CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 2 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s776E10E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE1C80691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s16DC539 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s28BDCFEA { width:6.53pt; display:inline-block } .sD8CFEB15 { width:165.09pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE0BBE7B5 { margin:0pt 26.1pt 0pt 28.35pt; font-size:10pt }       FIRST SECTION           CASE OF TALPIS v. ITALY   (Application no. 41237/14)           JUDGMENT (Extracts)     This version was rectified on 21 March 2017 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.       STRASBOURG   2 March 2017   FINAL   18/09/2017       This judgment has become final under Article   44 §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Talpis v. Italy, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,   Guido Raimondi,   Kristina Pardalos,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Robert Spano,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Tim Eicke, judges, and Abel Campos, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 and 31 January 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 41237/14) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Romanian and Moldovan national, Ms Elisaveta Talpis (“the applicant”), on 23 May 2014. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms S. Menichetti and Ms   C.   Carrano, lawyers practising in Rome [1] . The Italian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs E. Spatafora. 3.     The applicant complained, inter alia , of a failure by the Italian authorities to comply with their duty to protect her against the acts of domestic violence inflicted on her and that had led to an attempt to murder her and the death of her son. 4.     On 26 August 2015 the application was communicated to the Government. The Romanian and Moldovan Governments did not exercise their right to intervene in the procedure (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention). 5.     The Government objected on the grounds that the observations submitted by the applicant had reached the Court on 15 March 2016, which was after the time-limit of 9 March 2016 had expired. The Court observes, however, that the observations were sent on 9 March 2016, in accordance with Rule 38 § 2 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Remanzaccio. 7.     The applicant married A.T., a Moldovan national, and two children were born of the marriage: a daughter in 1992 and a son in 1998. 8.     The applicant alleged that after their marriage her husband had started beating her. However, in 2011 the applicant followed her husband to Italy in order to provide her children with the opportunity of a more serene future. 1.     The first assault committed by A.T. against the applicant and her daughter 9.     The applicant submitted that her husband, who was an alcoholic, had already been physically abusing her for a long time when, on 2 June 2012, she requested the intervention of the police after she and her daughter had been assaulted by A.T. 10.     When the police arrived, A.T. had left the family home. He was found in the street in a state of intoxication, with scratches on the left side of his face. The police drew up a report of the incident. The report stated that the applicant had been beaten and bitten in the face and the left leg and that she had a number of bruises. The report also stated that the applicant’s daughter had herself been hit after intervening to protect her mother and presented a neck injury caused by a fingernail and injuries to both arms. The applicant and her daughter were informed of their rights and expressed their intention to go to the hospital accident and emergency unit. 11.     The applicant alleged that she had not, however, been informed of the possibility of lodging a complaint or contacting a shelter for battered women. She also submitted that she went to the accident and emergency unit in order to have her injuries recorded, but that after waiting for three hours she had decided to return home. 12.     The Government, referring to the police report, submitted that there was no evidence that the applicant had gone to the accident and emergency unit. 2.     The second assault committed by A.T. against the applicant a)     The applicant’s version 13.     The applicant submitted that after the assault on 2 June 2012 she had taken refuge in the cellar of her flat and started sleeping there. 14.     She recounted the following events as follows. On 19 August 2012, after receiving a threatening telephone call from her husband, and fearing an attack by him, she decided to leave the house. When she returned home, she found that the cellar door had been broken. She tried telephoning a friend to ask if she could stay the night with her, but no one answered her call. She then decided to go back to the cellar. A.T. attacked her there with a knife and forced her to follow him in order to have sexual relations with his friends. Hoping that she would be able to seek help once outside, she resigned herself to following him. She asked a police patrol in the street for help. 15.     The police merely checked her and A.T.’s identity papers, and despite the applicant’s assertions that she had been threatened and beaten by her husband, they invited her to go home without offering her help and told A.T. to keep away from her. A.T. was fined for unauthorised possession of a lethal weapon. 