Multilevel Factors for (Non)Reporting Intimate Partner Violence: The Case of Bulgaria

Abstract

Intimate partner violence is recognized as one of the most common forms of violence against women. However, it remains under-reported in many countries. The text aims to present key factors affecting women’s willingness to report intimate partner violence in Bulgaria. We proceed from the idea that the factors that create conditions for the existence of this type of violence in a society are also a major obstacle for women to file official complaints. Considering the complexity of the phenomenon and the numerous aspects that influence whether a victim will seek help or not, we use the three analytical levels—micro, meso and macro—to identify the main barriers to reporting intimate partner violence. The data used in the article were collected through a nationally representative adult population survey on attitudes towards violence against women in Bulgaria, in-depth interviews and focus groups with experts from various institutions related to the problem, and a survey among women victims of violence. The analysis revealed the impact on reporting willingness of macro factors such as the legal framework for preventing and regulating violence against women, as well as the existence of widely accepted cultural norms that normalize milder types of violence. At the meso level, ineffective institutional responses and a lack of support from the closest environment appear to be deterrents to reporting violence. Along with individual characteristics (such as psychological, emotional, and economic reliance) indicated by earlier studies and validated in our research, the analysis identified some poorly studied factors that positively influence the reporting of violence, such as public support expressed through social media and civil protests.

1. Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is one of the most common forms of domestic violence, the consequences of which affect not only individual victims but also society as a whole. It occurs in almost every country and can be found in different socioeconomic, religious, and cultural groups [1]. It refers to “behaviour by an intimate partner or ex-partner that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviours” [2]. Although men also become victims, women make up a much larger percentage of victims of this type of violence [3]. Moreover, it is one of the most common forms of violence against women [1,2,4]. According to a study conducted by World Health Organization on behalf of the UN Interagency working group on violence against women, which analyzed data from 2000 to 2018 in 161 countries and regions, 30% of women had experienced physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner or sexual violence by a non-partner, or both [5]. A comprehensive review [6] estimated that 13.5% of all homicides worldwide were committed by intimate partners, with the proportion for female homicides being significantly higher.

Despite the significance of the problem, IPV against women continues to be under-reported to the police by the victims [7]. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights [8] points out that most cases of violence do not reach the attention of the police and other service providers and many victims cope with their experiences without professional support. According to the agency, only 13.9% of women in the EU who experienced intimate partner violence reported the incident to the police, and 6.4% contacted a helpline or victim support service; 63.7% sought informal support from a close person (friend, family member or relative); 20.5% of women contacted a health service or social service provider.

Domestic violence is not a new issue in Bulgaria; it is mentioned on occasion, primarily by non-governmental organizations that assist female victims, and its true scope is unknown. For many years, neither policymakers nor researchers paid needed attention to the problem. This changed in the last two years, when a brutal case of violence against a woman1 caused a strong public reaction, which resulted in a reform of the legal framework regulating crimes committed in conditions of domestic violence. Publications on the topic have also increased, discussing the legal aspects of combating this violence. The focus on the topic has clearly highlighted the need for data on the phenomenon’s scale, manifestations, consequences, reporting mechanisms, and victim protection. Results from the gender-based violence survey funded by the European Commission show that among Bulgarian women aged 18–74, 20.5% have experienced one or more cases of intimate partner violence, including psychological, sexual and physical violence and threat [9]. The data is for 2021. Since then, there has been a significant increase in the domestic violence cases. The signals in Bulgaria received by the Single European Number 112 for cases of domestic violence in 2020 are 36,527, and for 2023 they are already 42,481; in 2024 there is an even greater growth and the signals are over 53,000. Orders for protection from domestic violence are also increasing significantly—from 1408 in 2010 to 4429 in 2023 [10]. This increase can be explained by the public reaction after the so-called “Deborah case” of the summer of 2023 and the subsequent legal changes, which gave courage to dozens of women to report the situation they are in. The sharp increase in cases is an indicator of the latent and hidden existence of a significant problem in Bulgarian society, which is poorly researched and has led us to set the following research questions:

• RQ1: What are the factors that deter victims of intimate partner violence in Bulgaria from reporting to the police?
• RQ2: What are the factors that may prompt victims to disclose intimate partner violence?
• RQ3: Who do victims of intimate partner violence first turn to for help?

In seeking answers to these research questions, this text aims to analyze the main factors that influence the willingness of Bulgarian women to report experiencing intimate partner violence, using data from a sociological survey based on qualitative and quantitative methods of collecting information. The text contributes to the existing literature on the problem by using an analytical approach based on the three analytical levels—micro, meso and macro. The micro level includes individual characteristics, often defined as psychological—feelings, emotional attachment, economic dependence, etc. The meso level consist of the immediate environment surrounding the victims, shaped by their contacts with family and formal and informal institutions. The macro level is what the state builds as legal regulations, as well as the cultural norms that are widespread and widely accepted in a given society. The three levels are inextricably linked, and factors from different levels frequently influence social processes, events, and the behavior of social groups or individuals. Analyzing the issue of under-reporting intimate partner violence through these three analytical levels allows us to focus not only on individual (psychological) factors, but also on elements of the surrounding environment and context that create conditions for the existence of violence against women and are major obstacles to reporting violence in Bulgaria. Studying and comprehending the contextual factors (at the macro and meso levels) that influence victims’ willingness to report violence against them is required in order to develop effective and adequate policies and measures for reducing the impact of factors that discourage women from disclosing violence against them.

2. Literature Overview

A large body of literature explores why a woman who is a victim of intimate partner violence does not report the violence and does not seek help from the police [7].

Several systematic literature reviews synthesize and deduce the most often recognized barriers to reporting by victims of intimate partner violence. For instance, a review [11] of articles published between 1983 and 2017 (but only three of them published before 2000) reveals nine main categories cited in research as influencing the decision to report to police: the most frequently cited factor is the violence severity, followed by environmental barriers; in third place appears the patriarchal norms and values, stigmatizing victims; religion that spread moral values about family and women also has an influence; the influence of the partner and the psychological and emotional state of the woman are barriers disclosure; having children is both a factor in filing a complaint and a deterrent. In their research Lelaurain, Graziani, and Lo Monacoas [11] identified a wide discrepancy between studies in regard to the influence of sociodemographic factors on help-seeking. For instance, most of the studies claim that younger victims seek more help than older ones. However, there are researchers that show the opposite. The same discrepancy is found in regard to the influence of education level and economic status. Some studies referenced by the authors demonstrate that this difference comes from the type of help-seeking—formal or in-formal—higher education level or higher economic status are associated with formal help-seeking. The majority of studies reviewed by the authors mention ethnicity as one of the strongest barriers to reporting.

