CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 20 September 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 23655/14 L.A. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 13 March 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complains under Article 3 about sexual violence caused by a private individual, as well as the alleged insufficiency of the investigation and impunity of the perpetrator. She raises the issue of whether the authorities have complied with their positive obligation to prosecute the perpetrator. The applicant also complains under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 that she was discriminated against based on her disability by not taking special measures to allow her to be heard and thus relying mostly on the perpetrator’s statements. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 and/or 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities carry out an effective investigation into the acts of sexual violence committed against the applicant by a private individual (see, for instance, E.M. v. Romania , no. 43994/05, § 59, 30   October 2012)?   2.     Was the applicant subjected to discrimination based on her disability, contrary to the requirements of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 and/or 8? If so, did the authorities comply with their positive obligation to prevent and prosecute the person allegedly responsible for such discrimination through violence (see, mutatis mutandis , Mudric v.   the   Republic of Moldova , no. 74839/10, §§ 39-55, 16 July 2013 and Eremia v.   the Republic of Moldova , no. 3564/11, §§   80-90, 28 May 2013)?