16.     Shortly after she had returned home, the applicant called the emergency services and was taken to hospital. The doctors noted, among other things, that she suffered from cranial trauma, a head injury, multiple abrasions to her body and a bruise on her chest. It was deemed that her injuries would heal up within a week. b)     The Government’s version 17.     The Government indicated that, according to the incident report drawn up by the police, they had arrived at Leopardi Street shortly after midnight. The applicant informed them that she had been hit in the face. A.T. had given the police officers a knife. The applicant told the police that she wanted to go to hospital to have her injuries recorded. She had gone there and A.T. had returned home. The knife had been seized and the applicant fined for unauthorised possession of a lethal weapon. 3.     The applicant’s complaint 18.     At the hospital the applicant spoke to a social worker and said that she refused to return home to her husband. She was then given shelter by an association for the protection of female victims of violence, IOTUNOIVOI (“the association”). 19.     The president of the women’s shelter, accompanied by police officers, went to the cellar where the applicant had been living in order to fetch her clothes and personal effects. 20.     From 20 August onwards A.T. began harassing the applicant by telephoning her and sending her insulting messages. 21.     On 5 September 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint against her husband for bodily harm, ill-treatment and threats of violence, urging the authorities to take prompt action to protect her and her children and to prevent A.T. from approaching them. She stated that she had taken refuge in a women’s shelter and that A.T. was harassing her by telephone. 22.     A.T. was placed under judicial investigation on charges of ill-treating family members, inflicting grievous bodily harm and making threats. The police sent the criminal complaint to the prosecution on 9   October 2012. 23.     On 15 October 2012 the prosecution, having regard to the applicant’s requests for protection measures, ordered urgent investigative measures, in particular requesting the police to find potential witnesses, including the applicant’s daughter. 24.     The applicant was given shelter by the association for three months. 25.     In a letter of 27 August 2012 the head of Udine social services informed the association that there were no resources available to take charge of the applicant or to find alternative accommodation for her. 26.     The Government gave a different interpretation of that letter, saying that, as the applicant had not first been referred to the Udine social services, which cared for victims of violence in the context of another project, called “Zero tolerance”, the latter could not pay the association’s expenses. In their submission, female victims of violence could contact social services requesting assistance, which the applicant had not done. 27.     On 4 December 2012 the applicant left the shelter to look for work. 28.     She said that she had first slept in the street before being accommodated by a friend, and had subsequently found a job as an assistant nurse for elderly people and was then able to rent a flat. According to the applicant, A.T. had continued exerting psychological pressure on her to withdraw her complaint. 29.     On 18 March 2013 the prosecution, finding that no investigative measure had been carried out, again asked the police to investigate the applicant’s allegations rapidly. 30.     On 4 April 2013, seven months after she had lodged her complaint, the applicant was questioned for the first time by the police. She altered her statements, mitigating the seriousness of her original allegations. Regarding the episode of June 2012 she stated that A.T. had unsuccessfully attempted to hit her and her daughter. With regard to the incident that had occurred in August 2012, she said that A.T. had hit her but had not threatened her with a knife. A.T. had, however, pretended to turn the knife on himself. The applicant also stated that at the time she had not spoken very good Italian and had not been able to express herself properly. She also stated that A.T. had not forced her to have sex with other people and that she had returned to live at the family home. She said that when she had been living at the shelter provided by the association, she had not spoken to her husband on the telephone because she had been told not to. She stated that, barring her husband’s alcoholism, the situation at home was calm. She concluded by saying that her husband was a good father and a good husband and that there had been no further episodes of violence. 31.     The applicant submitted that she had altered her original statements because of the psychological pressure exerted on her by her husband. 32.     On 30 May 2013 the Udine public prosecutor’s office, after noting, firstly, that the applicant, who had been interviewed in April, had mitigated her allegations against her husband saying that he had not threatened her with a knife and that she had been misunderstood by an employee from the shelter where she had taken refuge and, secondly, that no other violent episode had occurred, asked the investigating judge to close the complaint lodged against A.T. for ill-treatment of family members. Regarding the offence of grievous bodily harm, the prosecuting authorities indicated that they intended to continue the investigations. 