Another systematic review of the U.S. literature on the barriers to formal help seeking for adult survivors of IPV for the period 2005–2019 [12] identifies six barriers to help seeking: lack of awareness, access challenges, consequences of disclosure, lack of material resources, personal barriers, and system failures.

Another review [13] focused only on qualitative research on disclosing domestic violence to the healthcare service that was published between 1996 and January 2018. Its findings show that victims most often mentioned fear as a reason for not reporting—fear that their children would be taken away, fear of being judged by other people, fear that they will not receive help and should return to the abuser, fear that word will spread about what happened to them; lack of trust in institutions is also mentioned in various studies; low self-esteem, feelings of shame, embarrassment, guilt and powerlessness also prevented victims from disclosing; economic dependence and physiological reasons such as denial and trying to avoid reliving the trauma by not speaking about the abuse are also among the barriers for reporting IPV mentioned in the literature; additionally, several studies show that victims were not always aware of what choices or support they could gain. Heron and Eisma cited several studies showing that a reason for not disclosing is the fact that victims accept the abuse as normal part of their relationship. Other studies also point to tolerance and normalization of violence as a reason for not reporting [14,15,16]. The severity of the violence stands out as one of the significant factors prompting reporting [16,17]. It has been proven that victims are more likely to report more severe forms of violence [15,18]. However, most research in the last few years has focused on psychological and individual factors [19] and is less likely to address the issue of macro-level influences [20]. This article contributes by examining factors at the macro, meso, and micro levels, which is not found in the cited studies.

The question of factors influencing victims’ decision to (not) report intimate partner violence has not been studied in Bulgaria. Some more recent publications discuss the cultural and social norms and factors in Bulgarian society that influence violence against women [21], but the majority of the literature is devoted to legal aspects of combating this problem in the country [22,23,24,25]. In this text, we will examine factors influencing the decision for disclosure IPV, both at the micro, meso and macro levels, thereby contributing to the accumulation of knowledge on an issue on which there is scarce data for Bulgaria and could be useful for further analysis in other countries.

3. Materials and Methods

The empirical information we use in the analysis was obtained through a mixed method approach. The results obtained through qualitative and quantitative approaches complement each other [26,27] and provide a broader and deeper view of the research problem [28].

The empirical research was carried out within the framework of the project “Violence against women: typologies, economic and social consequences”2. Its goal is broader than the one we set in the article, namely—to provide knowledge about the main reasons for the spread of the problem in Bulgarian society, typical forms and their social and economic consequences. Related to this goal are the hypotheses previously prepared by the research team. In this text, I focus on only one issue of the phenomenon of violence against women and present an analysis of part of the information obtained within the project, which is related to the issue of (not) reporting of cases of violence by an intimate partner.

In the qualitative phase, data were collected by in-depth interviews and focus groups. A total of 26 interviews were conducted with representatives of various organizations working on the issue of violence against women—judiciary (7 interviews with judges, prosecutors and investigators), politicians and representatives of state institutions (Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Labor and Social Policy) (9 interviews), as well as representatives of the non-governmental sector, journalists and a trade unionist (10 interviews in total). The interviews were conducted in the period from 7 August 2024 till 27 January 2025. They were most often conducted at the interviewees’ workplace. The interviews were conducted by six members of the project team. In order to ensure quality information collection and minimize discrepancies that could occur in the work of different interviewers, a guideline was prepared with detailed instructions on how to conduct the interviews, as well as instructions for their transcribing. The elaboration of these instructions is based on leading developments in qualitative research issues in the international literature and the good practices proposed therein for the methodology and organization of in-depth interviews. After conducting the first interview, the team discussed any difficulties that arose and cleared up any unworkable questions. A description of the respondents in the interviews is presented as Appendix A in

Table A1. Participants’ in-depth interviews (interview code, professional position, gender, age, date).

iDI 10—police officer, female, 41, conducted on 2 October 2024

iDI 11—police officer, female, 48, conducted on 10 October 2024

iDI 12—police officer, male, 42, conducted on 10 October 2024

iDI 13—prosecutor, male, 30, conducted on 14 October 2024

iDI 14—advisor to a minister, female, 48, conducted on 10 October 2024

iDI 20—NGO, male, 37, conducted on 13 August 2024

iDI 21—NGO, female, 52, conducted on 15 August 2024

iDI 22—judge, female, 42, conducted on 4 September 2024

iDI 23—NGO, female, 45, conducted on 12 September 2024

iDI 24—police officer, male, 46, conducted on 26 September 2024

iDI 30—NGO, female, 32, conducted on 19 August 2024

iDI 31—NGO, female, 30, conducted on 19 August 2024

iDI 32—state institution, female, 45, conducted on 20 August 2024

iDI 33—NGO, male, 61, conducted on 20 August 2024

iDI 34—state institution, female, 58, conducted on 3 October 2024

iDI 40—politician, female, 51, conducted 20 September 2024

iDI 41—international organization, female, 47, conducted on 25 September 2024

iDI 42—NGO, female, 40, conducted on 25 September 2024

iDI 43—NGO, female, 60, conducted on 27 September 2024

iDI 44—journalist, female, 35, conducted on 30 September 2024

iDI 45—politician, female, 47, conducted on 2 October 2024

iDI 50—lawyer, female, 45, conducted on 7 August 2024

iDI 51—investigator, female, 50, conducted 20 September 2024

iDI 52—judge, female, 45, conducted on 26 September 2024

iDI 53—prosecutor, female, 48, conducted on 16 October 2024

iDI 61—trade unionist, female, 59, conducted on 27 January 2025

.

Six focus groups were also held. A total of 63 representatives (different from those interviewed) of the police, prosecutor’s office, court, investigation, agency for social assistance and non-governmental sector participated in them. For the purpose of the research these institutions are classified in three main target groups: (1) representatives of law enforcement and judicial authorities (police officers, prosecutors, judges); (2) representatives of state institutions related to prevention and policies—ministries, agencies, etc. (3) representatives of non-governmental organizations or specialists in private practice working with women victims of violence, or engaged in protecting their rights. To conduct the focus groups, a detailed guideline was prepared for organizing and conducting the discussions. For the individual focus groups, heterogeneity of the respondent profile was sought according to the expertise they possess and the nature of their work. The main criteria for the distribution of participants in each group was that it should consist of participants from at least two of the target groups described above and a minimum of 6 participants in total. In practice, 4 of the 6 focus groups have representatives from the three target groups, one only consists of the minimum number of participants, and all the others are between 12 and 14 people. The focus groups were held from 11 September 2024 to 18 September 2024 and each of them was led by two moderators, members of the team. The participants in the focus groups are presented as Appendix B to the article in

Table A2. Participants in focus group discussion (participant code, professional position, gender, age).

