If the challenge for family members, friends and neighbours is recognising the warning signs of abuse and helping a woman feel safe enough to speak, the next question concerns the system itself.
What happens when a woman does speak out? When she asks for help? How do authorities ensure that reporting abuse or triggering a protection mechanism leads to meaningful action?
Dr Stella Katsari, clinical psychologist, vice-president of the Cyprus Psychologists' Association and member of the National Coordinating Body for Violence Against Women, argues that the discussion cannot stop at recording incidents, issuing statements of condemnation or listing initiatives.
Instead, she says, institutions must move from general observations to meaningful self-examination by asking what is not working effectively and why.
Beyond victim empowerment
Katsari notes that empowering women is a fundamental principle in addressing violence.
However, she stresses that empowerment cannot replace the institutional responsibility of professionals and public services.
"It is not enough to tell a woman to 'press the button,'" she says.
The critical question is what the system does when she speaks, when she seeks help and when the danger is already visible.
Accountability matters
According to Katsari, the focus should shift from the number of initiatives undertaken to whether those initiatives were properly evaluated, whether they changed the way services operate and whether they ultimately improved protection for women and their children.
"Accountability does not weaken institutions. On the contrary, it is a prerequisite for making them more effective."
Access to weapons
Katsari places particular emphasis on risk factors, especially in cases where perpetrators have access to service firearms because of their profession.
Access to a firearm, she explains, cannot be treated as a neutral piece of information.
It is a scientifically recognised indicator of dangerousness and forms part of internationally recognised risk-assessment tools.
This means that relevant authorities must take such access into account and implement the necessary preventive measures.
In practice, this requires systematic prevention procedures, continuous assessments of an individual's suitability to carry weapons and meaningful psychological support for professionals working in high-pressure environments.
At the same time, a perpetrator's professional status may influence the victim's behaviour.
Access to weapons, perceived institutional authority and fear associated with the perpetrator's position may reinforce controlling dynamics and reduce the likelihood that a victim will disclose abuse or seek assistance.
Risk assessment and escalation
Katsari stresses that domestic violence is not a uniform phenomenon.
It varies in form, frequency, intensity, severity and progression over time.
As a result, risk assessments cannot focus solely on whether an incident occurred. They must examine the broader pattern of behaviour.
Femicide, she notes, is typically the final stage of a process of ongoing escalation.
Monitoring perpetrators
Turning to the ELPIS application, Cyprus' panic-button system, Katsari acknowledges that it is a useful tool.
However, she cautions against presenting a mobile application as a complete protection policy.
"The protection of victims cannot depend on whether a woman manages to press a button in time."
She argues that Cyprus should move forward with the electronic monitoring of perpetrators who are subject to protection orders, allowing authorities to receive immediate alerts when court-imposed restrictions are violated.
At the same time, she says, the risk assessments conducted by police in every domestic violence case should accompany court applications and should not be treated as routine paperwork or an incomplete document within a criminal file.
Challenges facing the Women's House
Referring to the Women's House, Katsari says the institution faces significant challenges that need to be addressed urgently.
Its philosophy is based on coordinating all relevant services under one roof so that victims receive comprehensive support without having to move from one service to another seeking assistance.
For Katsari, the effectiveness of victim protection is not judged by statements issued after a femicide.
It is judged by whether institutions acted in time to prevent it.
