CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 November 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 19018/24 A.R.K. against the Netherlands lodged on 26 June 2024 communicated on 14 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure of the domestic authorities to effectively investigate a reported rape committed by a private individual against the applicant. The applicant alleges that after a carnival party she was raped in the bushes on 20 February 2023. While the applicant could not recollect the details of the incident because she had been under influence of alcohol at the time, she provided the police with a written reconstruction of the events, a map of the location, a chat conversation with a friend who called her immediately after the alleged rape, the name of the alleged perpetrator and a photograph of her injuries, as well as her underwear and pantyhose which she claimed contained the perpetrator’s DNA. The police did not initiate a criminal investigation. According to the police, the evidence presented by the applicant was insufficient and further investigations were unlikely to result in a conviction of rape as the required element of “coercion” was lacking. The objection lodged by the applicant with the public prosecutor against the termination of her case without investigative actions having been carried out, did not lead to a different decision. The applicant filed a complaint with the competent Court of Appeal against the decision not to investigate. On 27 February 2024, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to designate the person named by the applicant as a suspect. Nor did the court see sufficient evidence that could lead to a conviction in a criminal case against that person. The court therefore also found insufficient reason to conduct a forensic examination of the applicant’s clothing, as the presence of the alleged perpetrator’s DNA would not, by itself, establish a punishable sexual act, nor to hear witnesses, as they could only testify about what they had heard from the applicant about the incident. The applicant complains under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the rape allegations. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the respondent State’s positive obligations under Articles   3 and 8 of the Convention, did the competent domestic authorities conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of rape (see among others, M.C. v. Bulgaria , no. 39272/98, §§ 148-53, ECHR 2003-XII, X. v. Greece , no. 38588/21, §§ 65-70, 13 February 2024 and X. v. Cyprus , no.   40733/22, §§ 104-109, 27 February 2025)?