The conversation around security in the Western Balkans often focuses on organised crime, border control and illicit arms trafficking. Armed violence is usually measured through statistics: deaths, injuries and reported incidents.

But tackling armed violence requires looking beyond arms control to the aftermath of their use and related human costs. The impact of armed violence goes beyond the numbers. It leaves lasting physical and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in everyday settings like homes, schools and neighbourhoods.

In cases of domestic violence, a firearm does not even need to be fired. Its mere presence can be used to intimidate and control. Trauma often begins long before physical harm occurs. SEESAC’s research has consistently shown that easy access to firearms increases the risk of deadly outcomes in domestic violence cases. Women are disproportionately affected; perpetrators are overwhelmingly men, usually their intimate partners. 

If armed violence represents this complex combination of physical harm, psychological trauma and long-term consequences, shouldn’t institutional support to victims be equally nuanced and comprehensive? In practice, it seldom is. 

While substantial attention has been devoted to firearms control, illicit trafficking and armed violence prevention, remarkably little research has examined what happens to victims after the incidents and whether existing systems help them recover and rebuild their lives. 

To help address this gap, the South Eastern and Eastern Europe Clearinghouse for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SEESAC), a joint initiative of the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the Regional Cooperation Council, conducted a regional study in cooperation with the Victimology Society of Serbia. It examined support services for victims of armed violence outside conflict settings.

The study combined a review of law and policies with research into how support works in practice, exploring a set of fundamental but previously unanswered questions: 

How do support systems for victims of firearm violence actually function? Do existing services meet international standards? Are institutions doing enough to address the human costs of misuse of the weapons they seek to regulate?

International and European legal frameworks increasingly recognise that victims require more than access to justice. They require safety, information, psychological support, healthcare, legal assistance and long-term recovery support. These frameworks also define victims beyond the directly injured persons, including family members and witnesses.

International victims’ rights standards are clear: support should be a comprehensive, victim-centered and trauma-informed system of services, designed to address the unique physical, psychological and legal needs of individuals affected by armed violence. Such support is a fundamental right and should be confidential, free of charge and accessible regardless of whether a crime has been formally reported. It should be available throughout the recovery process.

SEESAC’s study found that support services across the region are often fragmented. Victims may need to navigate a complex landscape of institutions with different mandates. Crucially, the research found that legal definitions of a "victim" in several jurisdictions do not fully align with international standards and may exclude indirect victims such as family members, despite their exposure to trauma and long-term consequences. 

On the ground, victim support is delivered through a mix of institutions, including police, judicial system, health and social services, independent bodies and civil society organisations. The latter often provide specialised, victim-centred assistance, particularly for women and children victims of violence. However, their work is precarious, dependent on project-based funding, making long-term recovery support fragile. 

Police and judicial institutions understandably prioritise identifying perpetrators, investigating crimes and ensuring accountability. Yet the study highlights that, along the way, victims may be required to repeat traumatic experiences multiple times to different institutions, risking secondary victimisation while long-term psychological, health and social needs frequently fall outside of the scope of a coordinated institutional response. 

Another concerning gap? The lack of specialised knowledge. Victims of firearm violence often face distinct challenges, including life-altering injuries, prolonged trauma, disability, social isolation and economic hardship. Without specialised training, service providers may not fully recognise and address these consequences, limiting the effectiveness of support.  

The research also reveals important structural weaknesses in prevention and protection systems: fragmented information-sharing between firearm licensing authorities, police and social services. Particularly concerning is the finding that the presence of a firearm is still not consistently treated as a major risk factor in domestic violence assessments, despite clear evidence of the increased likelihood of lethal outcomes.

The study goes beyond identifying gaps to providing practical recommendations for policymakers, institutions and practitioners. 

These include harmonising legal frameworks with international victim-rights standards; adopting broader definitions of victims; establishing clear referral pathways between institutions; ensuring sustainable financing for victim-support services; strengthening data collection on consequences of firearm-related violence; and providing specialised, trauma-informed training for police officers, social workers, healthcare providers and other first responders. 

The research also calls for stronger integration of victim protection considerations into firearm-control and security policies, recognising that preventing armed violence and supporting victims are mutually reinforcing objectives. 

The message is clear: controlling the use and possession of firearms is essential, but it is not enough. A credible firearm control policy must also address the needs and rights of those affected by firearm-related violence. This means recognising the full spectrum of harm through a victims’ rights lens. Effective policies must combine prevention, protection and long-term support for victims, and integrate victim protection into security and firearm control policies from the outset. 

Only then can efforts to reduce armed violence fully address both its immediate impacts and its enduring human costs.

Read the study: An overview of armed violence victim support in the Western Balkans.