33.     In a decision of 1 August 2013 the investigating judge discontinued the part of the complaint concerning the allegations of ill-treatment of family members and threats. He considered that the course of the events was unclear and that, with regard to the alleged ill-treatment, the offence had not been made out because, since the applicant had complained only about the incident of August 2012, the criterion of repeated episodes of violence was not satisfied. 34.     With regard to the complaint of threats aggravated by the use of a weapon, the investigating judge noted that the applicant’s statements were contradictory and that in the report drawn up by the hospital there was no reference to knife injuries. 35.     With regard to the offence of causing bodily harm, the proceedings were continued before the magistrate. A.T. was committed for trial on 28   October 2013. The first hearing was held on 13 February 2014 and A.T. was ordered to pay a fine of 2,000   euros (EUR) on 1 October 2015. 4.     The third assault by A.T., against the applicant and her son and the murder by A.T. of his son 36.     It can be seen from the case file that on 18 November 2013 A.T. received notice of his committal for trial before the magistrate’s court on 19   May 2014 for inflicting bodily harm on the applicant in August 2012. 37.     In the night of 25 November 2013 the applicant sought the intervention of the police in connection with a dispute with her husband. 38.     The police made the following findings in their report: on their arrival they saw that the bedroom door had been broken down and that the floor was strewn with bottles of alcohol. The applicant had stated that her husband was under the influence of alcohol and that she had decided to call for help because she thought he needed a doctor. She told them that she had lodged a complaint against her husband in the past, but that she had subsequently changed her allegations. The applicant’s son had stated that his father had not been violent towards him. Neither the applicant nor her son had shown any traces of violence. 39.     A.T. was taken to hospital in a state of intoxication. In the night he left the hospital and went to an amusement arcade. 40.     While he was walking along the street he was arrested by the police for an identity check at 2.25 a.m. 41.     The police report shows that A.T. was in a state of intoxication and had difficulty keeping his balance and that the police had let him go after stopping and fining him. 42.     At 5 a.m. A.T. entered the family flat armed with a 12 cm kitchen knife with the intention of assaulting the applicant. The applicant’s son attempted to stop him and was stabbed three times. He died of his wounds. The applicant tried to escape but A.T. succeeded in catching up with her in the street, where he stabbed her several times in the chest. 5.     Criminal proceedings instituted against A.T. for grievous bodily harm 43.     On 1 October 2015 A.T. was convicted by the magistrate’s court of inflicting grievous bodily harm on the applicant, on account of the injuries he had inflicted on her during the incident in August 2012, and sentenced to a fine of EUR 2,000. 6.     Criminal proceedings instituted against A.T. for the murder of his son, the attempted murder of the applicant and ill-treatment of the applicant 44.     On an unspecified date in November 2013 the investigation into acts of ill-treatment was reopened. 45.     A.T. asked to be tried in accordance with the summary procedure ( giudizio abbreviato ). 46.     On 8 January 2015 A.T. was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Udine preliminary hearings judge for the murder of his son and the attempted murder of his wife and for the offences of ill-treatment of his wife and daughter and unauthorised possession of a prohibited weapon. He was also ordered to pay the applicant, who had applied to join the proceedings as a civil party, EUR 400,000 in damages. 47.     With regard to the ill-treatment, the preliminary hearings judge, after hearing witnesses and the applicant’s daughter, considered that the applicant and her children had been living in a climate of violence. He found that A.T. had been habitually violent and held that, apart from the daily harassment suffered by the applicant, there had been four violent episodes. He added that A.T., at his trial, had confessed to experiencing feelings of hatred towards his wife. According to the preliminary hearings judge, the events of 25   November   2013 were the consequence of an attempt by the applicant to get away from A.T. 48.     On 22 May 2015 A.T. appealed against the judgment. It can be seen from the file that in a judgment of 26 February 2016 the judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal. However, neither of the parties annexed the judgment to their observations. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE ...   55.     In its report entitled “Violence towards women” (2014) the National Statistics Institute (ISTAT) provided statistical data concerning violence towards women. “Istat carried out the survey in 2014, on a sample of 24,000 women aged 16 ‑ 70.The results are to be widely disseminated also among migrant women. Istat carried out the survey in 2014, on a sample of 24,000 women aged 16-70. Estimates indicate the most affected foreign women for citizenship: Romania, Ukraine, Albania, Morocco, Moldavia, China. More specifically, according to the second Istat survey, 6,788,000 women have been victims of some forms of violence, either physical or sexual, during their life, that is 31.5% of women aged 16-70. 