The so-called "domestic violence" cases were primarily known from the United States until quite recently and typically involved celebrities in popular culture. A common scenario involves the wife accusing her husband of abuse and the joint child of sexual abuse during divorce proceedings, particularly in the context of asset division. These accusations then quickly fade into oblivion as soon as an additional zero is added to the settlement amount allocated to the wife. Such accusations have almost become a "trend." In Europe, and particularly Eastern Europe, this was uncommon until recently, although there is a demand for it.

There is also a hard political ideology behind this. The narrative dominant in Western countries regarding so-called "abusive relationships" typically starts from the dichotomy of the "wife-beating" man versus the "oppressed victim" female partner. Both legislation and its application are often shaped by this conceptual framework. However, many criminologists and psychologists consider this approach one-sided and distorted, as it ignores the complexities of dysfunctional relationships. Many criminologists emphasize that domestic violence is typically mutual and stems from conflicts that, for some reason, the parties are unable to resolve.

The inclusion of the offense of relationship violence in the Criminal Code are mostly the result of political pressure from NGOs grounded in gender ideology. These organizations are based on a radical gender perspective that posits the antagonistic opposition of the sexes, assigning all responsibility for relationship conflicts exclusively to the man, who is automatically assumed to be a "violent, narcissistic, domineering" figure, in contrast to the woman, who is portrayed unilaterally as a victim deserving unconditional empathy and support.

Actually the statutory definition of domestic violence must be interpreted within a very narrow, restrictive framework, leaving no room for the witch-hunting zeal demanded by these subversive, anti-Constitution and anti-society NGOs. The definition of relationship violence in the Criminal Code must also be interpreted with certain considerations in mind, applying careful deliberation and strictly avoiding the occasionally observable Vyshinsky-like mindset of “punishment as a means of making an example.”

Any attorney who has ever represented a party in a "domestic violence" case knows that the reality is usually much more nuanced as it seems at first glance. Some lawyers have even experienced firsthand how an alleged “victim,” in a state of great resentment, suddenly began slandering their own representative simply because the lawyer had disturbed their narrative too much.

It is therefore professionally unjustified to throw accusations without deeper knowledge of the case, ignoring the possibility that the “victim” may be hypersensitive, deceitful, embellishing half-truths, and deeply complicit in provoking the conflict, presenting a fabricated narrative to the criminal justice system or the public.

Some women, driven by perceived or actual personal grievances and disappointments against their former partners, behave like vengeful furies, seeking retribution and unscrupulously employing manipulative means. They consciously exploit the public's tendency to automatically side with the "poor, abused" woman occupying a one-sided victim position, knowing they only need to play this trump card (see battered wife defense).

The criminalization of acts arising from disputes and arguments that occur in virtually all relationships—acts that are often indecipherable, unprovable (he said, she said), and of minimal societal harm—violates the legal principle that criminal law should only be used as a last resort, or “ultima ratio”.

Legislative intent could not have been aimed at criminalizing law-abiding citizens for everyday family or relationship disputes. The actually abusive relationships are typically characterized by the low socio-cultural background of the parties, where the victim is generally economically dependent on the perpetrator and cannot leave the relationship due to financial constraints. Furthermore, such abusive relationships are also characterized by the victim’s subordinate position.

Moreover, in such cases, it is impossible to establish with judicial certainty what really happened behind closed doors. According to the fundamental principle of criminal procedure, facts that cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt cannot be assessed against the accused (in dubio pro reo).

In such “domestic violence” cases, it is essential to thoroughly examine the role and contribution of the victim, as well as the possibility that the victim may have caused the alleged injuries themselves to create a basis for an unfounded campaign of revenge against the defendant.

The principle that someone cannot be convicted based solely on the testimony of a single witness is a foundational legal concept with a tradition spanning over three thousand years. The legal maxim “unus testis nullus testis”—meaning that the testimony of a single witness cannot constitute full proof—has been recognized and, to varying degrees, consistently applied in all legal systems, from Mosaic law through Roman law to modern jurisprudence.

In this regard, the attempt to formally support an accusation with the hearsay testimony of multiple witnesses (for example, when the alleged victim recounts the alleged abuse to friends or family members) is irrelevant because their knowledge in this matter is derived exclusively from the victim’s account. Epistemologically and substantively, this remains a single source and thus is considered the testimony of only one witness—the alleged victim.

In such cases, where essentially one allegation is pitted against one denial, the testimonies of the victim and the accused cancel each other out, should activate the rule of in ‘in dubio pro reo’ (“when in doubt, rule in favor of the accused”).

Despite the fact that the classical legal maxim “unus testis nullus testis”—at least formally—was adhered to even during the infamous witch trials of the medieval and early modern periods, there is now a certain pressure on the judiciary to accept alleged events said to have occurred behind closed doors as proven simply based on the victim’s narrative, provided it appears “credible” or “realistic.” This is especially the case if the victim can enhance their account with a display of sobbing or emotional performance.

In my view, this is a fundamentally erroneous and dangerous direction. It undermines legal certainty, creates opportunities for abuse, and does not serve the authority of the court when the outcome of a criminal case depends on which party delivers a better “performance.” A person’s freedom, honor, and dignity cannot depend on whether someone can deliver a theatrical display in front of authorities or the court. Initial plausibility or emotional demonstrations (“the tyranny of tears”) should not be given undue weight.

Moreover, this cannot even be derived from the principle of free evaluation of evidence. While the Criminal Procedure generally does not impose a rigid, formal system of proof, this does not mean that the determination of facts can be made arbitrarily, based solely on intuition and impressions, without objective evidence. The principle of free evaluation of evidence cannot equate to arbitrariness.

