CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 18 February 2021 Published on 8 March 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 36328/20 B against Russia lodged on 13 August 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 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. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In view of the applicant’s particular vulnerability as a minor victim of sexual assault, and having regard to the applicant’s allegations and the manner in which the criminal proceedings have been conducted, have the authorities complied with their positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention? In particular, is there an adequate legal and regulatory framework in the Russian Federation governing the conduct of the authorities in investigating and processing cases of sexual abuse of children? If so, in implementing those norms in the applicant’s situation, has sufficient protection been afforded to the applicant’s right to human dignity and respect for private life, and for her personal integrity in light of her vulnerability due to her young age and alleged sexual abuse and taking the best interests of the child as a primary consideration (see Y. v. Slovenia , no.   41107/10, §§ 101-16, ECHR 2015 (extracts), and A and B v. Croatia , no.   7144/15, §§ 105-13, 20 June 2019)?   In particular, the Government are requested to comment in detail on the following occurrences in the proceedings so far, which have been highlighted by the applicant as causing her particular anxiety: (a)     On 16 February 2019 the applicant was examined by an investigator in respect of all episodes of her sexual abuse. The video recording of her examination was lost, and her examination had to be repeated. Between February 2019 and May 2020 she was interviewed ten more times. In total, in the course of the investigation and trial proceedings she had to retell the circumstances of her sexual abuse at least 23 times. An investigator asked her questions, such as, inter alia , why she had failed to complain about her abuse immediately. (b)     The identification of suspects was organised so that she had to see them in person. During one such identification parade on 18 February 2019 the alleged perpetrator walked into the room where she was. (c)     During the verification of the applicant’s statements at the scene of a crime on 19 February 2019 the brother of an accused was present. (d)     She had to participate in lengthy (2 hours and 20 minutes, and 55   minutes with a ten-minute break) confrontations with the alleged perpetrators, despite the experts’ opinion that her meetings with them should be excluded. During the confrontations she had to answer questions by the accused, their male lawyers and an investigator. During one such confrontation on 26 April 2019 the accused was represented by two lawyers who subjected her to intensive questioning without pauses between their questions. (e)     Her continued participation in the investigation and trial was requested by the authorities, including her examinations by an investigator (three times) and before a court (twice), even after the experts had issued recommendations to the contrary. (f)     In December 2019 she was diagnosed with “prolonged depressive reaction” and in July 2020 with heightened anxiety, depression and moderate level of suicidal risk. She is subjected to continued requests to participate in the proceedings despite the experts’ recommendations to the contrary.   2.     Does the applicant have at her disposal effective domestic remedies for her Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?