CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 août 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s2ECC6C88 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s4C0F7460 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sAC0AA09B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:11pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s54EC2CE8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s387404A2 { width:193.29pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION     CASE OF TËRSHANA v. ALBANIA   (Application no. 48756/14)     JUDGMENT   Art 2 (substantive) • Positive obligations • Acid attack on a woman in the street • Existence of an effective criminal-law framework • Risk to applicant’s life, by suspected former husband, not being brought to attention of authorities before attack • State authorities not responsible Art 2 (procedural) • Effective investigation • Court having regard to general situation of violence against women in Albania • Ineffectual approach to violence against women by law-enforcement officials • Obligation on the part of the investigative authorities to react with special diligence in conducting a thorough investigation • Failure to carry out with due expedition and determination investigative measure of crucial importance • Inability of applicant to appeal against decision staying investigation, to challenge (lack of) investigative steps or to bring claim for damages   STRASBOURG   4 August 2020     FINAL   04/11/2020   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tërshana v. Albania, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Robert Spano, President ,   Paul Lemmens,   Ledi Bianku,   Valeriu Griţco,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges , and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 3 July 2018 and 23 June 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 48756/14) against the Republic of Albania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Albanian national, Ms Dhurata Tërshana (“the applicant”), on 30 June 2014. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr N. Marku, a lawyer practising in Tirana. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Hicka, of the State Advocate’s Office. 3.     The applicant alleged that the authorities had failed to protect her life and her right to respect for her private life under Articles 2, 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention. She further complained about the authorities’ failure to conduct a prompt and effective investigation leading to the identification, prosecution and punishment of the assailant. 4.     On 6 October 2014 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Tirana. A.     Background of the case 6 .     On 29 July 2009, at around 4 p.m., while walking along a back street in Tirana, the applicant suffered grievous injuries in an acid attack by an unidentified assailant. She was taken immediately to Tirana’s Mother Teresa Hospital to receive urgent medical treatment. The hospital record read that 25% of the applicant’s body – mainly her face and upper body – had been burned ( combusio corporis, facies et extremitas superior ) owing to the acid attack and that she was in a critical condition. On 1 August 2009 she was taken to Italy for more specialised hospital treatment. The hospital record of 2 October 2009 read that the applicant had medium to deep facial, neck and body burns ( ustioni intermedio ‑ profonde di volto, collo, tronco, arti superiori ed inferiori ) caused by sulphuric acid. According to the record of her hospital treatment in Italy, between 2009 and 2012 the applicant underwent at least fourteen operations. The costs for such operations were borne by the regions of Apulia and the Marches in Italy, as well as by the applicant. She suffered from anxiety and from psychological problems and was scared to go back to Albania. She was granted sick leave by the Albanian authorities for at least seven months but it appears that she was unable to work for several years. B.     Criminal investigation into the attack of 29 July 2009 7.     On 29 July 2009 the prosecutor opened a criminal investigation into the acid attack under Article 88 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 64 below). The applicant made a statement in which she said she had not recognised her assailant. She stated that she was not in a dispute with anyone, but suspected that the attack had been organised by her former husband (E.A.) as an act of revenge and a continuation of past domestic violence. In the past he had threatened the applicant, saying that he would kill her. She and E.A. had finally separated after he had refused to allow her to attend a specialised training course in Italy. In addition she stated that at the time of the attack, the assailant had been wearing a brown/beige hat and black sunglasses and a black shirt. The assailant had thrown a substance over her face and body and had then walked away. She had sensed that her face and chest were getting burnt and her clothes were melting. The substance had also been thrown over her colleague, who had been with her. She further stated that E.A. had been imprisoned in Italy and that he had friends with criminal records. 8.     On the same day the prosecutor obtained a statement from the applicant’s colleague, who had also suffered grievous injuries. The colleague stated that she too had not recognised the assailant. The assailant had been wearing dark trousers and a dark shirt and had been holding a container with a red substance inside. While walking towards her and the applicant, he had opened the container and had thrown the contents all over them. She stated that she was not in a dispute with anyone and that she had heard from the applicant’s family members that they had suspicions about the applicant’s former husband. She also stated that she had seen other people at the scene of the attack and a man on the main street. 9.     