| Applicant name | i.c. |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | moldova |
| Application no. | 36436/22 |
| Date | 27/02/2025 |
| Judges | Mattias Guyomar, President, Armen Harutyunyan, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Gilberto Felici, Diana Sârcu, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | Positive obligation |
| Type of privacy | Procedural privacy; private life |
| Keywords | Rape; investigation |
| Facts of the case | Art 4 • Positive obligations • Respondent State’s failure to fulfil substantive and procedural obligations to protect an intellectually disabled woman from trafficking and servitude after her removal from State care and placement with a family on a farm (a “deinstitutionalisation” procedure) where she was forced to work without pay • Arguable claim and prima facie evidence of the applicant’s human trafficking and/or servitude triggered positive obligations • Lack of a legal and administrative framework, at the material time, for the deinstitutionalisation of persons with intellectual disabilities deprived of their legal capacity, affording practical and effective protection against trafficking and/or other forms of treatment contrary to Art 4 • Deficiencies in the placement process and in the support by the domestic authorities before and after the applicant’s placement gave rise to a credible suspicion of a real and immediate risk of trafficking or exploitation • Failure to take protective measures • Lack of an effective investigation • Defective implementation of criminal-law mechanisms Art 3 and Art 8 • Positive obligations • Failure to effectively investigate applicant’s allegations of rape, sexual violence and abuse during her placement • Lack of procedural accommodation in the domestic proceedings in view of the applicant’s vulnerability and her sensitive and intimate complaints • Deficient assessment by the domestic courts exposing applicant to secondary victimisation • Failure to effectively apply a criminal-law system punishing all forms of rape and sexual abuse Art 14 • Art 3 • Art 4 • Art 8 • Discriminatory treatment of applicant as a woman with intellectual disabilities • General institutional passivity and/or lack of awareness of the phenomenon of violence against women with disabilities in Moldova • Lack of reasonable procedural accommodation |
| Analysis | The Court observes that in her initial statement to the police the applicant said that those relations had been pleasurable, but she explicitly stated that they had been non-consensual. It is noteworthy that none of her subsequent statements referred to any “pleasure”, and the applicant herself argued that her initial statement had been made in the absence of any procedural accommodation, in circumstances in which the police officers had asked her directly if she had enjoyed having sexual relations with I.P. Such a line of questioning was clearly inappropriate, insensitive and harmful. It was also legally irrelevant in that context, when the investigation should have focused on the absence of consent. Such behaviour by the police can only stem from and contribute to the stereotype of a female victim being somehow responsible for an assault. The Court finds that the said questions were not only aimed at attacking the applicant’s credibility, but were also meant to denigrate her character. In this context, the Court reiterates that in criminal proceedings on sexual violence, it is essential that authorities avoid reproducing sexist stereotypes in court decisions, playing down gender-based violence and exposing women to secondary victimisation by making guilt-inducing and judgmental comments that were capable of undermining victims’ trust in the justice system. While the social worker was present at that interview, there is no indication that she played any role in providing the applicant with support or facilitating that process for her. On the contrary, it appears that she herself had a prejudiced view of the applicant’s credibility because she thought that “as a person with disabilities, [the applicant] enjoyed drawing attention to herself”. In these circumstances, in the Court’s opinion, the applicant’s intellectual disability and the intimate nature of the subject matter were points of particular sensitivity which called for a correspondingly sensitive approach on the part of the authorities to the conduct of the criminal proceedings. It cannot be said that the applicant did not need any procedural accommodation. The domestic courts relied on the opinions of other witnesses about the applicant’s credibility, but never questioned their credibility. It is noted that most witnesses were former workers from the farm or people in the village with little or no knowledge of the applicant. However, a crucial witness, G.B., changed his statements in the course of the investigation and the courts never analysed the possible reasons for this change, despite the applicant arguing that he had been under pressure from the defendants, on whom he depended for shelter and food. At the same time, the courts dismissed the statements and conclusions of professionals who attested to the applicant’s ability and tendency to reflect reality as it was, without exaggeration or elements of fantasy. It is particularly striking that the courts dismissed those professionals’ views as their “personal conclusions” which were not corroborated by witness statements. In view of the above, without expressing an opinion on I.P.’s guilt, the Court finds that the investigation into the applicant’s case fell short of the requirements inherent in the States’ positive obligations to effectively apply a criminal-law system punishing all forms of rape and sexual abuse. |
| Other Article violation? | 3, 4, and 14 |
| Damage awarded | (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 35,000 (thirty-five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 8,587 (eight thousand five hundred and eighty-seven euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; |
| Documents | Judgment |