Focus group 1, two moderators, conducted on 11 September 2024	Participant 1—prosecutor, female, 51
	Participant 2—prosecutor, male, 39
	Participant 3—police officer, female, 44
	Participant 4—police officer, female, 42
	Participant 5—police officer, male, 49
	Participant 6—police officer, female, 49
	Participant 7—prosecutor, female, 41
	Participant 8—police officer, female, 52
	Participant 9—pros87ecutor, male, 39
	Participant 10—prosecutor, male, 42
	Participant 11—police officer, male, 40
	Participant 12—social worker, NGO, female, 52
	Participant 13—social worker, NGO, female, 40
	Participant 14—social worker, NGO, female, 44
Focus group 2, two moderators, conducted on 11 September 2024	Participant 1—police officer, female, 34
	Participant 2—prosecutor, male, 35
	Participant 3—prosecutor, female, 49
	Participant 4—prosecutor, female, 44
	Participant 5—investigator, female, 62
	Participant 6—investigator, female, 48
	Participant 7—police officer, male, 41
	Participant 8—police officer, male, 45
	Participant 9—police officer, male, 50
	Participant 10—police officer, female, 52
	Participant 11—social worker, NGO, female, 29
	Participant 12—social worker, NGO, female, 48
	Participant 13—social worker, NGO, female, 59
Focus group 3, two moderators, conducted on 17 September 2024	Participant 1—prosecutor, female, 43
	Participant 3—judge, male, 34
	Participant 4—social worker, NGO, female, 24
	Participant 5—prosecutor, female, 31
	Participant 6—police officer, male, 54
	Participant 7—police officer, male 50
	Participant 8—prosecutor, male, 30
	Participant 10—social worker, Agency for Social Assistance, female, 45
	Participant 11—social worker, NGO, female, 25
	Participant 12—judge, female, 41
Focus group 4, two moderators, conducted on 17 September 2024	Participant 1—social worker, NGO, female, 25
	Participant 2—social worker, NGO, female, 28
	Participant 3—prosecutor, male, 40
	Participant 4—prosecutor, male, 31
	Participant 5—social worker, Agency for Social Assistance, female, 52
	Participant 6—prosecutor, male, 35
Focus group 5, two moderators, conducted on 18 September 2024	Participant 1—social worker, NGO, female, 33
	Participant 2—social worker, NGO, female, 47
	Participant 5—social worker, Agency for Social Assistance, female, 60
	Participant 6—prosecutor, female, 38
	Participant 8—prosecutor, female, 44
	Participant 9—prosecutor, female, 36
	Participant 11—prosecutor, female, 40
	Participant 12—police officer, male, 45
Focus group 6, two moderators, conducted on 18 September 2024	Participant 1—NGO, female, 40
	Participant 2—judge, female, 38
	Participant 4—police officer, female, 45
	Participant 5—police officer, female, 56
	Participant 6—NGO, female, 43
	Participant 8—prosecutor, female, 42
	Participant 9—prosecutor, male, 34
	Participant 10—prosecutor, male, 30
	Participant 11—police officer, female, 48
	Participant 12—social worker, NGO, female, 36
	Participant 13—social worker, NGO, female, 38
	Participant 14—social worker, Agency for Social Assistance, female, 53

.

For both the interviews and the focus groups, a list of potential participants was prepared in advance and discussed by the team members. There were two main methods for recruiting participants for in-depth interviews and focus groups. The first method was to send official letters to the institutions where the experts work, providing information about the study and inviting them to participate in an interview or focus group. The second method of recruiting was through personal contacts from the social network of the members of the study team, who are acquaintances with some of the specialists.

For the interviews, the research team developed a semi-structured interview guide with open-ended questions. The interviewer had the opportunity to adapt his questions in accordance with the specific professional profile of the respondents. The interview guide consisted of several topics related to gender equality and the attitude towards violence against women in Bulgarian society; consequences from violence against women; socio-economic factors driving violence against women; forms of violence; public policies and measures for prevention of the problem and protection of victims; factors for unidentified violence against women. The aim of the interviews was to obtain in-depth information about the perceptions of experts on the problem of violence against women in Bulgaria. The structure and content of the moderator’s guide for conducting focus groups coincide with the topics and subtopics in the in-depth interview questionnaire in order to obtain comparable information and more details on the research questions. The inclusion of this method in the study aimed to track the extent to which representatives of individual institutions, placed in the current context—economic situation, social challenges, legal framework, share a common opinion, at which points there is a divergence, can they reach common solutions regarding the difficulties they encounter during their work.

The information collected using qualitative methods was processed using NVivo and analyzed through thematic analysis, which “…provides a flexible and useful research tool, which can potentially provide a rich and detailed, yet complex account of data” [29] (p. 5). In principal, the thematic analysis provides a systematic six-step procedure for identifying, analyzing, and interpreting recurring meaning patterns (themes) in qualitative data [29]. In my case, I have combined the fourth (reviewing themes) and fifth steps (defining and naming themes) into one. This approach of analysis was chosen for its flexibility and ability to work with preliminary hypotheses developed prior to performing empirical research (as mentioned above—such were elaborated at the beginning of the research process). The initial orientation of the analysis was deductive and the theoretical concept set the prism through which to read and encode information. As coding and searching for themes progressed, I have added an inductive approach to extract themes from the data itself that went beyond pre-established in the research project hypotheses. I used a tree of codes with three types (thematic, cross-thematic and qualifying codes) of codes with different functions. The purpose of thematic codes is to pinpoint the thematic area associated with a specific quotation; cross-thematic codes should delineate the issues addressed within each theme in the quotation; lastly, qualifying codes aim to assess, from the interviewee’s perspective, their experiences, judgments, feelings, and meanings as either positive or negative, and as formal or informal.

To ensure the validity and reliability of the quality study, the following strategy was applied: the research team consisted of people with extensive experience in conducting empirical sociological research, including those who have been studying the problem of violence for years; in the preparatory phase, the research team discussed a list of potential respondents who could provide deep insights into the phenomenon under study; interview questionnaires and focus group guides were discussed and drafted jointly by the team members; detailed interview and focus group guidelines were created, as well as transcription instructions; all recordings (written and audio) are stored in a secure environment and are available for reuse upon request. The use of two qualitative methods helped validate the information obtained; the findings were also verified with other methods (desk research) and statistical data. For this article, the author kept records of his research decisions, notes on the coding process and the identification of individual themes. Through the systematic reflexivity of the research team and a self-awareness of the author of this text, transparent documentation and engagement with the topic and the data, a trustworthiness is achieved [30].