On 29 July and 6 August 2009 E.D., one of the applicant’s colleagues, gave a statement declaring that he had been unable to see the perpetrator’s face because he had had his back to him. He gave a description of him as wearing a red shirt, white striped jeans and sunglasses. He further described how he had helped the applicant and the other victim and that, together with another colleague, E.S., he had sent both of them to hospital. He also stated that other people had arrived at the scene and had tried to help the victims. The aforementioned colleague E.S. stated that she had helped to get the victims to hospital. She had not seen the perpetrator at all. 10.     On 29 July 2009 B.D., the applicant’s sister, stated that her sister had told her in the past that E.A. was jealous and used violence against her. She had wanted to attend a specialised training course in Italy but E.A. had not allowed her. He had threatened to kill her if they were to get divorced. She also stated that her cousin, R.T., had met E.A. to give some items back to him on behalf of the applicant. E.A. had told R.T. that he would not cause the applicant any problems, and that she could continue with her life as normal. B.D. also stated that in May 2009 she had met E.A. and his mother in the presence of her sister to discuss the continuation of their relationship. According to B.D., it had been obvious from the discussions they had that E.A. had used violence against her sister. On 21 December 2009 B.D. made another statement in which she confirmed her statements of 29 July 2009 and said that she still had suspicions that E.A. might have committed the attack. 11.     On 29 July 2009 R.T., the applicant’s cousin, stated that he was aware that E.A. had used violence against the applicant and had been jealous. He had met E.A. two months earlier and had given some items back to him on behalf of the applicant. E.A. had told R.T. that he would not contact the applicant or cause her any problems. 12.     On 29 July 2009 L.D., the applicant’s brother-in law, stated that he had learnt from his wife, B.D., that his sister-in-law had been subjected to violence and insults by her husband. 13.     On 29 July 2009 V.T., the applicant’s mother, stated that E.A. had been involved in criminal offences such as the theft of safe deposits and murder. He had used violence against the applicant. Once, he had locked her in his apartment for three days, preventing her from going to work, as revenge for threatening to report him to the police. After the divorce they had had some arguments concerning certain items that they had to return to each other. 14.     On 29 July 2009 another eyewitness, G.D., who had been having a coffee in a nearby café at the time of the attack, stated that he had gone to help the applicant and the other victim after hearing screams. He had not seen who had committed the assault. He had seen a container in the street and had kicked it over. According to him, the substance which spilled onto the street had been acid. 15.     In a statement provided on the same day, E.A. stated that on 29   July 2009 he had been in Durres until 6 p.m. He further stated that he and the applicant had divorced in May 2009 because they were having problems; he had disagreed with the applicant when she had wanted to go to Italy to attend a specialised professional course. He further stated that the divorce had gone smoothly and that since then he had had no contact with the applicant. He did not have any information as to who could have been the perpetrator. He also gave information about the people he knew, namely family members, friends and cousins. 16.     On 29 July 2009 F.P., E.A.’s mother, stated that her son and the applicant had had good relations, but they had divorced in 2009 because the applicant had wanted to attend a specialised training course in Italy and E.A. had not consented to the idea. She further stated that on the day they got divorced she had met her son, the applicant and the applicant’s sister to find a solution. However, her son and the applicant had decided to end their relationship. Since then, as far as she was aware, they had not had any contact. She confirmed that her son had been in Durres the whole day. E.A.’s cousin, L.A., also stated that as far as he was aware his cousin did not have any dispute with the applicant. 17.     On 29 July 2009 a judicial police officer conducted an on-site examination and secured some evidence, including the applicant’s and her colleague’s clothes and a glass container containing a small quantity of a red liquid substance. 18 .     On 29 July and 1 October 2009 the judicial police officer decided that several expert reports should be drawn up, namely a forensic medical report, a fingerprint expert report on the glass container used for throwing the acid, a chemical and toxicology expert report on the glass container in order to identify the liquid substance and the method whereby the liquid had been produced, and a chemical and toxicology expert report on the applicant’s and the other victim’s clothes to identify the liquid substance and to determine whether the damage to the clothes had occurred as a result of the use of that substance. 19.     On 29 July 2009, interception of E.A.’s telephone conversations over the period from 29 July to 12 August 2009 was ordered by the prosecutor and was subsequently approved by the district court on 30 July 2009. On 13   August 2009 the general prosecutor sent the results of the interception to the district prosecutor. 20.     On 30 July 2009 the judicial police officer referred the criminal offence of causing serious intentional injury attributed to E.A. to the district prosecutor’s office. He noted that on 29 July 2009 in a back street near the Ministry of Justice, an unidentified person had thrown acid over the applicant and another victim, leaving both of them in a critical condition. He considered that on the basis of the evidence in the file, as well as statements made by the applicant, the other victim and other family members, it was apparent that there were suspicions that E.A. might have committed the attack. 21.     