20.2% has been victim of physical violence; 21% of sexual violence and 5.4% of the most serious forms of sexual violence such as rape and attempted rape: 652,000 women have been victims of rape; and 746,000 have been victims of attempted rape. Further, foreign women are victims of sexual or physical violence on a scale similar to Italian women’s: 31.3% and 31.5%, respectively. However, physical violence is more frequent among the foreign women (25.7% vs. 19.6%), while sexual violence is more common among Italian women (21.5% vs. 16.2%). Specifically, foreign women are more exposed to rape and attempted rape (7.7% vs. 5.1%) with Moldavians (37,3%), Romanians (33,9%) and Ukrainians (33,2%) who are the most affected ones. As for the author, current and former partners are those who commit the most serious crimes. 62.7% of rapes is committed by the current or the former partner while the authors of sexual assault in the majority of cases are unknown (76.8%). As for the age of the victim, 10.6% of women have been victims of sexual violence prior to the age of 16. Considering VAW-cases against women with children who have been witnessed violence, the rate of children witnessing VAW cases rises to 65.2% compared to the 2006 figure (= 60.3%). As for women’s status, women separated or divorced are those far more exposes to physical or sexual violence (51.4% vs. 31.5% relating to all other cases). It remains of great concern the situation of women with disabilities or diseases. 36% of the women with bad health conditions and 36.6% of those with serious limitations have been victims of physical or sexual violence. The risk to be exposed to rape or attempted rape doubles compared to women without any health problems (10% vs.   4.7%). On a positive note, compared to the previous edition-2006, sexual and physical violence cases result to be reduced from 13.3% to 11.3%. This is the result of an increased awareness of existing protection tools by women in the first place and the public opinion at large, in addition to an overall social climate of condemnation and no mercy for such crimes. More specifically, physical or sexual violence cases committed by a partner or a former partner is reduced (as for the former, from 5.1% to 4%; as for the latter, from 2.8% to 2%) as well as for cases of VAW perpetrated by non-partners (from 9% to 7.7%). The decline is meaningful when considering cases among female students: it reduced from 17.1% to 11.9% in the event of former partners; from 5.3% to 2.4% in the event of current partner; and from 26.5% to 22%, in the event of a non-partner. Significantly reduced are those cases of psychological violence committed by the current partner (from 42.3% to 26.4%), especially when they are not coupled with physical and sexual violence. Women are far more aware that they have survived a crime (from 14.3% to 29.6% in case of violence by the partner) and it is reported far more often to the police (from 6.7% to 11.8%). More often, they talk about that with someone (from 67.8% to 75.9%) and look for professional help (from 2.4% to 4.9%). The same applies in the event of violence by a non-partner. Compared to the 2006 edition, survivors are far more satisfied with the relevant work carried out by the police. In the event of violence from the current or the former partner, data show an increase from 9.9% to 28.5%. Conversely, negative results emerge when considering cases of rape or attempted rape (1.2% in both editions). The forms of violence are far more serious with an increase of those also victims of injuries (from 26.3% to 40.2% when the partner is the author); and an increased number of women that were fearing that their life was in danger (from 18.8% in 2006 to 34.5% in 2014). Also the forms of violence by a non-partner are more serious. 3, 466,000 women (=16.1%) have been victims of stalking during lifetime, of whom 1, 524,000 have been victims of their former partner; and 2,229,000 from other person that the former partner.”   III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW   56.     The relevant international law is partly described in the case of Opuz   v. Turkey (no. 33401/02, §§ 72-82, ECHR 2009) and partly in the case of Rumor v. Italy (no. 72964/10, §§ 31-35, 27 May 2014). 57.     At its 49 th session, which was held from 11 to 29 July 2011, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (“the CEDAW Committee”) adopted its concluding comments on Italy, of which the passages relevant to the present case read as follows:- “26. The Committee welcomes the adoption of the Act No. 11/2009 which introduced a crime of stalking and mandatory detention for perpetrator of acts of sexual violence, the National Action Plan to Combat Violence against Women and Stalking as well as the first comprehensive research on physical, sexual and psychological violence against women developed by the National Statistics Institute. However, it remains concerned about the high prevalence of violence against women and girls and the persistence of socio-cultural attitudes condoning domestic violence, as well as lack of data on violence against immigrant, Roma and Sinti women and girls. The Committee is further concerned about the high number of women murdered by their partner or ex-partner (femicide), which may indicate a failure of the State party’s authorities to adequately protect the women victims from their partners or ex-partners. In