Pakosta is not against extending the order in general, but said increasing the length of time to three days poses a risk of turning Estonia into an administrative state.

"A restraining order could indeed be extended. Whether that extension should be 24 or 48 hours is up for discussion. A restraining order is an administrative decision made by the police. But we already have the legal option to impose a restraining order of up to three years if a criminal case is initiated and a judge agrees to the proposal," the minister told ERR.

She said the maximum length should be 48 hours.

"Forty-eight hours is also the time limit in Estonia for detaining a criminal caught in the act without a court order. That would also be a reasonable timeframe for imposing a restraining order without the involvement of a judge or prosecutor," Pakosta explained.

"We do not want a kind of administrative state where far-reaching decisions are made without a judge or prosecutor. It's reasonable to involve a prosecutor or a judge in such matters," the justice minister added.

Taro also wants to lower the threshold for applying the order

Minister of the Interior Igor Taro (Eesti 200) said the current 12-hour ban does not provide sufficient protection for domestic violence victims.

The proposed amendment to the Law Enforcement Act will give victims of domestic violence more relief.

Taro said domestic violence experts had already called for an extension to 72 hours before the incident in Tartu that shocked the public last month, when a man with a history of domestic violence repeatedly stabbed his former partner and later caused a fatal head-on collision with another driver.

He stressed that this is an emergency mechanism meant to cover long weekends and holidays, during which gaps in the system often occur.

"Too often, people fall through the cracks of the legal system. Our goal is to fill one significant gap in the prevention of domestic violence," he said.

Taro argued that it would be very difficult for the state to explain to the public — especially after such a tragic incident — why it is lowering its ambitions.

"The public had many unanswered questions about the case. If we now start debating whether 72 hours is legally appropriate, it could give the impression of continued inaction and downplaying the suffering of victims," Taro said.

He believes the bill should be based on the assessments of frontline professionals, those who face the most complex cases daily.

"Seventy-two hours is not a rule; it's a needs-based maximum. In some situations, that time is necessary. If an incident happens on a Friday evening, then 48 hours would expire by Sunday evening. But support services are not fully operational on weekends: victim support, local government social services, and many other structures operate with limited capacity. Weekends and holidays create real-life situations that 48 hours simply doesn't cover," Taro said.

Asked to comment on Pakosta's answer that the legal tools already exist to remove a perpetrator, Taro said most cases are not immediately suitable for criminal proceedings.

"These are not always situations where someone is waving a knife. Domestic violence escalates over time: at first, the situation is milder, and the elements required to initiate proceedings aren't yet present," he said.

The Ministry of Interior also wants to lower the threshold for applying a restraining order in the early stages of a domestic violence case.

"Currently, a restraining order can only be applied in cases of elevated danger, which means a weapon or other life-threatening object is already in use. In the Tartu case, that threshold was only reached later. We need to be able to intervene earlier, when the threat is serious, not only when it becomes critical," Taro explained.

Women's shelter: Longer orders would show the situation is serious

Margo Orupõld, head of the Pärnu women's shelter, said that she has recently had to explain the issue of extending restraining orders to many people.

"A restraining order sends a clear signal that the violent person is dangerous and should not approach the victim for a certain period," Orupõld said.

"Another important point is that when the police are called, it should not be the victim — often with children — who has to leave the home. The abuser must be the one to go, even if temporarily. Right now, the problem is that if the police issue only a 12-hour restraining order, the abuser can come back, and essentially nothing happens, the police just give a warning. A longer duration would give the situation more weight," she said.

Orupõld stressed that she does not believe 72-hour restraining orders would become the norm.

"How long an order is issued for depends on the police officer's experience, judgment, and knowledge. But with 72 hours, there's enough time to contact the prosecutor's office and request a longer restraining order. A lot can be done in 72 hours," she said.

The head of the shelter said the issue must be viewed from the victim's perspective.

"If the victim has to decide quickly whether to stay or leave, they're usually in shock, often sleep-deprived. In such a state, they cannot think clearly about what to take with them. Important items get left behind, and getting them later can take months, sometimes even retrieving documents or a phone charger becomes a means for the abuser to harass. A longer time buffer would help the victim think calmly about what to do and where to go," Orupõld said.

She also explained that if a violent incident happens on a weekend or holiday, most institutions that the victim may want to contact are closed. Only women's shelters remain open. For that reason, it's the victim who needs more time.

"We tend to always think from the abuser's perspective: how bad it is for him, where he will go, what he will do. But we do not look at the state of the victim, who has to make all these decisions while in shock. A longer time would show that the state values the victim's needs, instead of focusing on whether the abuser's rights are somehow being infringed," Orupõld said.

Taro said the justice minister's opposition to the 72-hour restraining order is a normal part of the legislative process.

"The bill has been sent out for coordination precisely to gather opinions. It's normal for differing views to arise, but ultimately a decision has to be made. This is our draft. The Ministry of the Interior has finalized its proposal and gathered feedback. Some of it will be taken into account, some won't," the minister said.

Discussion can continue during parliamentary debate and through meetings with stakeholders, he added.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!