The results of the qualitative research assisted the process of developing questionnaires used in the following quantitative research: National representative survey “Violence against Women”. The aim of the study was to investigate public perceptions of violence against women, to collect information about the prevalence of various forms of violence, its social and economic consequences. The questionnaire was developed by the scientists part of the project. It is divided into separate blocks by topic, with some of the questions being asked only to men or only to women. It was carried out by a sociological agency that has a network of interviewers (65 interviewers participated in the specific survey, distributed in regional teams throughout the country) necessary to collect the empirical information. A face-to-face survey was carried out in the period 16 January—24 February 2025. A sample formed according to the Leslie Kish [31] method was used to conduct the study. In order to ensure an equal chance that a person falling into the scope of the survey might be included in the sample, this method proposes choosing, based on a specific schema, only one household member, (Kish grid). Within a given household, interviewers select the person to interview using the last birthday method. 113 nests were selected to form the sample in the first step of selection. For each nest, a starting point for the tour was chosen, which was a school, kindergarten, administrative building, or church within its territory. From this starting point, the interviewers began their round, with a step of five numbers following a strictly defined counting procedure. The total sample size achieved, including reserves, is 1017 cases. The distribution of the sample by region, gender, age, education and type of settlement compared to the NSI data for the whole country can be seen in

Table A3. The distribution of the sample in the national representative survey by region, gender, age, education and type of settlement compared to National Statistical Institute data.

	Sample, Nationally Representative Survey	NSI, Population Census
18–24 years old	9.1%	6.9%
25–29 years old	5.4%	5.6%
30–39 years old	19.7%	15.4%
40–49 years old	16.1%	18.0%
50–59 years old	21.5%	17.2%
60 years and older	28.1%	36.9%
Gender
Male	49.8%	47.4%
Female	50.1%	52.6%
Other	0.1%
Education:
Primary education	8.8%	19.0%
Secondary education (general and vocational)	55.4%	52.0%
Higher education	35.5%	29.0%
I do not want to answer	0.3%
Place of residence
Capital	19.7%	18.5%
Regional city	38.9%	33.1%
Small town	21.2%	21.5%
Village	20.2%	26.8%
Region of a settlement
Blagoevgrad	2.4%	4.5%
Burgas	5.1%	5.8%
Varna	6.5%	6.6%
Veliko Tarnovo	4.4%	3.2%
Vidin	1.1%	1.2%
Vratsa	2.7%	2.3%
Gabrovo	2.0%	1.5%
Dobrich	2.7%	2.3%
Kardzhali	2.5%	2.2%
Kyustendil	2.2%	1.7%
Lovech	2.6%	1.8%
Montana	2.2%	1.9%
Pazardzhik	1.7%	3.5%
Pernik	0.5%	1.8%
Pleven	4.4%	3.5%
Plovdiv	9.8%	9.7%
Razgrad	1.3%	1.6%
Russe	3.2%	3.0%
Silistra	2.7%	1.5%
Sliven	2.6%	2.6%
Smolyan	1.5%	1.5%
Sofia-city	19.7%	19.4%
Sofia-area	0.7%	3.6%
Stara Zagora	4.0%	4.5%
Targovishte	2.4%	1.5%
Haskovo	3.6%	3.3%
Shumen	3.2%	2.3%
Yambol	2.3%	1.7%

in Appendix C. The survey included general public and it is representative for the adult population (18+) of Bulgaria.

Within the framework of the national representative survey, women who had suffered from domestic violence were identified through screening questions. For those women in the sample who indicated that they had been victims of domestic violence, additional questions were applied that recorded their experience with domestic violence, the type of violence, the perpetrator, etc. The size of this sample was 129 cases.

Ethical Considerations

All questionnaires and the applied methodology went through an approval procedure designed by the Ethics Committee of the Bulgarian Sociological Association. The organization represents the sociological community in Bulgaria, the members of the commission (5 members) are sociologists with extensive theoretical and empirical experience. Approval from it is a reliable and objective indicator that the research meets the ethical and professional standards for conducting sociological research.

All participants were informed about the purposes of the study and that they could withdraw at any time during the study, and gave written consent for voluntary and informed participation. Digital recordings were made only with the explicit consent of the respondents. To ensure the anonymity of the participants, the transcribed interviews (iDI) and statements during the focus groups (FG) were coded with numbers. The materials are stored securely by the research project manager.

4. Results

Findings from the quantitative survey of female victims of violence indicate that 49.3% of women who reported being slapped took no action. Figure 1 presents data on victims’ responses to the question of what they did when they were slapped.

For more severe forms of violence, the proportion of women who did nothing after the incident decreases to 35.3%. Figure 2 shows the victims’ responses to the question of what their reaction was when they were punched, kicked, or choked.

The reasons for violence reporting are not unambiguous and the factors that influence women’s decisions are intricately intertwined. To an outside observer, the situation may appear obvious, but the victim is under pressure from a multitude of circumstances (at the macro and meso levels) that are beyond her control and directly or indirectly affect her decision to disclosure intimate partner violence.

4.1. Macro-Level Factors

4.1.1. Legal Framework

One of the macro-level factors that can influence reporting of domestic violence is the legal framework in the country. In Bulgaria it is mainly built from the Protection from Domestic Violence Act (PDVA) and from the Criminal Code of the Republic of Bulgaria.

The Protection from Domestic Violence Act has been in force since 2005 and its purpose is “… to provide rapid and effective protection and aid and support to persons who have suffered from domestic violence or are at risk, and to exercise preventive and deterrent action on the perpetrator of violence.” (Art.1a of PDVA). Since its adoption, the Act has undergone several changes. The latest ones are from August 2023 and are in response to strong public pressure regarding the so-called “Deborah case”. Mass rallies throughout demonstrated society’s indignation regarding the ineffectiveness of the law and its failure to safeguard women victims of intimate partner violence. Until August 2023, the law does not address violence in an intimate relationship other than marriage. Another issue before the 2023 revisions, as articulated by legal professionals, is that victims are constrained to a one-month period from the date of the abuse to submit a request for protection.