Additionally, it is important to emphasize that the criminal justice system cannot serve as a forum for resolving the inherently mutual, everyday conflicts of dysfunctional or toxic relationships, nor can it become an instrument for private vengeance that does not merit legal protection. Criminal proceedings are not intended to provide a platform for those wishing to stage a dramatic "soap opera" before authorities or courts, unnecessarily burdening already limited state resources. Instead, criminal proceedings must remain a tool of “ultima ratio”, reserved for cases involving significantly more serious offenses.

The universal principle of “unus testis nullus” testis can be supported by the rules of logic and everyday experience, as in cases of doubt, when the adjudicating body cannot be certain of the truth or who is right, a single witness speaking in favor of one party is insufficient to dispel doubts. Even the Romans understood that witness testimony is often subjective; multiple witnesses may perceive the same event differently. A single witness can easily be deceived by their senses or may intentionally lie, and without corroboration, it is harder for a judge to detect this than if multiple witnesses testify. The conclusion is that a judgment based solely on the testimony of one witness would be unjust, as doubts would not be adequately dispelled, and the truth would not emerge with relative clarity.

In my view, to rebut the presumption of innocence beyond reasonable doubt, corroborating evidence beyond the alleged victim's testimony should always be necessary to clearly support the accusation. Accepting such accusations as proven based merely on "word of mouth," i.e., the alleged victim's testimony alone, violates centuries- and millennia-old legal principles and severely undermines legal certainty. Elevating the victim's testimony to the status of "queen of evidence" (regina probationum)—against which there is practically no appeal—is deeply problematic.

Beyond this, constructing an indictment almost exclusively on the alleged victim's testimony and using that testimony as "proof" is a form of circular reasoning (petitio principii, circulus vitiosus). It is also legally problematic since, regardless of the fact that in public prosecution cases, the prosecutor formally represents the state, natural legal sensibilities find this practice troubling, particularly in light of the ancient legal maxim “nemo testis auditur in re sua” (no one can be a witness in their own case).

In my view, these legal maxims and general principles should and must be considered in applicable law. For example, the Civil Code does not explicitly include the principle of “pacta sunt servanda” (agreements must be kept), yet civil law is inconceivable without it. One cannot ignore the continuous traditions of law, as the law is a living fabric from which the current written law cannot be isolated.

The saying attributed to Bernard of Chartres, often quoted by Newton, that "we are dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants," applies here. It means that the contemporary practitioners of law, cannot disconnect from the great predecessors of the universal jurisprudence or the entire structure and tradition of law. The legal systems of civilized nations are not so different that we cannot take such norms into account, especially when they are part of an unbroken and universal legal tradition, including modern national law.

Furthermore, the principle of “unus testis nullus testis” is not only a legal but also a general epistemological principle, which historians frequently apply as well. If a historical event is documented by only one source, its credibility is generally rejected.

In this sense, the work of a historian is somewhat similar to that of a criminal court, as both must reconstruct past events based on available data, working with "materials at hand" that are often fragmented and contradictory. In both cases, significant harm can arise from taking something at face value based solely on one person's account. If an event has only one witness, the first step must be to clarify why this is the case, as events leave traces in the external world.

Not only legal-dogmatic, procedural, and epistemological arguments but also compelling criminological reasons justify why the testimony of an alleged victim must be treated with due skepticism. The alleged victims may have various motives for exaggerating their experiences or even fabricating a crime. Furthermore, their own behavior may influence the reliability of their testimony, such as concealing provocative actions. Hence, law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts must carefully examine evidence and not rely solely on the testimony of a single witness.

It is often argued, particularly by NGOs specializing in such domestic violence cases, that these crimes are characterized by latency since women who suffer such acts typically prefer to keep them secret and are reluctant to file complaints or participate in criminal proceedings even as victim-witnesses. While this may generally be true, there are also individuals who enjoy adopting the victim role, channeling their anger and hostility toward their ex-partners through accusations. Some even take pleasure in participating in criminal proceedings, using them as a platform for revenge, tarnishing their ex-partner's reputation, and ruining their lives.

Due to the infiltration of gender ideologies and political pressures into criminal law (#MeToo movement, etc.), such individuals often find receptiveness within the legal system. This receptiveness runs counter to the classical principles of criminal law (such as the presumption of innocence and ‘unus testis nullus testis’, "one witness is no witness"). Instead, the system increasingly operates under a "where there’s smoke, there’s fire" approach, which the falsely accusatory individuals exploit. Organizations and movements advocating for such cases often "demand" the swift issuance of guilty verdicts and harsher, retributive punishments, aligning with a culture of victim-centric retribution.

Many vengeful women also have realized that if they wish to destroy their ex-partner's life, it is almost "self-evident" to accuse them of something that, even after years, remains unprovable with the greatest goodwill, and therefore, no one can discover if it never happened.

The practice of treating the word of the accused—typically male—as inherently less credible than that of the alleged victim—typically female—not only violates the principle of equality before the law but also resurrects a perverse, modern version of feudal procedural law. Under such a system, the testimony of a serf inherently carried less evidentiary weight than that of a nobleman, leaving them with little to no chance of proving their innocence, particularly when judged by feudal courts.

This trend is evident in the shift from the rule-of-law principle of "better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer" to a criminal justice approach that often fears acquitting the guilty more than convicting the innocent. In such cases, the contradictions in the charges and the deficiencies in the evidence are not viewed as reasonable doubt, which would warrant acquittal, but instead as obstacles to be rationalized to uphold the defendant's guilt.