![\"\"](\"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/inrev\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2024\/11\/Vivo-Alliance--300x275.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
By: Karla Hern\u00e1ndez & Gerald Ericksen et al<\/em>.<\/em>*<\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n The importance of upholding the rights of crime victims has been widely recognized. Ensuring that victims are informed and have a voice in the prosecution of crimes committed against them can strengthen their access to justice and improve prosecutorial outcomes.[1]<\/sup><\/a> Yet, in cases of sexual violence, justice remains elusive. According to RAINN (Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network), only 25 out of every 1,000 perpetrators of sexual violence will face incarceration\u2014meaning that 975 offenders walk free.[2]<\/sup><\/a> In Puerto Rico, the urgency of addressing gender-based violence has been formally acknowledged through the declaration of a State of Emergency in 2021,[3]<\/sup><\/a> yet sexual assault incidents appear to have tripled since that time.[4]<\/sup><\/a> Such numbers, though troubling, likely underrepresent the true scope of the issue, due to the inherent underreporting of sexual assault crimes,[5]<\/sup><\/a> and the innate challenges in the handling of these cases. These disturbing trends point to a need for greater justice for sexual assault victims through better prosecutorial outcomes and call for an examination of Puerto Rico\u2019s laws to determine what changes need to be made to achieve this goal.<\/p>\n This paper is the second of two reports from the Advocacy & Accountability Project, an initiative of Vivo Alliance, a nonprofit organization founded in 2023 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, to address the Puerto Rican criminal justice system\u2019s response to sexual assault. These reports are the fruit of a collaboration by Vivo Alliance\u2019s team with students from the University of Puerto Rico School of Law. The initial report, Improving Management of Sexual Assault Cases in Puerto Rico – Part 1: DNA Evidence<\/em>, analyzed the challenges and potential solutions related to rape kit management in Puerto Rico.[6]<\/sup><\/a> This report will address the current state of victims\u2019 rights in Puerto Rico, to highlight key deficiencies and propose actionable measures that have been successfully implemented in the United States and international jurisdictions.<\/p>\n At the outset of this project, our research focused on identifying weaknesses within Puerto Rico\u2019s legal framework for handling sexual assault cases. Our analysis included two specific legal instruments: the Puerto Rico Bill of Rights of Victims and Witnesses of Crime Act<\/em>,[7]<\/sup><\/a> and the Puerto Rico Victims and Witness Protection Act<\/em>.[8]<\/sup><\/a> Subsequently, we expanded our study to analyze the laws across all 50 U.S. states, identifying both shortcomings and best practices in protecting the rights of crime victims and addressing sexual assault cases. We also conducted comparative research on the best practices in 21 other countries with civil law and common law traditions, focusing on regions such as Latin America, Europe, and Australia. These analyses served to organize numerous recommendations aimed at enhancing the legal rights of sexual assault victims within Puerto Rico\u2019s criminal justice system. This report synthesizes the aforementioned analyses and recommendations.<\/p>\n A. Background<\/strong><\/p>\n The historical development of victims\u2019 rights within the U.S. federal jurisdiction reflects a gradual yet profound evolution. This movement began during the era of the Warren Court (1953\u20131969),[9]<\/sup><\/a> a time of significant civil rights advancements that also prompted concerns about victims being overlooked in favor of defendants.<\/p>\n Notable judicial decisions during this time included Brown v. Board of Education<\/em>, which dismantled racial segregation,[10]<\/sup><\/a> and Loving v. Virginia<\/em> which ended laws against interracial marriage.[11]<\/sup><\/a> Such cases focused on the expansion of civil rights and constitutional protections for criminal defendants,[12]<\/sup><\/a> but victims\u2019 rights advocates also raised concerns about victims being overlooked in the justice system.<\/p>\n Initial developments in the 1960s and 1970s included the establishment of state-level crime victim compensation programs, victim restitution laws, and the introduction of victim impact statements, laying the foundation for more comprehensive reforms.[13]<\/sup><\/a> California pioneered the first crime victim compensation program, soon followed by New York,[14]<\/sup><\/a> and by 1979, thirty two states had implemented similar programs.[15]<\/sup><\/a> This progress sparked further reforms in areas such as restitution, compensation laws, and revisions to key statutes, including those related to rape and drunk driving.[16]<\/sup><\/a> These developments marked the early stages of advocacy for a more robust victims\u2019 bill of rights.