Information Note on the Court’s case-law 266

September 2022

J.I. v. Croatia - 35898/16

Judgment 8.9.2022 [Section I]

Article 3

Effective investigation

Failure to effectively investigate alleged death threats against vulnerable rape victim by her abuser and father, in breach of domestic law: violation

Facts – The applicant’s father, B.S., was convicted and imprisoned on several counts of rape and incest against her. During his prison leave, he allegedly threatened to kill the applicant through their relatives. The applicant contacted the police on several occasions, including after seeing B.S. at a bus station. The police intervened at the scene but no further action was taken. The applicant complained about the police conduct, resulting in an ultimately unsuccessful internal inquiry at the Ministry of the Interior, and lodged an unsuccessful complaint before the Constitutional Court.

Law – Article 3:

(a) Whether the applicant had been subjected to treatment contravening Article 3 – The applicant was a highly traumatised young woman of Roma origin, who had endured previous physical suffering and excessive psychological trauma. The Court could not doubt that her fear of further abuse and retaliation by B.S., stemming from the indirect threat to her life she had received, had been both genuine and intense. Coupled with the anxiety and feelings of powerlessness that she had experienced in the circumstances, the Court concluded that she had suffered inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3.

(b) Whether the authorities had discharged their obligations under Article 3 – The applicant had contacted the police on three separate occasions, informing them about a serious threat by B.S. Although the authorities had had the duty to investigate the allegations of serious threat to the applicant’s life, at none of those occasions had they started a proper criminal investigation, as they had been obliged to do under domestic law:

- The Court could not conclude whether the applicant had clearly stated that B.S. had uttered serious threats against her life during the first occasion of contact, when she had called the emergency helpline.

- During the second occasion, when the police had intervened at the bus station, the relevant police report had made clear that the applicant had told them that B.S. had threatened to kill her. Under domestic law, no particular form was required for a criminal complaint, which could be submitted orally or in writing. The police were obliged by law to conduct a criminal inquiry whenever they learned of allegations that a criminal offence might have been committed for which prosecution was conducted ex officio. A serious threat by a family member being a criminal act to be prosecuted ex officio , the police should have at least at that point begun criminal inquiries concerning the applicant’s allegations. The police had further been required to inform the competent State Attorney’s Office of the results of their criminal inquiries on the matter. Moreover, even if the authorities had concluded that the applicant’s allegations concerned a criminal offence prosecuted by private prosecution or that the acts complained of did not have the characteristics of a criminal offence, the police should have informed her accordingly.

- The applicant had contacted the police a third time through a letter written by her lawyer, complaining about the police failure to react to her concerns and requesting them to take adequate measures to protect her physical integrity. The applicant had expressly requested that her complaint about the alleged serious threat by B.S. be forwarded to the competent State Attorney’s Office. That was never done, and instead her letter had been perceived as a mere complaint about police work, resulting in an internal inquiry.

The applicant’s claim that the foregoing dismissive police behaviour had been the result of her Roma ethnic origin was not substantiated. Nevertheless, in a case such as the present one, where the authorities had been well aware of the applicant’s particular vulnerability on account of her sex, ethnic origin and past traumas, they should have reacted promptly and efficiently to her criminal complaints in order to protect her from the realisation of that threat, as well as from intimidation, retaliation and repeat victimisation.

While B.S.’s prison leave had ultimately been discontinued and he had been expelled from Croatia immediately upon his release, it could not be disregarded that the police had never even commenced criminal inquiries, let alone a serious investigation in the applicant’s allegations, prior to the application being communicated to the respondent Government. The authorities had also never made a serious attempt to take a comprehensive view of the applicant’s case as a whole, including the domestic violence to which she had previously been exposed, as was required in this type of case.

The authorities had therefore failed to effectively investigate a particularly vulnerable rape victim’s allegation of a serious threat to her life.

Conclusion : violation (six votes to one).

Article 41: EUR 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

(See also Volodina v. Russia 41261/17, 9 July 2019, Legal Summary ; Tunikova and Others v. Russia , 55974/16 et al., 14 December 2021, Legal Summary )

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes