Communicated on 15 February 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 25280/16 E.D. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 28 April 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant ’ s rape and ill-treatment by her former husband (V. D.) in her own house and the manner in which the courts reacted to her complaints.

Having found V. D. guilty of the double crime of bodily harm and rape, the criminal courts convicted him and sentenced him to 3.5 years ’ imprisonment, suspended for four years. The applicant ’ s claim for damages of 50,000 Moldovan lei (MDL, the equivalent of approximately 2,400 euros at the time) was partly accepted, V. D. being ordered to pay MDL 5,000 (the equivalent of approximately 240 euros at the time).

Although mainly relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the domestic courts ’ failure to properly reason their decisions concerning the level of her suffering and the corresponding amount of compensation awarded, the application essentially raises an issue under Article 3, namely whether the domestic courts have taken sufficient measures to ensure protection from domestic violence and to prevent future similar violent actions against vulnerable persons.

QUESTION tO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, did V. D. ’ s sentence, including the amount of damages ordered to be paid to the applicant, ensure the deterrent effect against the repetition of similar acts against women as a group especially vulnerable to domestic violence (see, for instance, Opuz v. Turkey , no. 154-176 , §§ 154 ‑ 176, ECHR 2009; Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 3564/11 , §§ 48-66, 28 May 2013; Mudric v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 74839/10, §§ 39-55, 16 July 2013, and T.M. and C.M. v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 26608/11 , §§ 35-49 , 28 January 2014 )?