accordance with its general recommendation No. 19 on violence against women and the views adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol procedures, the Committee urges the State party to: (a) put emphasis on comprehensive measures to address violence against women in the family and in society, including through addressing the specific needs of women made vulnerable by particular circumstances, such as Roma and Sinti, migrant and older women and women with disabilities;   (b) ensure that female victims of violence have immediate protection, including expulsion of perpetrator from the home, guarantee that they can stay in secure and well funded shelters, in all parts of the country, and that they have access to free legal aid, psycho-social counselling and adequate redress, including compensation; (d) enhance the system of appropriate data collection on all forms of violence against women, including domestic violence, protection measures, prosecutions and sentences imposed on perpetrators and conduct appropriate surveys to assess the prevalence of violence experienced by women belonging to disadvantaged groups, such as Roma and Sinti, migrant and older women and women with disabilities; (e) further pursue, in collaboration with a broad range of stakeholders, including women’s and other civil society organizations, awareness-raising campaigns through the media and public education programmes to make violence against women socially unacceptable and disseminate information on available measures to prevent acts of violence against women among the general public; (f) ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, in a timely manner.” 58.     On 27 September 2012 the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) was signed. It was ratified by Italy on 10   September 2013 and came into force in that country on 1 August 2014. The passages of that Convention relevant to the present case are partly set out in the case of Y.   v.   Slovenia (no. 41107/10, § § 72, ECHR 2015 (extracts)). Furthermore, Article 3 of that Convention provides:   Article 3 – Definitions   “For the purpose of this Convention:   a “violence against women” is understood as a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women and shall mean all acts of gender-based violence that result in, or are likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychological or economic harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life;   b “domestic violence” shall mean all acts of physical, sexual, psychological or economic violence that occur within the family or domestic unit or between former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victim; ...” 59.     The conclusions of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, drawn up following his official visit to Italy (from 15 to 26 January 2012), read as follows:- “VII. Conclusions and recommendations 91. Efforts have been made by the Government to address the issue of violence against women, including through the adoption of laws and policies and the establishment and merger of governmental bodies responsible for the promotion and protection of women’s rights. Yet these achievements have not led to a decrease in the femicide rate or translated into real improvements in the lives of many women and girls, particularly Roma and Sinti women, migrant women and women with disabilities. 92. Despite the challenges of the current political and economic situation, targeted and coordinated efforts in addressing violence against women, through practical and innovative use of limited resources, need to remain a priority. The high levels of domestic violence, which are contributing to rising levels of femicide, demand serious attention. 93. The Special Rapporteur would like to offer the Government the following recommendations. A. Law and policy reforms 94. The Government should: (a) Put in place a single dedicated governmental structure to deal exclusively with the issue of substantive gender equality broadly and violence against women in particular, to overcome duplication and lack of coordination; (b) Expedite the creation of an independent national human rights institution with a section dedicated to women’s rights; (c) Adopt a specific law on violence against women to address the current fragmentation which is occurring in practice due to the interpretation and implementation of the civil, criminal and procedures codes; (d) Address the legal gap in the areas of child custody and include relevant provisions relating to protection of women who are the victims of domestic violence; (e) Provide education and training to strengthen the skills of judges to effectively address cases of violence against women; (f) Ensure the provision of quality, State-sponsored legal aid to women victims of violence as envisaged in the constitution and Law No. 154/200 on measures against violence in family relations; (g) Promote existing alternative forms of detention, including house arrest and low-security establishments for women with children, having due regard to the largely non-violent nature of the crimes for which they are incarcerated and the best interest of children; (h) Adopt a long-term, gender-sensitive and sustainable policy for social inclusion and empowerment of marginalized communities, with a particular focus on women’s health, education, labour and security; (i) Ensure the involvement of representatives of these communities, particularly women, in the design, development and implementation of policies