On 31 July 2009 the applicant made another statement, saying that she still had suspicions that E.A. had wanted revenge because of the divorce. She also added that in the past he had committed criminal offences   – namely thefts from safe deposits and houses − and that he had possessed a gun. 22.     On 3 August 2009 the district prosecutor ordered that a number of procedural actions be taken, such as the examination of the fingerprint expert report on the container used for throwing the acid and that its results be compared with fingerprints of other suspected persons, as well as any other person who was included in the Central Criminology Laboratory’s list of suspected persons; the examination of the forensic medical report and other expert reports; the questioning of every person with any knowledge about the event; the examination of telephone interceptions; the obtaining of the victims’ and E.A.’s telephone records, as well as those of any other person who could be concerned with the investigation; the finding and verification on the Internet of telephone numbers used by E.A.; the confiscation of video footage from some nearby cameras, as one of them might have captured and recorded the perpetrator; establishing the origin of the television sets found in E.A.’s apartment (see paragraph 44 below); and any other action deemed appropriate. 23.     On 3 August 2009 an expert report prepared by the Institute of Scientific Police ( Instituti i Policisë Shkencore ) concluded that no fingerprints could be identified on the glass container. 24 .     On 6 August 2009 a forensic report prepared by the Forensic Medicine Institute ( Instituti i Mjekësisë Ligjore ) concluded that 25% of the applicant’s face, abdomen and upper extremities had been burnt, the injuries having been caused by a corrosive substance. It further concluded that on the basis of the medical report alone, it was not possible to give an accurate conclusion concerning the category of the applicant’s injuries. It would therefore be necessary to examine the applicant three months after the date on which she had been injured. 25.     On 11 August 2009 Internet research was conducted by the judicial police officer to find the telephone numbers listed in E.A.’s name. On the same day the prosecutor requested that a mobile telephone company provide him with the call log history relating to several of E.A.’s telephone numbers for the period from 25 to 30   July 2009, as well as the location and the area they had covered on 29 July 2009. On 18 August the mobile telephone company submitted the information as requested by the prosecutor. 26.     On 15 August and 15 December 2009 further information was requested in respect of some other telephone numbers so as to identify the persons to whom they belonged and who had made telephone calls during the hours when the attack had occurred. On 21 December 2009 the mobile telephone company submitted the information as requested by the prosecutor. In January 2011 two individuals questioned by the judicial police officer stated that they did not have any information about the incident of 29   July 2009. Despite being friends with E.A., they maintained that he had not discussed the event with them. Another person who was questioned stated that she did not know E.A. at all. 27.     On 11 August 2009 the district prosecutor requested that video footage be provided by three nearby banks, whose security cameras were believed to have recorded images of the events of 29 July 2009. On 13   and 18   August 2009 two banks submitted video footage on CD-ROM. The record written by the judicial police officer on 24 September 2009 on the examination of evidence stated that the CD-ROMs had been examined with a view to identifying any person who had the same characteristics as the person described in the statements given by witnesses. They were also examined by the applicant and her colleague. However, nobody could be identified as the suspected perpetrator. 28.     On 9 September 2009 another witness, G.V., the applicant’s colleague, was questioned and described how a man whom she had seen near the site was dressed. According to her, the assailant was wearing a dark hat, sunglasses and dark clothes. On the same day another witness, Y.K., stated that she had seen two young men holding a glass container, one of whom had been wearing a red shirt and the other one a black shirt. 29.     On 16 December 2009, E.K. ‒ E.A.’s sister ‒ made a statement before the judicial police officer in which she confirmed that on 29   July 2009 E.A. had been in Durres with her. She stated that the applicant and E.A. had had a good relationship. They had divorced because the applicant had wished to go to Italy to attend a specialised training course and E.A. had disagreed with the idea for his own personal reasons. 30 .     On 30 September 2009 the Faculty of Natural Sciences ( Fakulteti i Shkencave Natyrore ) informed the judicial police officer that it was unable to draw up the requested chemical expert report (most probably referring to the expert report to be drawn up concerning the red substance – see paragraph 18 above) as it lacked the necessary specialised equipment. 31 .     On 23 October 2009 the Institute of Scientific Police informed the judicial police officer that it could not compile an expert report on the applicant’s and the other victim’s clothes since this did not fall within its sphere of competence. 32.     On 7 December 2009 the judicial police officer decided that a further forensic report should be compiled by the Forensic Medicine Institute in view of the conclusions drawn in the report of 6 August 2009 (see paragraph 24 above). On 15   December 2009 the doctor replied that the report could be prepared once he had at his disposal a copy of the applicant’s medical reports prepared by the Italian hospital. 33 .     On 18 December 2009 a group of experts from the Forensic Medicine Institute prepared another forensic report. They noted that they could not examine the applicant as she was in Italy undergoing specialist treatment and they had not been able to examine the medical reports from the Italian hospital. They reiterated the conclusion stated in the forensic report of 6 August 2009. They concluded that, on the basis of the documents at their disposal, at the time the injuries were inflicted, they were so grievous that they would have put the applicant’s life in danger had no specialist medical aid been given. 