I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in B v. RUSSIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2010-03-25
  • Communication date: 2021-02-18
  • Application number(s): 36328/20
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 8, 8-1, 13
  • Conclusion:
    Remainder inadmissible
    Violation of Art. 6-1
    Violation of P1-1
    Just satisfaction reserved
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.510178
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant is a Russian national who was born in 2007.
She is represented before the Court by Ms V. Kogan, director of the NGO Astreya, and Mr E. Wesselink, Chair of the NGO Stichting Justice Initiative.
The application concerns the alleged secondary victimisation of the applicant in the course of a preliminary investigation by the Investigative Committee for the Privolzhskiy District of Kazan and a trial before the Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan in criminal proceedings concerning her sexual abuse.
The proceedings were opened in February 2019 against four individuals.
One of the proceedings ended with a conviction of M. in the Privolzhskiy District Court’s judgment of 16 July 2020.
The proceedings against three other individuals are pending.
The applicant alleges that the existing legal framework in the Russian Federation does not adequately protect the rights of children as victims of sexual assault in criminal proceedings.
It does not provide for remedies to complain (against actions by an investigator and a court) about secondary victimisation during a criminal investigation and trial and to request measures preventing secondary victimisation in future proceedings.
In her case this has manifested itself in, inter alia, the lack of the limit of the number of interviews about the circumstances of her sexual abuse, the lack of the right to be interviewed by a person of the same gender as that of the victim, the rigidity of the law prescribing the opening of a separate criminal case against each alleged perpetrator (in her situation four separate criminal cases were opened) instead of providing for ways to reduce the number of investigative activities in which the victim has to participate.

Judgment