This author is essentially calling for a "quota" in sexual assault convictions.  That is neither "fair" nor "just".  Yes, the conviction "rate" is very low, but why are you even tracking that "rate" in the first place?  That implies that you expect there to be a certain number of convictions.  The only way to get to that number of convictions is to through any pretence to rights and laws out the window.

Treat the complainants with respect (I refuse to call them "survivors" without a conviction), but also we need to make sure that the presumption of innocence reigns supreme.  Otherwise, why bother having a trial at all?