<\/p>\n A major turning point occurred in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan\u2019s Task Force on Victims of Crime exposed the systemic neglect of victims\u2019 rights and called for federal legislation to address their needs. Among the task force\u2019s recommendations were proposals for confidentiality in counseling, prosecutorial education, and even a constitutional amendment to expand the Sixth Amendment to encompass victims\u2019 rights.[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Subsequent state-level advocacy efforts, including the introduction of Marsy\u2019s Law in 2008, led to the adoption of constitutional amendments across multiple states, thereby safeguarding victims\u2019 rights to dignity, notification, and participation.[18]<\/sup><\/a> At the federal level, the enactment of the Crime Victims\u2019 Rights Act (CVRA) in 2004 established important protections, such as the right to notification, restitution, and participation in criminal proceedings. These provisions were later strengthened through legislation such as the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006<\/em> and the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015<\/em>.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Despite these advancements, efforts to pass a federal regulation protecting victim\u2019s rights have been unsuccessful. This highlights the need for continued advocacy to align federal protections and efforts at state level.<\/p>\n II. Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n This section will examine four key areas of sexual assault victims\u2019 rights, including: (a) the right to be informed about the prosecution of their case; (b) the right to be actively involved in case management and decisions; (c) the right to challenge prosecutorial decisions; and (d) the right to have legal representation. For each of these areas, the report provides an analysis of deficiencies in Puerto Rican law, compares them with the laws in the U.S., and highlights best practices from both U.S. and international jurisdictions.<\/p>\n A. Victims\u2019 right to be informed<\/em><\/p>\n The right to be informed about the progress and decisions in a case is a fundamental component of victims\u2019 rights within the criminal justice system. This right ensures that victims are kept fully informed throughout every crucial stage, from the initial investigation to post-conviction proceedings. Keeping victims updated not only provides them with a sense of control and participation but also fosters transparency and trust in the legal process, and facilitates their ability to advocate for themselves. Without consistent updates, victims may feel sidelined, re-victimized, or unaware of opportunities to assert their rights, ultimately diminishing their role in the justice system.<\/p>\n i. Deficiencies in Puerto Rico<\/p>\n In Puerto Rico, while the law aims to ensure that victims are informed throughout the criminal justice process,[20]<\/sup><\/a> it falls short in several key areas. One primary deficiency is its limited scope of notification requirements. For instance, although the law specifies certain events about which victims should be informed,[21]<\/sup><\/a> it does not comprehensively cover all stages of the process. Critical phases, such as investigations and pre-trial proceedings, often remain unaddressed.[22]<\/sup><\/a> As a result, victims may feel left in the dark about key developments, which can exacerbate feelings of stress and uncertainty.<\/p>\n Unlike more proactive jurisdictions, Puerto Rico\u2019s system places responsibility on victims to request updates from authorities.[23]<\/sup><\/a> This reactive approach can be incredibly challenging for victims who lack the resources, knowledge, or emotional stability to navigate the complexities of the legal process. Consequently, many victims may remain unaware of their rights or be unable to obtain the information to which they are entitled, thus weakening the system\u2019s transparency and accountability.<\/p>\n In addition to these challenges, the law lacks effective mechanisms to ensure that agencies or officials comply with notification requirements. Without robust enforcement, there is little incentive for adherence, leaving victims vulnerable to administrative neglect or oversight. This systemic weakness further diminishes victims\u2019 trust in the criminal justice process and ultimately undermines the law\u2019s intended purpose.<\/p>\n ii. Deficiencies in the United States<\/p>\n When examining jurisdictions across the United States, inconsistencies and gaps in the notification rights of sexual crime victims become evident. Each state operates within its own legal framework, resulting in a wide variety of approaches. Some states, like Minnesota, offer robust protections by mandating that victims be informed about prosecution processes whenever an offender is charged.[24]<\/sup><\/a> In stark contrast, states like Hawaii provide notifications only upon a victim\u2019s written request,[25]<\/sup><\/a> creating significant disparities in victims\u2019 experiences based solely on their location. Massachusetts and Illinois inform victims of major developments, like sentencing or release, but fail to comprehensively address all critical stages.[26]<\/sup><\/a> Meanwhile, Utah offers specific notifications, such as updates on unprocessed DNA evidence,[27]<\/sup><\/a> yet victims often remain uninformed about other procedural changes. These inconsistencies can hinder victims\u2019 ability to engage with their cases and safeguard their interests.