which impact them; (j) Ensure continued provision of quality education for all, including through a flexible application of the 30 per cent ceiling of non-Italian pupils per classroom, to allow for inclusive schools particularly in places where the population of non-Italians is high. (k) Amend the “Security Package” laws generally, and the crime of irregular migration in particular, to ensure access of migrant women in irregular situations to the judiciary and law enforcement agencies, without fear of detention and deportation; (l) Address the existing gender disparities in the public and private sectors by effectively implementing the measures provided by the Constitution and other legislation and policies to increase the number of women, including from marginalized groups, in the political, economic, social, cultural and judicial spheres; (m) Continue to remove legal hurdles affecting the employment of women, which is exacerbated through the practice of signing blank resignations, and the lower positions and salary scale for women. Strengthen the social welfare system by removing impediments to the integration of women into the labour market; (n) Ratify and implement the Convention on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and cooperation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children; the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, International Labour Organization Convention No. 189 (2011) concerning decent work for domestic workers; the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes and the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. B. Societal changes and awareness-raising initiatives 95. The Government should also: (a) Continue to conduct awareness-raising campaigns aimed at eliminating; (b) Strengthen the capacity of the National Racial Discrimination Office to put in place programmes to bring about change in society’s perception of women who belong to marginalized communities and groups; (c) Continue to conduct targeted sensitization campaigns, including with CSOs, to increase awareness on violence against women generally, and women from marginalized groups in particular; (d) Train and sensitize the media on women’s rights including on violence against women, in order to achieve a non-stereotyped representation of women and men in the national media. C. Support services 96. The Government should further: (a) Continue to take the necessary measures, including financial, to maintain existing and/or set-up new anti-violence shelters for the assistance and protection of women victims of violence; (b) Ensure that shelters operate according to international and national human rights standards and that accountability mechanisms are put in place to monitor the support provided to women victims of violence; (c) Enhance coordination and exchange of information among the judiciary, police and psychosocial and health operators who deal with violence against women; (d) Recognize, encourage and support public-private partnerships with CSOs and higher learning institutions, to provide research and responses to addressing violence against women.” 60.     A report by the non-governmental organisation WAVE (Women Against Violence Europe) on Italy was published in 2015. The part relevant to the present case reads as follows:   “In 2014, 681 women and 721 children were accommodated at 45 women’s shelters that are part of the national network Associazione Nazionale Donne in Rete contro la violenza - D.i.R.e. In addition, there are three shelters for Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) women, migrant and asylum seeking women in the cities of Reggio Emilia, Imola and Modena, one shelter for girls and young women victims of forced marriage, and 12 shelters for victims of trafficking. Women’s Centres There are 140 women’s centres providing non-residential support to women survivors of any kind of violence in Italy; 113 of these centres are run by NGOs, 19 are run by the state, and 8 are run by faith-based organisations. While the exact number of such services is not known, there are several women’s centres for Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) women, as well as centres for women victims of trafficking. All the women’s centres provide information and advice, counselling, advocacy and practical support with access to social rights (i.e. housing, income, health care) and legal advice. Some only provide specialist support for children and family support, and cooperate with programmes for perpetrators of violence against women. Women’s Networks There is one national women’s network in Italy, called Associazione Nazionale Donne in Rete contro la violenza - D.i.R.e. The network includes 73 members, all women’s organisations running women’s shelters and anti-violence centres in Italy. Formed in 2008 and based in Rome, the network conduct activities in the areas of public awareness, lobbying and advocacy, training, research and networking. In 2014, the network received EUR 66,747 in funding from various private donors and foundations for specific projects, and EUR 20,000 in membership fees. Policy & Funding The Extraordinary Action Plan against gender and sexual violence in accordance with art.5 par. 1 Law Decree 14 August 2013 n.93 converted with amendments into Law 15 October 2013 n.119 ( Piano di Azione Straordinario contro la violenza sessuale e di genere ai sensi dell’art 5 comma 1 D.L. 14 Agosto 2013 n. 93 convertito con modifiche nella legge del 15 Ottobre 2013 n 119 ) was launched