CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 20 December 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 42203/21 A.A. against Russia lodged on 16 August 2021 communicated on 1 December 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations of female genital mutilation (removal of the clitoral hood) performed for religious reasons on the applicant, aged nine at the time, in a State-licenced clinic in the Ingushetiya Republic, at the request of her biological father and without the knowledge of her mother. Since 2016 that clinic has publicly advertised the operation of “female circumcision”. The operating surgeon was charged with causing “minor bodily harm” but the two-year period of limitation for the prosecution expired on 22 June 2021. The police refused to prosecute the applicant’s biological father or other medical staff of the clinic or investigate allegations that female genital mutilation was being performed in the region (final decision – 16   February 2021, the Supreme Court of Ingushetiya). According to the applicant, over 1,200 girls in Russia suffer from female genital mutilation – a procedure designed to repress female sexuality – every year and the State has so far failed to counter effectively that form of ill-treatment.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to female genital mutilation recognised as a form of ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see R.B.A.B.   and Others v. the Netherlands , no.   7211/06, §   54, 7   June 2016)?   2.     As regards the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in connection with the applicant’s mutilation, did the Russian authorities discharge their obligation to protect the applicant against that form of ill ‑ treatment? In particular, (a)     Did the Russian State discharge the obligation to establish and apply effectively an appropriate legislative framework? (b)     Did the Russian authorities discharge the obligation to take the reasonable measures that might have been expected of them to prevent female genital mutilation from being performed on the applicant? (c)     Did the Russian authorities discharge the obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the ill-treatment to which the applicant was subjected and to bring the perpetrators to account by imposing sufficiently dissuasive sanctions?   3.     As regards the alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, was the applicant discriminated against on account of her sex?