<\/p>\n Another common shortcoming across jurisdictions is the tendency to rely on victims to initiate requests for updates. For example, in Oregon and Colorado, victims must actively opt in to receive notifications about critical stages or post-conviction proceedings.[28]<\/sup><\/a> This requirement can be especially burdensome for victims struggling with trauma. A more supportive approach, such as providing automatic notifications, would alleviate this strain and ensure victims remain informed without facing unnecessary obstacles.<\/p>\n iii. Best practices from the United States and international jurisdictions<\/p>\n Despite the deficiencies observed in some states, other jurisdictions offer innovative practices that could serve as models for broader implementation. In Oregon, for instance, victims have the right to be notified in advance about critical stages in their cases, such as hearings, plea agreements, and sentencing.[29]<\/sup><\/a> Although this notification requires a formal request from the victim,[30]<\/sup><\/a> it enables their active participation and fosters transparency. Montana takes this a step further by granting victims the right to receive, at no cost, copies of all public documents related to their case.[31]<\/sup><\/a> This allows victims to stay informed, understand the legal process, and make decisions based on accurate information. Similarly, Texas empowers victims to request updates on evidence analysis,[32]<\/sup><\/a> balancing the victims\u2019 right to information with the integrity of ongoing investigations.<\/p>\n Internationally, the Netherlands stands out for its commitment to keeping victims informed at every stage of the process. Victims receive written notifications from police and prosecutors, detailing updates on investigations, court sessions, and case outcomes.[33]<\/sup><\/a> Additionally, victims have the right to access and obtain copies of relevant case documents,[34]<\/sup><\/a> ensuring transparency and accountability throughout the legal proceedings. In Brazil, the Maria da Penha Law of 2006, which targets gender-based violence, not only establishes protective measures for victims but also imposes sanctions on public officials who fail to fulfill their duties in safeguarding them.[35]<\/sup><\/a> These practices can significantly improve the support and resources provided to victims, promoting trust and participation in the justice system.<\/p>\n B. Victims’ active involvement rights<\/em><\/p>\n One of the most significant deficiencies in the legal system is the limited role afforded to victims of sexual assault in legal and investigative proceedings. While they may provide statements and attend criminal proceedings, their involvement is often minimal and largely symbolic. Granting victims a more active role is essential not only for fostering a sense of inclusion and justice but also for strengthening their agency and supporting their emotional and psychological recovery. A legal system that incorporates victims\u2019 voices not only affirms their rights but can also, in some cases, lead to improved prosecutorial outcomes by providing valuable perspectives and insights.<\/p>\n i. Deficiencies in Puerto Rico<\/p>\n In Puerto Rico, while victims are allowed to submit reports detailing the economic and emotional impact of crimes committed against them,[36]<\/sup><\/a> their involvement in decision-making processes remains minimal. Victims have no influence over prosecution decisions or investigative proceedings, limiting their role to merely reporting the crime and its impact. This exclusion highlights a systemic shortcoming, where victims are sidelined during critical stages of the justice process.<\/p>\n In addition, while the law appears to grant victims the right to be present at all stages of the procedures against the accused, this provision is undermined by a contradictory phrase in the same clause stating that victims will only be informed when their presence is deemed unnecessary by the court.[37]<\/a><\/sup> This effectively places the victims\u2019 involvement at the court\u2019s discretion, raising concerns about the practical application of their rights.<\/p>\n The implications of such limited involvement are profound. Victims may feel marginalized and powerless, leading to dissatisfaction with the outcomes of their cases and fostering of a sense of injustice. Furthermore, the lack of opportunity for direct input can exacerbate the emotional and psychological impact of the crime, deepening victims\u2019 sense of injury and eroding their trust in the legal system. It may also result in the loss of crucial information to prosecutors that could improve the criminal case outcome.<\/p>\n ii. Deficiencies in the United States<\/p>\n Many of the challenges present in Puerto Rico\u2019s sexual assault laws are also evident throughout the U.S. legal system. However, due to the absence of comprehensive federal legislation, each state has developed its own laws regarding the role of sexual assault victims, leading to inconsistencies and variations in how their rights are addressed. For instance, in Illinois, victims have the right to communicate with the prosecution.