The Pihlakodu case, in which a male caregiver is suspected of raping several defenseless clients of a care facility, has not yet been concluded. The court is still hearing the case and the prosecutor and attorneys debating the boundaries and scope of responsibility. But even once the court has made its decisions and they have entered into force, can this story ever really have a single, clear end — a moment when we can say that accountability has been established and the matter closed?

To begin with, let me once again affirm that rape always causes harm to the victim, including harm to their health. As the minister of justice, I cannot and must not interfere in the adjudication process or oversee the prosecutor during the pretrial investigation. The administration of justice is and must remain independent of political influence.

Throughout the history of the Republic of Estonia, the media has repeatedly helped society draw the line on how much it is — or is not — willing to tolerate opinion statements or inquiries by ministers of justice in highly specific cases. At the same time, the state has, by law, assigned the Ministry of Justice — and now the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs — the responsibility of organizing, among other things, the functioning of first- and second-tier courts, the Prosecutor's Office and the legal aid service. A minister, as a member of government and a political figure, cannot avoid offering assessments when the Estonian people expect it in cases that gravely offend their sense of justice.

Despite my position, my view of this tragedy is unequivocal. I feel and think the same way any reasonable Estonian would at home, thinking of a loved one in a care facility: rape is an immense harm that robs victims of their human dignity and causes profound physical and psychological suffering — not only to the residents of the care facility. A burning, tormenting guilt may haunt the children of raped mothers who entrusted their most beloved family member to the care of a nursing home.

Norms are only useful if they are followed. Estonians expect that the state — which has taken on the constitutional responsibility of providing social support, including long-term care for those in need — can, through cooperation among its various agencies, ensure that the quality and affordability of these services meet their intended goals. The fact that Estonia has made the well-founded choice to provide these services for families, relatives and even people with no close connections during difficult times in their lives must not mean that this responsibility is fully delegated away from the state, public authorities or society at large.

The Pihlakodu case, along with many other difficult cases, has revealed that the Estonian state tends to operate in so-called silos. The Prosecutor's Office follows its mandate, the courts operate independently, the Estonian Bar Association assigns state legal aid lawyers to victims upon request and supervises their performance when necessary and the Ministry of Social Affairs — directly and through the Social Insurance Board — oversees nursing homes and develops policy in this field. This is not accidental, we have built the state this way.

Ministers and agency heads take turns answering questions before the Riigikogu according to their areas of responsibility, often without a complete picture — relying on reports and briefings from other agencies without the ability to verify the underlying facts. In such situations, clarity may be lost, and even after a rape has occurred, it may still be questioned whether any real harm was done. We cannot and must not accept such a state of affairs.

At the request of myself and Minister of Social Affairs Karmen Joller (Reform), colleagues from the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs and the Ministry of Social Affairs have formed a joint task force to discuss the situation. Separately, we have requested explanations from agencies under our respective jurisdictions. I have requested information from both the Prosecutor's Office and the Bar Association, but only regarding certain fundamental decisions made in this case. This is to help me understand and then to help society understand. And if something emerges that is beyond understanding, then we must initiate discussions about changing norms or making other decisions.

The media has played an enormous role in this case. That is good, but it is not a satisfactory situation for me — where government institutions react to journalistic exposés and find themselves scrambling after the facts. Where one day, one agency head says one thing, the next day, someone else expresses a different opinion, and on the third day, yet another party weighs in. And none of them have a full picture of a situation with many different components: the management of care homes, the work of caregivers, the standards they are held to, the responsibilities of the institutions themselves, state oversight, victim support and legal aid.

Perhaps this helps explain how it is possible — especially from the victims' and society's perspective — for someone to publicly express an opinion about the suffering and harm caused in this case, including directly to victims' families, in a way that so starkly contradicts how any reasonable person would feel. It breeds a sense of powerless anger toward the state.

Yet our task is the opposite — to fulfill the expectations placed on us by the Constitution and other laws in a way that fosters public trust in the state. Yes, every agency has its role and responsibility as defined by its statutes and legislation. But from the perspective of society, the state is a whole and the state bears responsibility.

We must be able to actively coordinate cooperation between government institutions, even in cases where an ongoing criminal investigation and the principles of the rule of law clearly limit what we can and may intervene in.

That is why I am proposing — and will convene in September — a commission composed of representatives of public authorities, scholars and experts. It will be tasked with analyzing and then making concrete proposals on how to assess the harm caused by rape and how to better ensure the safety of vulnerable members of society living in institutions, including by proposing changes to laws and practices if necessary. This work must be public and transparent. We must also assess whether, and to what extent, previously completed work, oversight documents and other materials should be disclosed. There must be extremely compelling reasons to keep anything undisclosed.

This fall, the consent law will also reach the Riigikogu, intended to improve the situation of victims, primarily by preventing future crimes.

Not everything can be changed by law. Regardless of the legal framework, we must be able to stand up and acknowledge when serious harm has occurred, apologize when there is cause for apology, assist and engage when support for victims is needed and offer empathy and comfort when it is time to console.

For the people, we all — ministers, oversight workers, prosecutors, state legal aid lawyers, policy-making officials and members of parliament — are one state, speaking and acting on behalf of the whole. We must rise above our individual roles and responsibilities and solve such cases through cooperation, guided by the expectations placed upon us and by the public interest.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook, Bluesky and X and never miss an update!