CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 2024

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 21 May 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 33860/23 R.B. and N.G. against Azerbaijan lodged on 8 September 2023 communicated on 3 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure by the authorities to protect the applicants against domestic violence and the alleged discriminatory treatment against them. The first applicant was married to F.A., with whom she had two children. The second applicant is the first applicant’s mother. According to the first applicant, throughout the marriage F.A. subjected her to physical and moral violence. In 2017 she separated from F.A. after an episode of his beating her. In 2018 she got divorced from him. After the divorce the domestic violence episodes (involving beating, insults, threats to kill the applicant, her children and her mother (the second applicant)) continued. After one of those episodes which happened in March 2019 the prosecuting authorities refused to open a criminal case against F.A. Instead, F.A. was found guilty of an offence of beating under the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced to a fine. Meanwhile, on unspecified dates the first applicant complained to various authorities, including the State Committee on Family, Women and Children Affairs, asking for protection against the violence. On 16 April 2019 the Committee asked the relevant executive authority to issue a short-term protection order for the first applicant. On 27 May 2019 a one-time 30 days’ protection order was issued. On 5 August 2019 F.A. injured the first applicant by hitting her with his car. Then he left the car and injured both applicants multiple times with a knife. Consequently, a criminal case was initiated against F.A. and he was accused of attempted murder and was placed in a pre-trial detention. On 2 September 2019 the first applicant and the children were placed in a shelter. According to the first applicant, while in pre-trial detention, F.A. was calling and threatening her and the second applicant. However, the chief of the detention facility ignored her complaint of 20 April 2020 about the calls and threats. F.A. was subjected to three psychiatric medical expert examinations. The first of those examinations, an examination of 1 October 2019, concluded, inter alia , that F.A. had no mental illness and was fit to stand trial. However, a subsequent medical expert examination of 15 February 2021 concluded that at the time of the examination F.A. found himself in the decompensation stage of a chronic “paranoic personality development” ( şəxsiyyətin paranoyyal inkişafı ). The report recommended F.’s compulsory inpatient psychiatric treatment. A report of 7 June 2021 confirmed that conclusion and recommendation. By a decision of 19 August 2021, the Baku Grave Crimes Court decided to place F.A. in a specialised hospital – “the Republican Psychiatric Hospital” (“the Psychiatric Hospital”) – for compulsory inpatient treatment. The applicants appealed. The appellate court quashed the judgment and sent the case for re-examination. By a decision of 19 May 2022, the Baku Grave Crimes Court again decided that F.A. had to be placed in the Psychiatric Hospital. That decision was upheld by the upper-instance courts. The criminal proceedings against F.A. were halted. On 3 October 2022 F.A. was placed in the Psychiatric Hospital for compulsory inpatient treatment. In August 2023 the applicants’ lawyer requested information from the Psychiatric Hospital about any upcoming psychiatric evaluations of F.A. to determine whether his compulsory inpatient treatment was to be continued. According to the applicants, the Psychiatric Hospital did not reply. Invoking Articles 2 (both applicants), 3 (only the first applicant) and 14 (both applicants) of the Convention the applicants argue that the domestic authorities failed to protect them against domestic violence. The applicants argue in particular that the authorities failed, inter alia , to adopt effective preventive measures against the domestic violence. The applicants also allege that the authorities failed in their obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the episodes of the domestic violence against them. Furthermore, the applicants argue that the actions or inaction of the authorities reflected their gender-based discriminatory and stereotypical attitudes.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the domestic legal system provide practical and effective protection to the applicants’ rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention? More specifically, is the applicable legal framework concerning domestic violence compatible with the State’s positive obligations under Articles 2 and   3?   2.     Have the State authorities complied with their positive obligation to take preventive operational measures to safeguard the applicants’ rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, given in particular that they were aware of the applicants’ allegations of domestic violence (see Kurt v. Austria [GC], no. 62903/15, §§ 157-160 and §§ 177-189, 15 June 2021)?   3.     Does the relevant legal framework provide for assessment of risks for the applicants in case of a possible decision to lift compulsory impatient treatment of F.A.? What measures, if any, are envisaged under the domestic law in order to keep the applicants duly and timely informed about any possible release of F.A. from the Psychiatric Hospital (either through lifting or altering of F.A.’s current compulsory inpatient treatment)?   4.     Has there been a violation of the State’s procedural obligations under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention in the present case? Having regard to those procedural obligations, did the investigative authorities conduct an effective investigation into the domestic violence?   5.     In that connection, has the State adequately reacted to the relevant domestic authorities’ alleged failure to protect the applicants’ rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention?   6.     Was the criminal prosecution of F.A., conducted adequately? Reference is being made in particular to the applicants’ allegation that the authorities had overlooked the history of repeated violence against them.   7.     Did the applicants suffer discrimination on the ground of their gender, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, in relation to the manner with which the relevant domestic authorities reacted to their complaints about domestic violence?