[38]<\/sup><\/a> Yet, this right is vaguely defined, leaving its scope and impact unclear. Such ambiguity often leads to minimal involvement, as victims struggle to understand the full extent of their rights or how to engage effectively in the process.<\/p>\n In states like Georgia, victims\u2019 rights are focused primarily on court proceedings, with little attention given to pre-trial stages.[39]<\/sup><\/a> This exclusion from early phases\u2014where crucial decisions such as plea negotiations and bail hearings occur\u2014limits victims\u2019 ability to influence outcomes. Without access to these critical discussions, victims may feel their perspectives are undervalued and they are powerless, further diminishing their faith in the justice system.<\/p>\n iii. Best practices from the United States and international jurisdictions<\/p>\n In contrast to these shortcomings, several jurisdictions in the U.S. and abroad offer practices that highlight the potential for greater victim involvement. For example, states like Massachusetts and Illinois allow victims to be present at all court proceedings, barring instances where their presence might influence testimony.[40]<\/sup><\/a> This provision is reinforced by the Federal Crime Victims\u2019 Rights Act, which requires \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d to justify a victim\u2019s exclusion, ensuring fairness and transparency.[41]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Beyond court presence, some states actively involve victims in key decisions. In Oregon, South Carolina, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, victims of violent felonies have the right to be consulted during plea negotiations.[42]<\/sup><\/a> This ensures their input is considered in resolving cases, giving them a valuable role in the justice process. Minnesota takes this a step further with Minn. Stat. \u00a7 611A.03, mandating that prosecutors make reasonable efforts to inform victims of plea agreement details and sentencing recommendations before submission to the court.[43]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Victims also have the right to express objections during sentencing hearings or through written statements, ensuring their voices are heard.[44]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Internationally, countries like Argentina and the Netherlands provide models for enhancing victims\u2019 active participation. In Argentina, victims can present evidence, request reviews of prosecutorial dismissals, and actively engage in investigations.[45]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Similarly, the Netherlands allows victims to request the inclusion of relevant documents in case files,[46]<\/sup><\/a> empowering them to influence the proceedings while respecting prosecutorial discretion.<\/p>\n In Mexico, victims are granted the right to challenge prosecutorial omissions and request the re-evaluation of evidence by independent experts,[47]<\/sup><\/a> emphasizing their role in pursuing justice. Meanwhile, Australia ensures victim consultation before critical decisions,[48]<\/sup><\/a> such as charging or amending charges, creating a more inclusive and participatory legal framework.<\/p>\n These examples demonstrate that effective victim involvement is achievable through carefully crafted policies that strike a balance between victims\u2019 rights and ensuring the integrity of the justice system.<\/p>\n C. Victims\u2019 right to challenge prosecutorial decisions and\/or rights violations<\/em><\/p>\n One of the critical shortcomings in enforcing victims\u2019 rights is the lack of awareness among victims about their rights and the processes available to them for challenging prosecutorial decisions. Without sufficient knowledge of their legal protections and available resources, victims may struggle to advocate for themselves. This informational gap often prevents victims from taking the necessary steps to assert their rights, allowing potential violations on the part of prosecutors to go unchallenged.<\/p>\n i. Deficiencies in Puerto Rico<\/p>\n In Puerto Rico, the legal framework designed to protect victims\u2019 rights includes mechanisms for addressing prosecutorial violations, yet it remains inadequate in many respects. According to 25 L.P.R.A. \u00a7 973b, victims may seek redress through the Department of Justice, administrative forums, or the Court of First Instance in their judicial district.[49]<\/sup><\/a> However, complaints alleging violations by judges or lawyers must be processed by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.[50]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n This provision, while intended to ensure accountability at the highest judicial level, introduces significant barriers for victims. The procedural complexities associated with filing a complaint before the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico are daunting. Victims may face stringent formalities and legal standards that are more demanding than those in lower courts or administrative forums. Without legal counsel, navigating these requirements becomes nearly impossible for most victims, and securing such counsel often requires financial resources that are out of reach. Thus, this high threshold can discourage victims from seeking redress, potentially leaving many violations unaddressed and furthering a sense of futility in the pursuit of justice.