critical than ever.
This case should not be treated as just another high-profile incident. It is a clear indication of deeper systemic failures that continue to expose victims to further harm, even when they seek justice. If we want a credible justice system, prosecuting offenders is not enough. Active protection of victims at every stage is essential, so that their dignity, autonomy and psychological integrity are not compromised in the name of justice.
This requires moving beyond formal compliance towards meaningful implementation of victims’ rights. It means adopting trauma-informed practices, establishing clear procedural safeguards, and ensuring accountability when these safeguards are not respected. It also calls for responsible journalism that contributes to informed public discourse rather than amplifying harm.
Cases like this should serve as a turning point. Not because of who the victim is, but because no victim should need public visibility to secure what should be guaranteed: dignity, respect and protection.
If you or someone you know has been affected by similar incidents, you can contact your local victim support service or reach out to the support team at TeamVSE@victimsupporteurope.eu.