Since August 2023, the concept of “intimate relationship” has been included in the PDVA. A provision is being introduced according to which an intimate relationship is defined as one that lasts at least 60 days. According to lawyers [32], the introduction of the concept of “intimate relationship” encourages many women to seek help, but the requirement to prove that this relationship lasted at least 60 days creates difficulties and makes them hesitate. Experts who participated in the interviews also found that this change was necessary but remains ill-considered, which creates obstacles to its effective implementation:

“It happened in a hurry, these laws had to be passed […] Yes, there was such an attempt to legalize some kind of intimate relationship, but this definitely creates some chaos […] how it is defined, when does their relationship start to be intimate, there are definitely ambiguities there that I would say should be reviewed.”

(iDI-32)

The modifications extend the time for submitting a request for protection from one to three months, and where meeting this limit is impracticable, applications can now be accepted up to six months after the abuse. According to representatives from the non-governmental sector who strive to aid victims of domestic violence, extending this interval is critical since victims live in continual fear of seeking urgent help. Another important reform is the expansion of the circle of people who can seek help under this law—for example, relatives of the victims. This change is essential, given the fact that the informal circle is most often sought for support. The findings of the quantitative study indicate that victims of violence primarily confide in loved ones, friends, or relatives when choosing to disclose their experiences. It is only when physical assault is more severe that women are willing to report it to the police. The rate of reporting to the police is twice as high when a woman is punched, kicked or choked compared to when she is slapped. However, turning to family and friends is once again the preferred reaction. This demonstrates the relevance of the victim’s informal circle in determining how the situation would unfold following a case of violence—whether she will receive support or not, whether she will be advised to file a formal complaint or remain silent about what occurred. The experience of the experts who participated in the qualitative research confirms the importance of the informal circle and the complex situation in which women victims of violence find themselves.

“So, people, victims, first look for their close circle, then they turn to the non-governmental sector, to consultants like me, I’m a lawyer, I give legal advice, and only then, when we’re talking about severe physical violence, do they turn to the police. This lady had not contacted the police and as she said: ‘You are the first one who does not judge me and understands why I did not contact the police.’ And I understand her because these women think like that: If I go and accuse him, they will arrest him, they will try him, they will put him in prison, he is the father of my child, my child will grow up without a father, a father in prison, it will be a stigma, a mark for my child.”

(iDI-11)

The PDVA reform also envisages other changes, which, however, remain only on paper, as there are various obstacles to their implementation [32]. PDVA provides civil law protection from domestic violence, and the Criminal Code of the Republic of Bulgaria regulates the criminal law protection of women against violence. The Criminal Code of the Republic of Bulgaria was adopted in 1968 and has since then undergone some changes to meet the requirements arising from international and European acts. Changes related to domestic violence were introduced in 2019, when a definition of a crime was given in “conditions of domestic violence”. According to the definition of such a crime, all forms of domestic violence are defined: physical, sexual or psychological violence, placing in economic dependence, forced restriction of privacy, personal freedom and personal rights (Art 93, para.31 of the Criminal Code). Prior to the introduction of the term “domestic violence”, offenses against women, including those perpetrated by intimate partner, were classified as instances of bodily harm. Until 2023, the definition included a need for the act to be systematic, which meant it had to be performed at least three times. This prerequisite is no longer necessary due to the revisions. According to experts who took part in our study, this change can boost reporting of domestic violence.

The definition of domestic violence in the Criminal Code applies to cases where it is committed against a spouse or ex-spouse, a person with whom the victim has a child, a person with whom they are or have been in a de facto marital relationship, or a person with whom they live or have lived in the same household. The concept of “intimate relationship” has not been introduced here, which, according to interviewed experts, creates contradictions in practice:

“We also have a discrepancy between the definitions in the PDVA and the Criminal Code, some things that are violence under the PDVA are not violence under the Criminal Code and vice versa. And accordingly, some of the subjects who can be protected under the PDVA cannot seek protection under the Criminal Code and vice versa.”

(iDI-22)

Experts in this sector perceive the separation between civil and criminal courses, characteristic of the legal system in Bulgaria regarding domestic abuse (and intimate partner violence in particular), as a serious hurdle:

“That is, we do not have this connection. For example, for the prosecutor, after a protection order for domestic violence has been issued against an individual, to assess whether a crime has been committed and whether state intervention is required or no […]”

(iDI-22)

Similar observations concerning Bulgaria’s legal framework can be viewed as proof of the state’s failure to offer a coherent and coordinated system of legal protection. Because of this aspect of the Bulgarian legal system, the abuser may continue to harass the victim even after the protection order is issued. There have also been reports of women being murdered by their ex-partners after filing repeated complaints and obtaining a protective order. The inability to provide effective legal protection is a significant obstacle to reporting cases of IPV.

4.1.2. Culture Norms

Another macro-level factor that can influence whether a victim will report abuse is how society perceives domestic violence—whether it is clearly condemned as a public problem or viewed as a normal part of Bulgarian family life. According to our respondents, perceiving domestic violence as a family problem that should be resolved without outside involvement is the rule rather than the exception. At the same time, domestic violence is viewed as a personal issue, with the woman frequently blamed for the situation.

“Unfortunately, I believe it has yet to be recognized as a societal problem. Yes, society reacts violently and sharply in individual cases, but it does not recognize it as a larger general problem, but rather as an individual problem. Including the polar reactions in some cases: she is a victim, helpless, but she deserved it. So, society distances itself, gives its verdict, but the problem remains for the person and, at most, in the family, and in the narrow circle of the family, not in the extended family.”

(Participant 2, FG-05)

Understanding IPV as a family problem usually leads to shifting blame onto the victim for failing to preserve family balance and even shaming them by exposing family details. This way of perceiving violence creates barriers to disclosing experienced violence, especially in smaller settlements. In the quantitative survey, 11.8% of women who suffered abuse said they did not take action because they did not have understanding and support from friends, loved ones, or relatives. Experts also discuss their experiences working with victims:

“We work in a small town, and admitting that you are a victim of violence is not always acceptable in society. In most cases, you will be accused, and people will look for a reason in your actions rather than the violence itself. This leads to the victim’s own limitation, as she limits herself without disclosing it or seeking help.”

(Participant 12, FG-02)

Data from the national representative survey also show that nearly a quarter (23.7%) of Bulgarians believe that violence against women is a family issue and should be resolved within the family without external intervention. This explains why 24.7% of Bulgarians, if they witnessed violence against women, would turn not to the police or other institutions, but to relatives and family. Furthermore, 10.1% of Bulgarians are convinced that violence against women is a fabricated problem in order to advance certain interests, and 6% believe that violence against women should not be punished and prosecuted by law.

