The European Court of Human Rights this week ruled that failures in the Cyprus Republic’s handling of a rape allegation have amounted to a violation of Articles 3, 8, and 14 of the ECHR.
The European Court of Human Rights this week ruled that failures in the Cyprus Republic’s handling of a rape allegation have amounted to a violation of Articles 3, 8, and 14 of the ECHR.
The Applicant, NT, represented by Garden Court barrister Leto Cariolou, reported to the Cypriot Police in 2021 that she was raped by the defendant – a serving Cyprus politician seeking election – ten years earlier when she was just 18 years’ old.
The European Court of Human Rights identified serious flaws in the police investigation and sexist prejudices by the prosecutors who examined the case including the Deputy Attorney General of Cyprus who ultimately decided to suspend the criminal proceedings against the defendant.
The ruling highlights what experts have described as systemic issues in Cyprus’s response to sexual violence cases with “rampant prejudices and patriarchal attitudes among the police” as well as the open display of sexist and misogynistic attitudes by public prosecutors including the Deputy Attorney General of Cyprus who “appeared to have an inadequate understanding of the paradigmatic shift in proving rape”.
Following the judgment, five political parties in Cyprus have demanded the Deputy Attorney General’s resignation and there have been public protests outside the Legal Service of the Republic of Cyprus.
Police failures
The Court referred to Police failure to:
- investigate certain lines of enquiry
- collect available evidence regarding relevant surrounding circumstances, and
- seek expert evidence by a specialist psychologist which would have assisted the investigation.
Prosecutors’ failures
The Court’s “primary concern” nonetheless was the final domestic decision in NT’s case which was taken personally by the Deputy Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus.
In this regard the Court noted that his decision was made on the basis of “alleged” inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements. The Court noted that the “main inconsistency cited” was “in fact a failure of the police”; specifically, failure to record the Applicant’s evidence correctly. The Court found no inconsistency on the Applicant’s part.
The Strasbourg Court found that the Deputy Attorney General had exposed the Applicant to secondary victimization through guilt-inducing and sexist stereotypes. The Court also noted the authorities’ failure to respect the applicant’s rights as a victim and treat her with dignity.
In addition, the Court criticised the Deputy Attorney General’s unreasoned refusal to allow the Applicant access to the case file which had limited her effective participation in the process and her avenues for legal redress.
Article Violations
The Court found a violation of Articles 3, 8, and 14 of the Convention. With regard to the separate violation of Article 14 the Court noted that the language used by the prosecutors and the Deputy Attorney General himself conveyed prejudices and sexist stereotypes which were liable to discourage women’s confidence as victims of gender-based violence in the justice system.
The Court found that the prosecutors’ response not only denied the applicant of appropriate protection but also had exposed her to secondary victimization.
