Communicated on 9 December 2020 Published on 1 1 January 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 25293/20 Yelena Viktorovna ANDREYEVA against Russia lodged on 23 June 2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Ms Yelena Viktorovna Andreyeva , is a Russian national, who was born in 1981 and lives in the Moscow Region. She is represented before the Court by Ms Vanessa Kogan of the Stichting Justice Initiative.

2 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3 . In 2012 the applicant married D., a police captain and head of a police station in Moscow. They had three children, a girl born in 2012 and two boys born in 2014 and 2017. After the birth of their third child D. turned violent and began abusing the applicant.

4 . On 27 December 2018 D. beat the applicant. Doctors in the Sklifosovskiy Emergency Medicine Hospital in Moscow diagnosed her with a brain trauma and noted haematomas on her head. They asked her whether she wanted to file a complaint with the police. She refused out of fear that D. would be angry or be fired from his job and unable to pay the mortgage on their flat.

5 . On 1 August 2019 D. beat the applicant again. She called the police and gave a statement. She explained that D. systematically abused her, both verbally and physically, in the presence of the children. On 12 August 2019 the police issued the decision not to investigate. While conceding that there were “formal indications of an offence under Article 115 of the Criminal Code [minor bodily harm]”, they held that no offence had been committed because the applicant failed to submit to a medical assessment and the severity of her injuries could not be verified.

6 . After a series of violent incidents between 14 and 16 October 2019, the applicant took the children and fled to a shelter for victims of domestic violence located in the Moscow Region. D. filed a report that she went missing. On 20 October 2019 a district inspector called her and asked her to explain what happened and send him photographs of the children to make sure that they were alive and well. She filed a written statement, detailing the violence inflicted on her.

7 . On 23 October 2019 the applicant applied for the protection to the Public Monitoring Council of the Moscow Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior. A member of the Council reported D. ’ s conduct to the internal security department of the Yugo- Zapadnyy Administrative District in Moscow which has jurisdiction over D. ’ s station. An official from the Yugo- Zapadnyy District police office invited her to a meeting on 8 November, together with D. The applicant accepted the invitation on the condition that D. would not be there. The official asked her what her family situation was, why D. beat her, when he beat her, what caused the conflicts and why she decided to apply to the Public Monitoring Council. He said that he would “look into it”. On 29 November 2019 she received a response that D. ’ s conduct disclosed “no breaches of discipline or law”.

8 . While in the shelter, the applicant was unable to take the children to school. A trip from the shelter in the Moscow Region to their school in Moscow would take more than one hour and involve a bus and metro ride and a long walk. She could not complete it on her own while looking after the seven- and five-year-olds and holding the two-year-old in her arms. Nor could she enrol them at the nearest school which required that she should have a registered place of residence in the vicinity.

9 . In late October 2019 D. told the applicant that the daughter ’ s teacher had called him to ask why she was absent from school. He said that the applicant would be stripped of her parental authority if the children did not go to school. On 1 November 2019 the applicant returned the children to D. ’ s flat. She continued living in the shelter and visited the children to take them to school and to walks and to cook for them while D. was at work.

10 . On 12 December 2019 the applicant had to return to D. ’ s flat to tend to the sick children. A few days later D. began swearing obscenely at her. She had the verbal abuse recorded on the smartphone. On 22 December 2019 he hit her on the face. When he was about to hit her for a second time, she ran out. She unsuccessfully tried to contact the district inspector whose number she had from the October incident.

11 . In the night of 9 January 2020, as the applicant was putting the younger son to sleep, D. walked into the bedroom and told her that she was a bad mother. He kicked her in the thigh and told her to go to the kitchen. There, he slapped her, squeezed her throat and knocked her to the floor. He pushed her head hard against the floor until she began to choke. She said she could not breathe and he let go of her. The applicant was too scared to call the police but she texted the district inspector and asked for help. The inspector refused to come and told her to call the local police number in the morning.

12 . On the following day the applicant went to a trauma ward. She was diagnosed with an abrasion on the left cheek and a neck sprain. The police was notified and an officer saw her later that day to take a statement.

13 . The applicant had to return to D. ’ s flat because the children had not yet recovered. On 11 January 2020 D. slapped her again.

14 . On 13 January 2020 the police interviewed the applicant and asked her to submit to a medical assessment to establish the severity of her injuries. She did as requested . On the date of introduction of the application she had not yet received an update on the progress of the investigation.

15 . On 16 March 2020 D. swore obscenely at the applicant and threatened to throw her out on the street because he had money problems and she was not working. He attacked her in front of the children. She scratched him in self-defence. She did not go to a hospital because she did not suffer any visible injuries.

COMPLAINTS

16 . The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that the Russian authorities failed to establish a legal framework capable of protecting her against recurrent acts of violence and conduct an effective investigation into the ill-treatment inflicted by her husband.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. The Government are requested to inform the Court of the status of the investigation into the January 2020 assault on the applicant.

2. As regards the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in connection with the ill-treatment of the applicant by her husband, did the Russian authorities discharge their obligation to protect her against the violence? In particular,

(a) Did the Russian State discharge the obligation to establish and apply effectively a legislative framework for punishing all forms of domestic violence and providing sufficient safeguards for victims?

(b) Did the Russian authorities discharge the obligation to take the reasonable measures that might have been expected of them in the circumstances in order to avert further risk of ill-treatment after the applicant had reported the initial assault? Did the Russian authorities design and implement a strategy for risk assessment and management of domestic violence?

(c) Did the Russian authorities discharge the obligation to conduct an effective investigation into all instances of ill-treatment which had been reported to them and to bring the perpetrator to account?