4.2. Meso Level Factors

Factors that may influence the reporting of IPV at the meso level are related to at least two aspects: how the family and community perceive the problem; how institutions respond; if victims have the opportunity to be protected and receive support.

4.2.1. The Role of Family and Community

According to most participants in the interviews and in focus groups, patriarchal norms are still strongly prevalent in the Bulgarian family, according to which the man makes the decisions in the family, and the woman has a subordinate role:

“…the expression of the patriarchal model—a woman should serve her husband, care for the children and the home… the man should take care of the financial aspect. These understandings have been kept since the past.”

(iDI-23)

The quantitative study confirms the experts’ observations regarding the low level of equality between men and women in Bulgaria, especially in the family. More than half of Bulgarians (53.2%) believe that when it comes to daily care for children and the home, the two sexes are not equal. Family relationship in which women are in a secondary position compared to men are especially true for some ethnic groups.

“Even relatives are reluctant to help because […] they have values that are by no means bad, but sometimes they simply work against the victim, because the main value is the family, the harmony in the family, the peace of the children.”

(iDI-22)

Women are perceived solely in their roles as mother and wife, which are subordinated in importance to the man’s role of earning money and supporting the family. According to results of the nationally representative study, for 10.8%, when a man forbids his wife to work, it is rather not a violence, and for 2.8% it does not constitute violence at all. And although for 5.5% of Bulgarians the idea of cohabitation is for the man to work and the woman to take care of the home and children, a much higher share of those surveyed (23.1%) said they know women whose husbands forbid them from working.

When women are not treated equally with men in the family and community, conditions are created for the normalization of certain types of violence. The study’s experts indicated that in their experience, women are not recognized as victims when there is no direct physical abuse.

“[…] they say nothing special happened, he was just sniffing me a little.”

(iDI-10)

“I think there is a certain tolerance for milder forms of violence that are perceived as completely normal…”

(iDI-30)

According to the results of the quantitative study, 4.4% of the men surveyed are of the opinion that slapping a woman in case of disrespect and/or disobedience is completely acceptable, and 3.6% that it is rather acceptable, while for 2.9% of the men it depends on the situation. Here a question arises that will remain unanswered: what these men consider disrespect to mean, and whether too many situations are not defined as such. According to 12.5% of Bulgarians, controlling one’s wife/girlfriend’s finances is rather not a violence, and for 2.9% it is not a violence; 10.8% believe that it is rather not a violence if a man forbids his wife to work, and 2.8% that it is not a violence.

The question of how much a certain type of intimate partner violence is a problem was also asked of women victims of domestic violence. The results show that for 3.4% of victims, mild physical violence (e.g., slapping, shaking hands) is not a problem, for 2.6% it is neither a large problem nor a small problem, and for 0.9% it is not a problem at all. For 2.6% of women who have experienced violence, aggressive restrictions on social contacts and personal life (including phone calls or internet use) are rather not a problem. 1.7% indicate that aggressive restrictions on access to financial resources (including not being allowed to work, taking away a debit card, etc.) are not a problem.

These findings suggest that in some families, certain types of violence have become normalized and accepted as part of family life. In such circumstances, reporting is not expected at all. Only an increase in violence can cause the victim to complain to someone outside the family, including the police. The lack of recognition of violence in some social groups creates favorable conditions for very serious abuses and even exploitation for various purposes [33].

The power of the community to influence a victim’s decision to report can have more than just a deterrent effect. It is support from the public that can be the important incentive that victims need to take the first step towards acknowledging the violence they have experienced. An example of this are the civil protests organized after the “Deborah case”. The crime occurred in June 2023, but was only made public a month later via a social media post by the victim’s acquaintance. A relative posted on social media about the disappointing acts of official agencies, which did not detain the suspected perpetrator and classed the matter as “minor bodily harm”, despite the blood loss and the numerous stitches made in the hospital on the victim’s body. Within one day, civil protests are organized in almost all major cities of the country, demanding changes to the Criminal Code and the law, which would guarantee harsher punishments and protection for victims of domestic violence. The experts who participated in the study discovered a shift in public tolerance for this sort of violence, as well as an increase in reports of domestic violence, following the public coverage of the “Deborah case” and subsequent legislative amendments. According to data from a study by the Society and Security Foundation, domestic violence reports submitted to the European emergency number 112 showed a growth of 48.3% for the period 2022–2024, with 53,016 reports registered in 2024 alone—17,265 more than in 2022 [32].

Public support is becoming a turning point, allowing many victims to expose their personal experiences with domestic abuse and society to begin publicly expressing its support for victims and holding institutions accountable for failed protective measures.

4.2.2. Institutional Response and Access to Protection and Support Services

The attitude of law enforcement personnel, as well as the opportunities available to support and protect victims, have a substantial impact on whether the victim will file a complaint.

Many experts, especially those from the non-governmental sector and professionals working with victims, share cases in which police officers do not respond adequately to cases of IPV, especially when there are no visible serious injuries, and only pay attention when there is severe physical violence.

“Sometimes the victim complains that when she went the first time, she was not paid attention to or was told that there is no point just to do paperwork, file a complaint, and then nothing could be done about this complaint.”

(iDI-22)

Individual police officers’ reactions are especially problematic in small towns because most people know one another and, in some cases, the police officers themselves are known to the families. There are also negative expectations of the judiciary, particularly regarding the quickness of their verdicts and the severity of the punishments imposed on the violators. For example, the “Deborah case” is still ongoing and is in its second year.

Another issue raised by experts during interviews and focus groups as a barrier to supporting victims is the extremely limited number of social services available for lodging and support (legal, psychological, and economic). The absence of enough crisis centers and shelters around the country is emphasized as a major issue. Inequalities in access are also highlighted, particularly in small communities and rural locations. Experts discuss the existence of administrative barriers to access and shortcomings in cooperation between competent agencies.

“It is clear that half of the administrative districts in the country, no matter what you do, do not have crisis centers. In other words, you cannot escape. However, the other 50%, not all crisis centers are full, which means that victims do not know about them and cannot reach them.”

(iDI-21)

“The other option is for them [the victims. a.n.] to leave home themselves and stay in a crisis center, but there are only two in Sofia. However, not all cities have shelters, where you can urgently spend the night and escape somewhere […] I will just tell you that the crisis center in Sofia has eight beds. Is that enough?”

(iDI-50)

These objective hurdles lead to a loss of trust in institutions and the idea that there is no institution to assist the victim, even in cities where such services are available. To this must be added a lack of awareness campaigns on the available, albeit limited, resources for victims of violence. 14.7% of women who have experienced abuse claim they did nothing because they did not know who to contact or what to do in such situations. The absence of institutional support and effective systems to safeguard victims of abuse is a significant disincentive to reporting violence.

