Published on 19 July 2021

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 12471/20 E.L. against Lithuania lodged on 19 February 2020 c ommunicated on 1 July 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 2006. Between 2008 and 2013 he lived at the foster home ran by nuns, which he then left as a private individual became his guardian.

In 2018 the applicant confided in his guardian that, in 2010 or 2011, when he lived at the foster home, another child had violated him sexually, and that the head of that institution asked the applicant to keep that to himself. On the basis of the child care authorities ’ application, a criminal investigation was opened; it was eventually discontinued. A specialist at the centre providing assistance to the children who had been victims of sexual violence considered that the applicant ’ s behaviour showed some signs that sexual violence had possibly been committed against him in the past. The prosecutors nevertheless considered that other evidence, such as testimony of those who had resided or worked at that foster home at the relevant time, including testimony of the alleged perpetrators and the head of the foster home, ruled out any acts of sexual violence. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed to the courts of two instances pointing out that, under the Supreme Court ’ s constant practice, in child sexual abuse cases it was important that a court commissioned the victim ’ s forensic psychiatric examination so that the truthfulness of his or her statements could be ascertained. In the applicant ’ s case, however, no such examination had been performed; the courts considered that such request was without purpose and could not provide any relevant information.

The applicant complains, under Article 3 of the Convention, that the domestic authorities failed to effectively discharge their positive obligations in relation to the alleged acts of sexual violence against him.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Have the relevant authorities complied with their procedural obligation, under Article 3 of the Convention, to investigate whether alleged acts of sexual violence have been committed against the applicant (see Volodina v. Russia , no. 41261/17, § 77 in fine , 9 July 2019, and the case-law cited therein) ?

The Court refers, among other, to the applicant ’ s complaint that no forensic psychological examination of the applicant had been ordered, before taking the decision to discontinue the criminal investigation.