No. 07-00-567/2024-02 date: 29.1. 2025.

OPINION

The opinion was issued in a procedure initiated upon the complaint filed by the Law Office of …, on behalf of the minor A.A., against G. Gymnasium in …, for discrimination based on sex. The complaint stated, among other things, that the student A.A. was a victim of digital violence when student B.B. used her photographs posted on social media and, through digital editing, created an image showing A.A. without clothes, which he shared via his social media account. It was further stated that the school failed to take measures to ensure that student A.A. felt safe and secure in the school environment, and that the school made the decision to punish student B.B. in an unlawful manner, knowing that the annulment of the unlawful decision would result in the student remaining unpunished. It was also noted that the school neglected the mental health of student A.A. when student B.B. was returned to the same class as A.A., causing her distress, and that she was further victimized by being directed to online classes, instead of student B.B. In the school’s response, all the activities undertaken by the school were listed and documented with attachments, including the development and implementation of an Operational Protection Plan for student A.A. and an Enhanced Educational Work Plan for student B.B., the decision to impose a Reprimand by the Teachers’ Council and to transfer student B.B. to another class, community service activities performed by student B.B., support measures provided to both student B.B. and student A.A., consultations held by the school with external associates, as well as multiple preventive and intervention activities directed towards the class community and the school’s students. The response further indicated that, following an extraordinary inspection, the Educational Inspectorate ordered the school to amend the part of the decision concerning the transfer of student B.B. to another class and to align it with Article 86, paragraph 1, point 3) of the Law on the Fundamentals of the Education System, and that the school, acting in accordance with the imposed measure, adopted a decision by which student B.B. was returned to the same class attended by student A.A. Finally, it was stated that at the beginning of the current school year, student B.B. withdrew from the Gymnasium and is no longer attending G. Gymnasium. During the proceedings, it was established that the school had undertaken a series of measures and activities as prescribed by the Protocol on the Institution’s Response to Violence, and that the inspection found that the Teachers’ Council was not competent to impose the measure of transfer to another class, but rather that this authority belonged to the school principal. It was further established that the school’s pedagogue, in an opinion dated March 8, 2024 — which became part of the opinion of the Protection Team on March 11, 2024 — stated that after the publication of the photograph and the process of giving statements at the school and to the prosecutor’s office, there was a deterioration in the general health condition of student A.A., and that the separation of B.B. as the perpetrator and A.A. as the victim of digital violence was justified, necessary, and beneficial for both parties and in their best interest. It was determined that, after acting upon the inspectorate’s order to annul the part of the decision relating to the transfer of student B.B. to another class and to amend it in accordance with Article 86, paragraph 1, point 3) of the Law on the Fundamentals of the Education System, the school did not adopt a decision that would comply with the opinion of the pedagogical service and the Protection Team, which indicated that the separation of the students was “justified, necessary, and beneficial for both and in their best interest.” Furthermore, it was found that after student B.B. was returned to the same class (on May 10, 2024), student A.A. did not attend classes, and that on May 27, 2024, the parents of student A.A. submitted a request for the organization of online classes for her. As a result, A.A. attended online classes from June 3, 2024, until the end of the school year. The Commissioner points out that technology-facilitated violence is real violence that manifests itself in many different forms. Digital technologies are increasingly being used as a means of perpetrating violence, so that this type of violence is expanding in scale and spreading into the online sphere through the internet and social networks. A vicious cycle of violence is created, from which it is difficult to escape; it reaches a wide audience within the digital community, which can continuously monitor the process of abuse and often even participate in it. The consequences of such violence are far-reaching, and victims may be continuously and long-term exposed to the effects of the violence inflicted upon them. The Commissioner particularly highlights the consequences that this form of violence has on young women. In conjunction with gender stereotypes about women and the stigmatization of victims of gender-based violence, this form of violence in the digital environment can have serious effects on the mental health of young young women who are victims of this violence. It is undisputed that the school faced a difficult task, considering that sexual harassment and sexual violence in the digital environment represent a new form of violence, and that schools generally lack experience and established practices for combating and addressing this kind of violence. By analyzing the petition submitted to the school by students requesting that student B.B. be returned to the class, it is evident that members of the class community show greater understanding and support for student B.B. than for the victim of peer violence, and that peers do not grasp the severity of the consequences that digital violence inflicts on the victim. It is evident that the students of the class community were not adequately informed about the consequences of digital violence from the perspective of gender-based violence, nor about the impact that digital violence has on girls who are victims of such violence. Student A.A. was not ready to face student B.B., did not feel safe in his presence despite the support provided, and the school’s failure to have the competent authority adopt a decision implementing the opinion of the pedagogical service and the Protection Team — which stated that the separation of the students was “justified, necessary, and beneficial for both and in their best interest” — influenced the decision of A.A.’s parents to request distance learning for her. The school should have taken additional support measures directed toward the victim of violence, considering her particularly vulnerable position due to having experienced gender-based violence, as well as additional preventive measures toward the class community to prevent the stigmatization and further victimization of the student as a victim of this form of violence. Following the conducted proceedings, the Commissioner finds that G. Gymnasium failed to provide student A.A. with a safe, supportive, and friendly environment after she had been exposed to third-degree digital peer violence. By applying Article 45 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination, the Commissioner issued an opinion that the school violated the provisions of Article 19 in connection with Article 12 of the Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination. Accordingly, the school was recommended to continue providing support to student A.A. for as long as necessary, as well as to organize peer education for students and training for employees at G. Gymnasium in … on the topic of gender-based digital violence.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY
Brankica Janković