No. It is not explicitly identified under the English translation of the Family Code that any kind of protective order is available for victims or their families. It is likely that even if a civil protection system exists, it is underutilized. Our research has shown that public opinion is based on national mentality, traditions and customs, all of which seem to accept domestic violence as normal. The woman is more likely to be blamed than supported and society praises a woman who is enduring and patient. Culturally, it is considered embarrassing and shameful to speak of such issues outside the household.[15]
No. It is not explicitly identified under the English translation of the Family Code that temporary custody or child support orders are available in cases of domestic violence. However, Article 27 of the Family Code places an obligation on the court to consider the "best interests of the child" in determining child support, child custody and property matters when considering cases of divorce. It is possible that the "best interests of the child" obligation extends to child victims of domestic violence, but the Family Code does not indicate anything explicitly.[16]
No. There is no provision explicitly identified under the English translation of the Family Code placing restrictions on the abuser. However, our research indicates that a cultural bias against reporting or acknowledging rape makes it difficult to determine the extent of the problem.[17] Even if this kind of protection exists, there are likely many challenges for victims to come forward and access them. The culture around these issues often means that a woman victim will likely have no support for her problems, while relatives will refrain from helping and will try to avoid interfering in the situation.[18]
In addition, we believe that it is fair to say that the COVID-19 pandemic could be exacerbating the accessibility of victims to move out or stay away from their abuser. A seminar was conducted in July 2020 by the UN Population Fund for Turkmenistan with the National Working Group for the survey on health and status of a woman in the family. Reports indicate that Kyrgyzstan is being used as a model for best regional practices. Human Rights Watch has indicated that Kyrgyzstan's present state of emergency has made it more difficult for women to escape domestic violence. Many are afraid to call the police or help centers as their abusers are home 24 hours a day, controlling their every step. It is possible that this could also be the case in Turkmenistan. Our research indicates that travel restrictions may be prohibiting victims from relocating to family homes in other regions and social distancing requirements make connecting with relatives and friends unrealistic.[19]
No (see Section 4.1.1).
No. It is not explicitly identified under the English translation of the Family Code that ex parte orders are permitted.
N/A (see Section 4.1.1).
It is not explicitly identified under the English translation of the Family Code what discretion a judge has in granting any kind of protective order. However, acts of domestic violence are not recognized as valid grounds for divorce and our research indicates that courts always call for "reconciliation" between the parties.[20] This suggests that judges do not have discretion in cases of domestic violence, at least in the context of the dissolution of a marriage.
It is not explicitly identified under the English translations of the Penal Code or the Family Code whether recourse is available for victims.
It is not explicitly identified under the English translations of the Penal Code or the Family Code whether victims may recover wages and profits lost.
It is not explicitly identified under the English translations of the Penal Code or the Family Code whether a separate civil process is required. Although, the law permits evidence gathered during a criminal investigation to serve as the basis for a civil action in a process called "civil lawsuit in criminal justice." However, our research indicates that there have been reports of bribes in the civil court system to ensure a particular outcome and the judiciary itself is neither independent nor impartial from the government.[21]