Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs Liisa Pakosta (Eesti 200) said the need for the amendments arises from real life.

Making threats to kill someone, beat them up, or destroy their property is already punishable, and the ministry wants to include threats of sexual violence, she said.

"Threatening someone with rape will become punishable, and threatening someone with other violent or non-consensual acts of a sexual nature will also become punishable. Likewise, it will become punishable if someone threatens, for example, to upload nude pictures of their victim to the internet," Pakosta listed.

However, the Prosecutor's Office has highlighted concerns about unclear wording about restricting personal liberty in the draft legislation. It argues that it could make it possible to punish a parent for not letting a child go outside unless their schoolwork is done.

"The Prosecutor's Office's role in the legislative process is precisely to comb through these draft laws as practitioners, find even the smallest possible points of dispute, and alert the legislator to them before the matter enters into force," explained assistant prosecutor Kaspar Urmas Oja.

He added that, in reality, Estonia does not have a major problem with parents accidentally committing crimes while raising their children.

Pakosta promised that this point would be clarified.

"A situation where a parent restricts a child's going outside because homework has not been done is not regarded as restricting the child's liberty. This paragraph will certainly be written more precisely if anyone has come away with such an impression. In fact, that is one of the purposes of this entire consultation round," the minister explained.

Oja added that threats are very difficult to prove.

"If violence is expressed only in words, then it is very difficult to prove. If, for example, the victim says they were threatened with being beaten and the suspect says that no such thing happened, and we have no other evidence whatsoever, it is simply one person's word against another's, and in such a case, we cannot hold that person liable," he acknowledged.

Pakosta said this provision is primarily intended for written threats.

"Indeed, in a situation involving an oral threat for which there is no evidence, it is one person's word against another's and it is impossible to prove. In such a case, I do not see that the investigation would have any prospects at all. However, if someone has sent threatening messages, which unfortunately we see very often in practice, then those messages can be used as evidence and, in that case, the investigation can proceed," she said.

According to the draft amendment, recording the commission of an offence on video and sharing it on social media would constitute an aggravating circumstance. No one objected to this point during the consultation round.

--

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