<\/p>\n ii. Deficiencies in the United States<\/p>\n The situation in the United States mirrors many of Puerto Rico\u2019s challenges while also presenting unique issues. Although legal rights for crime victims are recognized nationwide, most states lack clear pathways for victims to address violations of those rights. In nearly every state, the violation of a victim\u2019s rights does not provide grounds for a damages claim or any other cause of action.[51]<\/sup><\/a> This legal gap leaves victims without effective remedies when their rights are infringed, undermining the framework designed to protect them.<\/p>\n Additionally, the discretion prosecutors wield in decision-making\u2014such as whether to file charges or pursue plea bargains\u2014complicates matters even further. While prosecutorial discretion is crucial for efficiency, its lack of transparency can lead to perceptions of bias or unfairness, particularly when victims\u2019 perspectives are overlooked. Victims often feel marginalized when decisions are made without adequate explanation or consultation. Establishing transparent decision-making practices and ensuring victims are consistently informed and consulted could help address these concerns and foster trust in the system.<\/p>\n iii. Best practices from the United States and international jurisdictions<\/p>\n In contrast to these deficiencies, several jurisdictions provide robust mechanisms for victims to escalate disputes and seek redress. In South Dakota, the state constitution allows victims, their attorneys, or lawful representatives to seek enforcement of their rights in any trial or appellate court.[52]<\/sup><\/a> Courts are required to act promptly on these requests, ensuring that violations are addressed swiftly.[53]<\/sup><\/a> Furthermore, South Dakota mandates that victims\u2019 rights be protected with the same rigor as those of defendants, promoting a fair and balanced justice system.[54]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n In Canada, victims have the right to file complaints against federal departments or agencies if they believe their rights have been violated.[55]<\/sup><\/a> Each department has an internal complaint system, providing victims with accessible mechanisms for resolution and accountability. This approach promotes transparency while upholding victims\u2019 rights within the federal system of Canada.<\/p>\n Similarly, Western Australia offers victims the opportunity to request reviews of prosecutorial decisions, particularly when charges are altered or dropped.[56]<\/sup><\/a> The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions ensures victims are consulted during this process, in an effort to prioritize their involvement.[57]<\/sup><\/a> South Australia extends this commitment by allowing victims to appeal unfavorable decisions, provided they submit their requests within a specified timeframe.[58]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n These examples highlight how proactive systems, transparency, and accessible redress mechanisms empower victims and enhance trust in the judicial process.<\/p>\n D. Victims’ right to have their own representatives\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n As highlighted in the article \u201cJudicial Attitudes Toward Rape Victims,\u201d victims of sexual assault often feel as though they are treated as mere pieces of evidence rather than as individuals seeking justice.[59]<\/sup><\/a> Such treatment underscores the critical need for victims to have access to an attorney or legal advocate who can ensure their interests are represented, their voices are heard, and their rights are protected throughout the legal process. In addition, it can be helpful for victims to have a personal companion or representative to provide support during their involvement in the legal process.<\/p>\n Ideally, the interests of the victim and the prosecutor should align during criminal proceedings, creating a seamless process. However, this is not always the case. Prosecutors may prioritize other interests, influenced by limited resources, prosecutorial goals, or political considerations, which may conflict with the victim\u2019s needs.[60]<\/sup><\/a> Since prosecutors are not required to follow the victim\u2019s suggestions or represent their personal interests, victims often feel that their rights are secondary within the justice system.[61]<\/sup><\/a> This disparity is particularly harmful in cases of sexual violence, where victims frequently report experiences of secondary victimization by police, prosecutors, and court personnel.<\/p>\n i. Deficiencies in Puerto Rico<\/p>\n In Puerto Rico, the absence of a statutory right for victims to have an attorney or legal advocate constitutes a critical gap in the legal framework. Without this safeguard, victims remain at a disadvantage, unable to fully engage with the justice system or seek redress for the harm they have suffered. There is no formal mechanism to guarantee that victims are able to assert these rights meaningfully without relying on the goodwill of prosecutors or court personnel. In many cases, victims must navigate the legal system alone, without support or guidance, and may not even be informed of their right to attend hearings, submit impact statements, or request protective measures. Additionally, the lack of funding for victim advocacy programs and the absence of an independent legal support system leaves many victims silenced or retraumatized by their interactions with the courts.