4.3. Micro Level Factors

Figure 3 presents the results of the responses to the question posed to the 129 women identified in the quantitative study as victims of domestic violence regarding the reasons for not acting when they experienced physical violence. Once recognized as victims of violence, they are interviewed using a questionnaire devised specifically for them.

Women indicated more than one reason that deterred them from reporting, which shows the complex situation in which victims find themselves.

4.3.1. Hope It Is a One-Time Act and Will Not Happen Again

More than half of victims (52.9%) do nothing when physical violence is committed against them because they believe the act of violence is an isolated incidence. Close to this understanding is the hope that a significant portion of victims have (38.2%) that the abuser will change and stop harassing them. Representatives of the judicial system point out that in their many years of experience, they have never come across a case resulting from a complaint after a single act of violence.

“However, my experience reveals that it never goes away and is never a one-time incident; it merely re-peats itself at some later time, with the “detonator capsule” being any form of struggle or disagreement in the home, or in the couple’s relationship.”

(Participant 09, FG-06)

According to experts, the problem is that in most situations, the violence is not only ongoing and does not cease, but it also escalates and, in some circumstances, results in a fatal end.

4.3.2. Shame and Guilt in the Victim

The second most frequently cited reason for not reporting is feeling ashamed of what happened. A total of 41.2% of women who were victims of violence said they did not report it because they felt ashamed to share with anyone what was happening in the family.

This aspect is largely related to macro- and meso-level factors and more specifically to cultural norms, the way society perceives the position of women in the family and the support that family and relatives are willing to provide in cases of domestic violence. As we have already pointed out, in Bulgaria this type of violence is considered a family problem that should be solved behind the walls of the home. In the interviews, the experts gave examples in which the parents of the victim, who sought help from them, advised her to return to her husband so that the family would not break up. In this way, social and cultural norms are followed, according to which society shows the woman that she must endure, since preserving the family at all costs is part of the role of a wife and mother (iDI-22). This is especially true for small settlements, where everyone knows each other and these norms are much more strongly embedded in people’s morals.

“Are they silent because of upbringing? Many people are silent for different reasons. Even more so, in my opinion, in small towns they are silent out of shame, so that the neighbors don’t find out. They don’t want people to talk about them.”

(Participant 13, FG-01)

The context in which domestic violence is perceived as a family problem creates doubts and feelings of guilt in the woman. The latter is often fueled by psychological pressure from the abuser.

“Very often, women who have suffered blame themselves for certain negative reactions, including physical and psychological violence against them by their husbands.”

(iDI-11)

The influence of these factors indicates the need not only for physical protection but also for psychological support for the victim.

4.3.3. Fear of Escalation of Violence and Lack of Trust in Institutions

Another factor discouraging some victims (32.4%) from reporting is the victim’s belief that their actions may result in an escalation of violence. Many of the professionals who participated in the interviews and focus groups noted that victims’ ongoing fear of violence is one of the key reasons they accept their situation and do not reveal it.

“Out of fear, out of dependence on the abuser, but they don’t report it. We check for previous reports, and there are none. She didn’t report it at all, but she was a victim of violence the whole time.”

(Participant 07, GF-02)

This fear is also supported by a lack of trust in the institutions that are supposed to help the victim. Experts share their experience of cases in which women did not report abuse because they were convinced that the police would not help them.

“She is afraid to file a report because, for example, the district police officer who will come is a friend of her husband. Acquaintances in small towns play a role. How is she supposed to file a report?”

(Participant 06, FG-06)

“A large proportion of victims of domestic violence do not believe that anyone would help them, which means they do not trust the police, the prosecutor’s office, or the court.”

(Participant 09, FG-06)

The combination of dread of escalation of violence and the assumption that there is no institution to assist the victim is a powerful barrier to reporting. Victims are concerned that reporting will worsen their condition: institutions will not protect them, they will be forced to return to the abuser, and then their situation will worse.

4.3.4. For the Sake of Protecting Children

A factor deterring women from reporting violence is the belief among some women that it is important for children to be raised by both parents. The experts who participated in the study give more than one example in which women were victims for many years and did not report the incident, convinced that it was better for the children.

“We are currently working on a case in which the woman suffered domestic violence for many years but did not leave and did not report it for the sake of the children […]. And for this reason, the woman preferred to remain silent for years and to endure absolutely all the beatings that happened at different times of the day.”

(Participant 12, FG-01)

In total, 17.6% of victims in the study indicated that they did not report violence because of the children, convinced that they needed two parents. Here, the motive should be sought not so much in the fear that they would be taken away from their mother. A much smaller proportion of women indicated that they did not do so because of fear that their children would be taken away in a possible divorce case. The reason for the lower percentage can be found in the legal framework and legal practice in Bulgaria, in which in the majority of divorce cases, parental rights are given to the mother. A stronger motivation is the belief that it is best for the children for the parents to remain together, as well as a lack of prospects for the woman and the children in terms of how they will support themselves and where they will live.

4.3.5. Dependence (Emotional and/or Economic) on the Abuser

One of the key factors that participants in the survey identified as a significant barrier to reporting is the victim’s reliance on him. It could be financial, psychological, emotional, or all of the above. Experts’ experience demonstrates that even if the victim wants to complain, she is economically dependent on the abuser and sees no way out of the situation.

“… it happens that very often they decide to return to the abuser to live in whatever kind of abuse it is, because they have nowhere to go. She is economically dependent on him. […] Emotional attachment to the abuser is also a reason. Especially if they have lived together for years. The victim cannot even decide without his participation. She cannot take any step without his intervention. And she cannot make a decision on her own.”

(Participant 8, FG-01)

In total, 23.5% of women who experienced violence said they did nothing against the abuser because they had nowhere else to go and live, and 5.9% could not afford to pay for a lawyer/psychologist and/or forensic doctor to help them. The combination of emotional, psychological and economic dependence on the abuser creates a difficult barrier for victims to break, even if they are willing and consider reporting the abuse. Economic dependence creates an objective obstacle for women to leave home, and only when the violence escalates significantly can this happen. But if she does not receive support to find temporary housing, the likelihood of her returning to the abuser remains high.

5. Discussion

The research results presented in the text, as well as the available literature on the subject, demonstrate that IPV is a complicated and multifaceted issue. Its appearance, reasons for existence, and expansion in different nations are attributed to a variety of factors, including not just psychological (individual) features of the victim and perpetrator, but also structural characteristics of the surrounding environment. The analysis in the article is based on the premise that elements of the surrounding environment and context that generate conditions for violence against women are also a key barrier to reporting this form of assault. Therefore, when examining the reasons why women victims of violence do not complain, one must consider not only individual characteristics at the micro level, but also those at the macro and meso levels.

