I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in E.G. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2021-04-13
  • Communication date: 2015-06-17
  • Application number(s): 37882/13
  • Country:   MDA
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 8, 8-1
  • Conclusion:
    Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
    (Art. 35-1) Six-month period
    Violation of Article 3+8 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life
    Positive obligations)
    Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage
    Just satisfaction)
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.722029
  • 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, Ms E.G., is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Chișinău.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On the night from 9 to 10 February 2008 the applicant was stopped in the street by two persons, who claimed to be police officers and asked her to accompany them to the police station.
Instead they took her to a hospital, where together with a third person, raped and sodomized her.
Criminal proceedings were initiated in respect of G.P., G.R., and B.V. and on 23 October 2008 the case was committed for trial.
On 7 December 2010 the Supreme Court of Justice finally found G.R.
and G.P.
guilty of group rape and forced sodomy (Articles 171 (2) c) and 172 (2) c) of the Criminal Code) and sentenced them to five and a half and to six years of imprisonment respectively.
The court found B.V. guilty of forced group sodomy and sentenced him to five years of imprisonment.
G.P.
and G.R.
were arrested in the trial room on 2 December 2009 and served their sentences until 27 September 2012 and 12 October 2012 respectively.
B.V. did not attend the court hearing on 2 December 2009 and was not in the trial room to be arrested to serve his sentence.
The authorities declared him wanted on 14 May 2010, after the applicant had made inquiries about it.
On 18 April 2011 B.V. requested to be exempted from serving his sentence by operation of a 2008 Amnesty law.
On 20 December 2011 the Centru District Court rejected his request finding that the 2008 Amnesty law was inapplicable because he had been finally convicted on 7 December 2010 after that law had entered into force.
B.V. appealed this decision.
In appellate proceedings the prosecutor T.C.
supported B.V.’s appeal and amnesty request.
On 22 May 2012 the Chișinău Court of Appeal accepted B.V.’s appeal, quashed the decision of the district court and delivered a new decision granting his amnesty request.
The same decision quashed the search and arrest warrant in respect of B.V.
Following several extraordinary appeals, initiated by the prosecutor on behalf of the applicant, the amnesty proceedings were reopened and on 18 November 2013 the Chișinău Court of Appeal finally quashed the decision of 22 May 2012 of the Chișinău Court of Appeal and refused B.V.’s amnesty request.
The applicant repeatedly inquired whether B.V. was found and was executing his sentence.
By a letter of 10 January 2014 the General Police Inspectorate informed the applicant’s representative that B.V. had not been declared wanted and no search measures in respect of him had been undertaken because neither the Orhei Prosecutor’s Office nor the Chișinău Court of Appeal had ordered B.V.’s search.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that her right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 and the right to respect for her private life under Article 8 were violated by the State’s failure to observe its positive obligations to effectively enforce the sentence for crimes of sexual violence in respect of B.V., in particular, by accepting B.V.’s amnesty request and, after quashing that decision, by failing to search for him.

Judgment