<\/p>\n ii. Deficiencies in the United States<\/p>\n While the United States has made strides in recognizing victims\u2019 rights at both federal and state levels, the right to independent legal representation for victims remains limited and inconsistent. This structural limitation means that victims must rely on prosecutors to assert their interests\u2014even when those interests diverge. Without legal representation, victims are left with little recourse. This problem is especially acute in cases involving sexual violence, where victims may need legal guidance on issues like privacy protections, access to forensic evidence, and participation in pre-trial motions that affect their dignity or safety. The lack of a nationwide standard or statutory right to independent legal representation undermines the enforcement of victims\u2019 rights and perpetuates a system in which victims\u2019 voices are too often marginalized.<\/p>\n iii. Best practices from the United States and international jurisdictions<\/p>\n In contrast to Puerto Rico\u2019s limitations, several jurisdictions in the United States and internationally offer robust models to ensure victims have access to legal advocacy.<\/p>\n For instance, in Virginia, crime victims can hire private counsel to assist the prosecutor.[62]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 While the prosecutor retains control of the case, private counsel can present evidence and make statements, establishing a collaborative effort that balances the interests of both the public and the victim. Similarly, in Oregon, victims may choose to represent themselves or obtain legal counsel, including support from organizations like the Oregon Crime Victims Law Center,[63]<\/sup><\/a> which provides a crucial option for those seeking to actively protect their rights. Louisiana recently passed a bill, effective August 1, 2024, granting victims or their families the right to retain counsel to engage directly with law enforcement and judicial agencies about the case\u2019s disposition.[64]<\/sup><\/a> This initiative represents a forward-thinking approach to bridging the gap between victims\u2019 needs and judicial proceedings.<\/p>\n Internationally, the Netherlands ensures victims\u2019 rights to legal representation during court proceedings.[65]<\/sup><\/a> Victims may be represented by lawyers or authorized representatives with a written power of attorney, ensuring their presence and interests are upheld in legal forums.[66]<\/sup><\/a> Similarly, Mexico\u2019s General Law of Victims guarantees victims access to legal advisors throughout investigations and trials, publicly financed if necessary, with the freedom to choose their representation.[67]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Countries like Brazil and Andorra also empower victims through private legal representation. In Brazil, victims can hire lawyers to assist the Public Prosecutor,[68]<\/sup><\/a> while in Andorra, private lawyers can access case files and provide detailed legal guidance.[69]<\/sup><\/a> Meanwhile, Spain guarantees that victims\u2019 legal representatives accompany them during investigations, safeguarding their rights and minimizing the risk of re-victimization.[70]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Finally, regarding the right to a personal companion, under Spanish law, victims have the right to be accompanied by a person of their choosing as a companion, starting from their first contact with authorities and officials, ensuring support and comfort throughout legal proceedings.[71]<\/sup><\/a> In Australia, victims may exercise their rights through a representative of their choice\u2014either an attorney or a family member\u2014, \u00a0empowering them to navigate the legal system with trusted support.[72]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n These examples demonstrate that providing victims with the right to legal representation and\/or personal companions is not only feasible but critical for fostering trust in the justice system.<\/p>\n III. Recommendations<\/strong><\/p>\n We have reported on four key areas of rights for victims of sexual assault, specifically: 1) the right to be fully informed of criminal case progress and decisions, 2) the right to have meaningful involvement in case management (including the right to request the collection and consideration of specific evidence), 3) the right to have access to effective mechanisms for challenging prosecutorial decisions and\/or rights violations, and 4) the right to have their own representation\u2014legal and otherwise\u2014to assist them in navigating the criminal justice system. We have identified deficiencies in these rights in Puerto Rican law and the laws in various U.S. states as well as best practices in the United States and international jurisdictions. We recommend that these deficiencies in Puerto Rico be addressed through legislative reforms. These recommendations, along with those from our previous report, have been developed into a legislative proposal, a new Victim\u2019s Bill of Rights, for consideration by the Puerto Rico legislature. U.S. and international best practices demonstrate that these goals are attainable. Implementing such measures in Puerto Rico would not only strengthen victims\u2019 trust in the legal process but also enhance the overall effectiveness of the judicial system.