in 2015 and covers a three-year period [voir paragraphe 53 ci-dessus]. The Plan addresses rape and sexual assault only marginally, and it does not provide for adequate financing of existing services or to create new services in the many regions where these are inexistent. While forced and early marriage is mentioned in the Plan, no particular measures are included. Conceived as an extraordinary measure provided for in a law decree addressing other subjects, the Plan generally fails to address the structural characteristics of violence against women and gender-based violence. Measures and interventions included in the Plan do not consider women’s shelters and anti-violence centres as key actors in providing specialist support to survivors of violence, with a gender perspective. The Department for Equal Opportunities – Presidency of the Council of Ministers – acts as coordinating body for the implementation of policies on VAW. This body has in practice little effectiveness, largely due to the failure of the President of the Council of Ministers to appoint a Minister with decision-making. There is currently no national monitoring body entrusted with the evaluation of national strategies on VAW in Italy, and women’s organisations are rarely invited to conduct such evaluation. Nonetheless, in 2014, a coalition of Italian women’s NGOs (among which D.i.R.e.) submitted a Shadow Report on the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action covering 2009-2014, and including review of national strategies on VAW. In 2014, funding for governmental activities to combat VAW equalled EUR 7   million, while very little funding was provided for NGOs activities through local regional governments; detailed information on funding for NGOs activities is not available, due to the budget being decentralized. State funding for women’s organisations providing support is exclusively project-based. Prevention, Awareness-raising, Campaigning The national women’s network, along with most of the women’s shelters and centres, and the national women’s helpline conduct activities in the field of prevention, awareness-raising and campaigning; besides the national women’s helpline (1522), none of them received funding to carry out these activities in 2014. Training Most of the women’s shelters and centres conduct trainings with a number of target groups: police, judiciary, civil servants, health professionals, psychologists, social workers, education professionals, media, and others.” THE LAW ... II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF THE CONVENTION 76.     Relying on Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complained that, owing to their complacency and indifference, the Italian authorities, despite having been alerted several times to her husband’s violence, had not taken the necessary measures to protect her and her son’s life from the – in her view real and known – risk represented by her husband, and had not prevented the commission of other domestic violence. She alleged that the authorities had thus failed to comply with their positive obligation under the Convention. 77.     The Court reiterates that since it is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, it does not consider itself bound by the characterisation given by an applicant or a government. By virtue of the jura novit curia principle, it has, for example, considered of its own motion complaints under Articles or paragraphs not relied on by the parties. In other words, a complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see Aksu v. Turkey [GC], nos.   4149/04 and 41029/04, § 43, ECHR 2012). Having regard to the circumstances complained of by the applicant and the manner in which her complaints were formulated, the Court will examine them under Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention (for a similar approach, see E.M. v. Romania , no.   43994/05, § 51, 30 October 2012; Valiulienė v. Lithuania , no.   33234/07, § 87, 26 March 2013; and M.G. v. Turkey , no. 646/10, § 62, 22   March 2016). Those Articles   provide: Article 2 “1.     Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 78.     The Government disputed that argument. A.     The applicant’s submissions 79.     The applicant alleged that the failure by the authorities to comply with their obligation to protect her life and that of her son, who was killed by her husband, had resulted in a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. She submitted in that regard that the Italian authorities had failed to protect her son’s right to life and that they had been negligent before the repeated violence, threats and injuries which she herself had endured. 80.     She argued that the Italian authorities had tolerated de facto her husband’s violence. In her submission, the police had known since June 2012 that she had been a victim of violence and should have known that there was a real and serious risk that A.T. would be violent towards her. According to the applicant, there had been clear signs of a continuing threat of danger to her, but the authorities had not taken the necessary measures immediately after she had lodged her complaint and had thus left her alone and defenceless. 81.     The applicant alleged, further, that, despite the hospital certificate of 19   August 2012 establishing that she had been beaten and threatened with a knife, that fact had not been taken seriously. 82.     