CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 2022

.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 } Published on 23 May 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 3692/20 I.H. against Hungary lodged on 4 January 2020 communicated on 3 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, born in 1999, lives with moderate-level mental disability. He was victim of repeated sexual assaults committed by two individuals in 2011-12. At that time the applicant was a minor with mental faculties corresponding to that of an 8.5-year-old. The ensuing criminal proceedings lasted from December 2012 to 4   July 2019, a period involving a remittal and two separate procedures, one against an underage perpetrator and another one against an adult family friend, both of whom were finally convicted. Amongst many elements, the courts considered the fact that the applicant was a mentally disabled minor and that the adult perpetrator infected him with venereal diseases. The applicant complains that the protracted examination of the case covered a crucial period in his psycho-sexual development (13 to 20 years of age). The inertia of the prosecution was largely imputable to the courts which had to remit the case for a purely formal error. The overall inadequacy of the procedure, which involved his being repeatedly questioned by the authorities and forced him to re-live the assaults, was a traumatising experience, especially given his age and mental disability – aspects ignored by the authorities altogether. He invokes Article 3 of the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the manner in which the criminal investigation and the trial was conducted by the authorities in breach of the applicant’s rights under Article   3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention, in particular having regard to his age and mental disability (see C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania , no.   26692/05, §§ 55-83, 20 March 2012, and R.B. v. Estonia , no. 22597/16, § 83, 22 June 2021)?