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n Puerto Rico\u2019s Act No. 77-1986 underscores the indispensable role victims play in holding offenders accountable.[73]<\/sup><\/a> However, when victims feel unsupported, excluded, or perceive that their rights are secondary to other priorities, they may disengage from the criminal justice system\u2014undermining both the prosecution of crimes and public trust in the rule of law.<\/p>\n Our analysis has confirmed the existence of critical deficiencies in the legal rights of sexual assault victims in Puerto Rico, while identifying best practices from both U.S. and international legal systems that can address these gaps. Our recommended reforms seek to strengthen legal rights for victims, improve the handling of sexual assault cases, and ensure greater accountability within Puerto Rico\u2019s criminal justice system. They are actionable steps toward transforming Puerto Rico\u2019s response to sexual violence and ensuring that victims receive the justice and support they deserve. By adopting these reforms, Puerto Rico can create a system that is fair, transparent, and survivor-centered, where victims are informed, respected, and actively involved throughout the legal process. This will not only improve prosecutorial outcomes but also restore public trust in the justice system.<\/p>\n In the face of persistent legal shortcomings and rising sexual violence rates, meaningful reform is both needed and urgent. We call upon policymakers, legal professionals, advocates, and the public to actively support these reforms. In doing so, Puerto Rico can uphold its dedication to justice, empower survivors, and demonstrate an unwavering commitment to ending sexual\u00a0violence.<\/p>\n <\/a>*Karla Hern\u00e1ndez & Gerald Ericksen (co-founders of Vivo Alliance), in collaboration with Orlandy Cabrera Valentin, Esq., and students from the University of Puerto Rico Law School: G\u00edodalys D\u00e1vila Mart\u00ednez, Ianthe J. Garc\u00eda Rivera, Gabriela A. L\u00f3pez Rosa, Cristal Ortiz Ram\u00edrez, Ivanna S. Rubio Morales, and Deborah R. Trinidad Rivera; as part of the Advocacy & Accountability Project.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> U.S. Dep\u2019t of Just., Impact of Victimization<\/em>, Office for Victims of Crime, \u00a0<\/a>https:\/\/ovc.ojp.gov\/sites\/g\/files\/xyckuh226\/files\/pubs\/OVC_Archives\/reports\/impact\/impact.htm (last accessed April 14, 2025).<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> RAINN, The Criminal Justice System: Statistics<\/em>, https:\/\/rainn.org\/statistics\/criminal-justice-system (last accessed April 14, 2025).<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> See Executive Order No. 2021-013, Declaring a state of emergency in response to the increase in cases of gender-based violence in Puerto Rico <\/em>(January 25, 2021), https:\/\/docs.pr.gov\/files\/Estado\/OrdenesEjecutivas\/2021\/OE-2021-013_English.pdf.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> OFIC. PROC. DE LAS MUJERES, ESTAD\u00cdSTICAS, https:\/\/www.mujer.pr.gov\/estadisticas (last accessed Mar. 29, 2025).<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> RAINN, supra<\/em> note 2.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> Karla Hern\u00e1ndez & Gerald Ericksen et al., Improving Management of Sexual Assault Cases in Puerto Rico- Part 1: DNA Evidence<\/em>, REV. JUR. UPR IN REV (2024), https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/inrev\/2024\/11\/14\/improving-management-of-sexual-assault-cases-in-puerto-rico-part-1-dna-evidence\/.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> See<\/em> Ley de la carta de derechos de las v\u00edctimas y testigos de delito, Ley N\u00fam. 22-1988, 25 LPRA \u00a7\u00a7 973-973c (2018).<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> See<\/em> Ley para la protecci\u00f3n de v\u00edctimas y testigos, Ley N\u00fam. 77-1986, 25 LPRA \u00a7 972 (2008).<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Paul G. Cassell et al., Crime Victims’ Rights During Criminal Investigations? Applying the Crime Victims’ Rights Act Before Criminal Charges Are Filed<\/em>, 104 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 59, 63 (2014).<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> Brown v. Board. of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).<\/p>\n [12]<\/a> Earl Warren Court (1953-1969)<\/em>, JUSTIA,<\/em> https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/supreme-court-history\/warren-court\/(last accessed April 8, 2025).<\/p>\n [13]<\/a> Crime Victims\u2019 Rights in America: An Historical Overview<\/em>, NATIONAL CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME, https:\/\/ovc.ojp.gov\/sites\/g\/files\/xyckuh226\/files\/pubs\/OVC_Archives\/ncvrw\/1999\/histr.htm (last accessed April 8, 2025).<\/p>\n