In the applicant’s view, the only remedy available had been a criminal complaint and this had not been effective. She stated that she had lodged a complaint on 5   September 2012 and made a statement to the police in April 2013. She added that, during the seven months between lodging the complaint and giving her statement, no investigative steps had been taken and no witnesses heard. In March 2013 the public prosecutor had again had to ask the police to investigate (see paragraph 29 above). 83.     The applicant complained of the authorities’ complacency and stated that she had changed her version of the facts once she had been questioned by the police seven months after lodging her complaint. In her view, it was clear that the State had not protected her and that she had been abandoned by the authorities, who had not taken any measures to protect her despite her request. The applicant also stated that the Udine District Council, while aware of the difficult situation in which she found herself, had refused to help her and had stopped funding her accommodation at the shelter run by the association for the protection of battered women. In her submission, the authorities should have intervened of their own motion given the circumstances of the case and her vulnerability. 84.     The applicant argued that, according to the Court’s case-law, the positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention imposed a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person and backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and sanctioning of breaches of such provisions. She submitted that this could also imply in certain circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life was at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (she referred to Osman v. the United Kingdom , 28 October 1998, § 115, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII, cited in Kontrová v.   Slovakia , no. 7510/04, § 49, 31 May 2007). She concluded that in the present case the Italian State had not taken the necessary measures to protect her life and that of her son. 85.   Referring to the Court’s case-law ( Opuz , cited above, § 159), the applicant complained that she had also been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. She reiterated that she had lodged a complaint, supported by her medical case notes, in September 2012 and that, for seven months, the authorities had done nothing to protect her. She added that her husband had meanwhile succeeded in convincing her to come back and live with him. 86.     In conclusion, the applicant submitted that the State had failed to comply with its positive obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. B.     The Government’s submissions 87.     After stating the principles established in the Court’s case-law, the Government submitted that not every claimed risk to life could entail for the authorities a Convention requirement to take operational measures to prevent that risk from materialising (they referred to Opuz , cited above, §   129). In their submission, it also had to be established that the authorities had known or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and that they had failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk. 88.     Furthermore, the Government considered that the present case had to be distinguished from the case of Opuz (cited above). In their submission, in the present case the authorities had not known and could not have known that the applicant and her son’s lives were at risk, as there had been no tangible evidence that their lives were in imminent danger. They pointed out that, after the two episodes of violence in June and August 2012 the applicant had found refuge in a victim support shelter and that she had subsequently found employment providing her with financial independence. In the Government’s submission, the two episodes reported in June and August 2012 had appeared to be mere family rows. The Government submitted that the authorities had done everything in their power by fining A.T. for unauthorised possession of a lethal weapon, and that an investigation in respect of ill-treatment and bodily injury required that a complaint be lodged. 89.     The Government also stated that the applicant had left the shelter where she had taken refuge and that when she had been questioned by the police in April 2013 she had changed her earlier statements. They observed that the authorities, before discontinuing the complaint of ill-treatment, had checked whether her version of the facts was accurate, whether there had been other events of that type and whether the applicant had been in a vulnerable situation capable of inducing her to change her statements. According to the Government, the applicant had then stated that there had been no further incident and that A.T. had calmed down. 90.     In those circumstances the Government considered that an intervention by the authorities could have breached Article 8 of the Convention. 91.     In their view, the time that elapsed between lodging the complaint and hearing the applicant had not had the effect of leaving the applicant exposed to violence from A.T. The Government pointed out, further, that as no other request for intervention had been made, there had been no specific sign of real and immediate violence. They added that on the basis of the aforementioned factors the authorities had decided not to prosecute A.T. for ill-treatment of family members. 92.     The Government submitted that the applicant had never shown that she had suffered continual abuse or violence or that she had lived in