Communicated on 25 November 2020 Published on 14 December 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 34851/20 Anna Olegovna YEGOROVA against Russia lodged on 10 August 2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Ms Anna Olegovna Yegorova , is a Russian national who was born in 1989 and lives in Novokuznetsk. 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 . From 2017 to 2019 the applicant was married to Mr S. The son A. was born to their marriage. S. had a prior history of violence and drug abuse and had been convicted, in particular, for causing grievous bodily harm. The couple lived in S. ’ s flat.

4 . On 19 March 2018 S. severely beat the applicant. A medical assessment revealed multiple bruises and abrasions on her face, forearms, shoulders, chest, thighs and shins.

5 . On 12 July 2018 S. had beaten the applicant in front of his mother and their infant son A. Two days later the police declined to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds that a medical assessment had not been carried out and that witnesses had not been identified. They did however talk to S. who blamed the applicant for the conflict. He claimed that she had attacked him with scissors and that he had acted in self-defence.

6 . On 3 and 4 December 2018 S. hit the applicant on the head and locked her up in the flat. On 12 December 2018 the police discontinued the inquiry after she had withdrawn her complaint.

7 . On 2 March 2019 the applicant and S. had a dispute over the time when A. should be put to bed. The row escalated, S. forcefully pushed the applicant onto the sofa, hit her on the head and kicked her. Her daughter from a previous marriage who lived with her grandmother and was visiting that day got scared and called the police. The police took a statement from the applicant and made her sign an undertaking to submit to a medical assessment. On 14 March 2019 the police closed the inquiry on the grounds that the applicant had declined to undergo a medical evaluation and had withdrawn her complaint.

8 . In connection with the 2 March incident, on 3 March and 1 May 2019 the police charged the applicant with two instances of child neglect, an offence under Article 5.35 of the Code of Administrative Offences. In the first case, she was accused of causing children to witness family disputes. In the second case, she was alleged to have been drunk and aggressive and have assaulted her husband in the presence of her infant son. On 12 March and 4 June 2019 the authority for the protection of minors ( комиссия по делам несовершеннолетних ) found the applicant guilty on both charges and gave her a warning. On 10 September and 29 November 2019 the Tsentralnyy District Court in Novokuznetsk set aside the authority ’ s decisions. It found that neither the fact of neglect nor the applicant ’ s intent had been established. Moreover, her children had not been heard, the allegation of drinking had not been corroborated with any evidence,

9 . On 7 June 2019 S. beat the applicant in front of A., his mother and his mother ’ s friend. He had hit her on the head and upper body, pulled and twisted her arms until she passed out and collapsed on the floor. While she was unconscious, S. called the police and told them that the applicant was drunk and that he would not release A. in her custody. The police ordered the applicant to leave the flat and leave A. with his father.

10 . On the following day the applicant went to the trauma unit of the city hospital which sent a report of her injuries to the police. A medical assessment recorded multiple haematomas on her forehead, both ears, right cheek, both shoulders and abrasions on the back of her head and right wrist.

11 . On 5 and 6 July 2019 the police declined to institute criminal proceedings against S. in connection with threats of death but charged him with the administrative offence of inflicting battery under Article 6.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (see paragraph 13 below). On 29 October 2019 a justice of the peace in district 5 in Novokuznetsk found him guilty as charged and fined him 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB, approximately 70 euros on the date of the judgment).

12 . The applicant also asked the police to institute proceedings against S. on the charge of “tormenting” under Article 117 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 14 below). Her initial request which she lodged immediately after the June incident was rejected on 5 July 2019. The police held that a succession of violent incidents required to satisfy the criterion of systemic conduct had not been shown to exist. On 17 July 2019 a supervising prosecutor set aside the refusal to investigate and directed the police to commission a medical assessment, identify and interview witnesses. On 25 August 2019 the police issued a further refusal to investigate. On 28 November 2019 the applicant applied for a judicial review of the police ’ s failure to investigate. On the following day the supervising prosecutor set aside the August refusal she had challenged. On 3 December 2019 the Tsentralnyy District Court in Novokuznetsk rejected her application for review on the grounds that the impugned refusal had already been annulled by the prosecutor. On 10 February 2020 the Kemerovo Regional Court dismissed her appeal against the District Court ’ s decision.

13 . Article 6.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“Battery”) provides that inflicting blows or engaging in other kinds of violent conduct which causes physical pain without occasioning actual bodily harm is punishable with a fine of between RUB 5,000 and RUB 30,000, ten to fifteen days ’ detention, or 60 to 120 hours ’ community service.

14 . Article 117 of the Criminal Code defines the offence of “tormenting” ( истязание ) as “causing physical or mental suffering through systematic beating or other violent actions” which do not result in actual bodily harm. The act of “tormenting” is punishable with up to three years ’ deprivation of liberty.

COMPLAINTS

15 . 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 domestic violence and conduct an effective investigation into all instances of ill-treatment by S.

16 . The applicant also complains under Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, that she was a victim of discrimination on account of her sex. The authorities refused or delayed an investigation into the ill-treatment by her husband while promptly charging her with administrative offences on the basis of his allegations alone, in the absence of any corroborating evidence.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. As regards the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in connection with the assaults on the applicant by Mr S., 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 or harassment after the applicant had reported the assault in July 2018? 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?

2. As regards the alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, did the applicant establish that she was the victim of structural bias or individual prejudice on account of her sex?