The study among female victims of violence in Bulgaria showed that nearly half of those who were slapped and more than a third of those who were punched, kicked, or choked did nothing and accepted the situation in which they lived. To answer the first research question, “What are the factors that deter victims of IPV from reporting to the police?” we looked at macro-level issues such as the legal framework and cultural norms. The instruments developed by the state to protect against domestic abuse are critical in determining how victims perceive the assistance options available to them and whether submitting a formal complaint would help them or not. This is in line with other studies that focus on macro barriers to reporting violence [15]. In many areas of public life in Bulgaria, actions and relationships are regulated by outdated and inappropriate policies [34,35]. Only in the last year or two have efforts been made to reform the legislative framework regarding violence against women. However, many more changes are needed to create an effective system that offers real protection and support to victims. If the state provides good protection and its institutions are widely trusted, they will play an essential role in the calculating assessment and strategy that, according to some academics, women victims of violence develop [36,37]. For now, in Bulgaria, the state and its support are not included as an element of this strategy.

Prevalent cultural norms also have a significant impact on the reporting of this type of violence. The analysis confirmed the findings of previous empirical studies, showing the importance of how society perceives intimate partner violence in determining the extent to which formal help is sought [7,15,38]. According to the study’s findings, milder forms of physical violence and various expressions of restrictions on women’s independence (such as employment prohibitions and financial restrictions) are not an issue for certain Bulgarian families. This understanding is also shared by some women and is the result of imposed social and cultural norms and values, which state that a woman’s role is solely that of a wife and mother; men and women are not equal; and domestic violence is solely a family problem that does not require external intervention to resolve.

Macro-level factors are also transferred to the institutional and family levels. Ambiguities in laws, ineffective measures and dysfunctional regulations strongly affect trust in state institutions charged with implementing policies to combat violence and protect victims. Lack of trust in institutions is a significant obstacle to reporting cases of violence. Our findings are consistent with previous research [39,40], which found that disappointment from previous interactions with the justice system, lack of trust in institutions, and fear of consequences were among the main reasons for not reporting IPV. To these factors, we must add the lack of support from the family, caused mostly by the way in which the role of women in preserving the family is perceived and the normalization of some milder forms of violence. A study conducted across the European Union found that 25% of women victims of domestic violence did not report incidents to the police because they did not perceive the violent behavior as serious enough [40]. Our study confirms the relationship indicated by previous research [7] between the way in which violent behavior by an intimate partner is accepted, supportive behavior from institutions and family, and the willingness of the victim to report abuse.

The individual factors that deter a woman from complaining are largely influenced by those at the macro and meso levels. The primary and most significant misconception is the belief that the abuser would not repeat their abusive conduct and will undergo transformation. A significant obstacle is the woman’s feeling of guilt, rooted in the conviction that she is accountable for the family’s cohesion and that departing from her spouse will adversely affect her children. Economic and emotional reliance, as demonstrated by earlier studies [41], is a crucial factor preventing women from submitting official complaints.

Despite the numerous difficulties that a woman experiencing IPV has, there are also factors that encourage her to file a formal complaint, answering our second research question. Peterson et al. [42] use the concept of a breaking point and point out that it is only when the violence reaches a certain level of severity that the victim sees the police as an opportunity to receive support. The results of our study also showed that in more severe forms of violence, the proportion of women who report to the police increases. Nonetheless, the findings indicate that in Bulgaria, there remain considerable reservations about reporting to the police, even in cases of extreme violence, stemming from victims’ belief that they will not obtain the requisite safety and support. The issue is further aggravated by the absence of crisis centers where victims can find sanctuary if they want to disclose abuse. The primary cause for this is the absence of a functioning comprehensive system that allows victims to report abuse and subsequently receive complete protection.

Since 2023, there has been a significant increase in the number of reported IPV cases in Bulgaria. Our research has revealed that the reason for this dramatic increase is because many women have gained the bravery to disclose violence against them. The cause could be found in the public support of society, demonstrated with numerous protests in almost all major Bulgarian cities.

Previous research on the topic has rarely paid attention to the influence that public support can have on a woman’s willingness to report violence. In modern society, the role of publicity and the power of social media to garner public support must also be recognized as a factor influencing the decision to report a case of IPV. The support that can be obtained through social networks, turning into real protests, is an incentive for women to acknowledge the situation they are in. Victims want support and when they see it through the media, even if it is for another victim, it gives them courage and determination. Social media can be the first and most accessible source through which victims can share their story and seek help.

Regarding the third research question, our findings support previous research that indicates that victims first seek informal help [15]. Most often, victims of IPV in Bulgaria turn to friends or relatives. The police are sought as a source of help only when the violence takes on more severe forms. This conclusion is consistent with earlier research on the subject [43] and highlights the importance of informing the entire society about the options available to victims of violence and how they can benefit from them.

The study does not claim to be exhaustive on the topics related to barriers for reporting intimate partner violence, and it is possible that there are other factors influencing the willingness to report violence. However, it highlights specific features of the Bulgarian context, which are poorly researched. The strength of this text is that it analyzes the phenomenon through the prism of the three levels—macro, meso and micro—and shows the connection between them. It reveals that the conditions that make the existence of the problem possible in a given society are also major deterrents to the disclosure of intimate partner violence.

6. Conclusions

Intimate partner violence is a problem that cannot be explained unambiguously—the reasons for its existence, manifestation and spread are numerous and at different levels. There are even more reasons for a woman, a victim of such violence, to remain silent and not report that she is in such a situation. As we discussed in the text, there are macro, meso, and micro-level factors that influence the victim’s decision to complain what is happening between her and her intimate partner. This issue is very important in Bulgaria, and the current study contributes to the topic by reducing the lack of empirical evidence on a latent and less investigated issue, as well as boosting understanding of features critical for countering IPV.

In a context where trust in state institutions is low, it is difficult for NGOs to respond to all those in need of help, cultural norms normalizing certain forms of violence are prevalent, and victims’ individual fears that they will not receive help are reinforced. Thus, the factors that make the existence and spread of IPV possible are those that force victims to endure the violence without filing formal complaints against the perpetrator. It is worth exploring in future research the possibilities of using social media to disseminate information that encourages victims to report; to engage the general public with the problem; and, most importantly, to provide the support that victims of IPV need to take the first step towards leaving a violent life situation.