34.     On 2 February 2010 the district prosecutor, in a reasoned decision, decided to stay, in accordance with Article 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 59 below), the investigation concerning the criminal offence of causing serious intentional injury and referred the case file to the Tirana Police Directorate for further actions to identify the perpetrator. The decision described all the evidence that had been obtained as well as statements that had been given by the applicant and other persons. It stated, in so far as relevant, the following: “[F]orensic reports concluded that 25% of the applicant’s face, abdomen and upper extremities were burnt. The injuries had been caused by a corrosive substance. The injuries were so grievous that the applicant’s life would have been in danger if no specialist medical aid had been given ... the fingerprint expert report concluded that no fingerprints could be identified ... the [Faculty of Natural Sciences] replied that it lacked the specialist equipment needed to produce the relevant expert reports ... the [Institute of Scientific Police] replied that it was not its duty to carry out the requested expert report concerning the examination of the clothes the applicant was wearing at the time of the attack ... after examination of the video footage from two nearby cameras, nobody could be identified as a suspect in connection with the crime, taking into consideration the features mentioned by the witnesses in their statements; it was not possible to obtain a copy of the CD-ROM from the other bank owing to technical difficulties encountered with its transcription ... the telephone communication intercepts did not reveal any conversation relevant to the investigation ... three other individuals who conducted telephone communications during the period when the assault occurred were questioned, but with no result ... it is apparent that the district prosecutor undertook numerous investigative actions, such as the examination of many items of evidence, as well as the applicant’s questioning. For the above reasons, all possible investigative actions have been carried out, but it has not been possible to identify the perpetrator(s) of the criminal offence ...” 35.     No further official communication having been received by the applicant following the launch of the criminal investigation, on 10   March 2012 she authorised the Albanian Centre for the Rehabilitation of Trauma and Torture (“the Centre”) to pursue her case. 36.     On 2 April 2012 the Centre sought information from the prosecutor about the progress of the investigation. 37.     On 17 April 2012 the prosecutor informed the Centre that the criminal investigation had been stayed and the case file had been transferred to the police for further action in order to identify the assailant. The Centre was informed that it should seek copies of the documents it required from the relevant police authority. 38.     On 19 April 2012 the Centre asked the Tirana Police Directorate to provide information about the progress of the investigation. 39.     On 23 May 2012 the Tirana Police Directorate informed the Centre that the investigation was ongoing and made available a copy of the medical reports. A copy of the prosecutor’s decision staying the investigation could not be provided without the prosecutor’s prior authorisation. 40.     On 5 December 2013 the Centre asked the prosecutor to provide it with a copy of the investigation file. The Centre also urged the prosecutor to find and punish the perpetrator. 41 .     On 8 January 2014 the prosecutor informed the Centre that the investigation had been stayed because the assailant could not be identified. The case file had been entirely transferred to the police authority, from which the Centre could obtain a copy. 42.     The criminal file which was submitted by the Government as part of their observations indicated that an investigation had been opened into the criminal offences of causing serious intentional injury and the production and illegal possession of weapons as provided for in Articles 88 and 279 of the Criminal Code, respectively. On two occasions, on 30 October and 31   December 2009, the district prosecutor had extended the investigation on the grounds that the investigation was complex and the questioning of many individuals and the examination of several other acts were necessary. 43.     It appears that until the end of 2015, when the parties filed their written submissions with the Court, the case was still pending before the police authorities; the parties have not provided an update in respect thereof. C.     Proceedings concerning the criminal offence of production and illegal possession of weapons 44 .     On 29 July 2009 E.A.’s apartment was searched and two knives, four television sets, two laptop computers and a camera were found. They were subsequently seized. 45.     On 30 July 2009 the district prosecutor attributed to E.A. the criminal offence of production and illegal possession of weapons under Article 279 of the Criminal Code on the grounds that two knives had been found in E.A.’s apartment (see paragraph 64 below). 46.     On 30 July 2009 E.A. was arrested in the act of committing the criminal offence of production and illegal possession of bladed weapons. Subsequently, the prosecutor imposed an obligation on him to appear before the judicial police office (“compulsion order” – masë shtrënguese ), which was approved by the district court on 1 August 2009. 47.     On 6 August 2009 the Tirana Police Commissariat stated that the items seized in E.A.’s apartment on 29 July 2009 did not match the description of any object that had been stolen in the territory covered by that commissariat. 48.     On 11 January 2010 the Ministry of Culture informed the district prosecutor that the two knives were for purely ornamental use. 49.     On 2 February 2010 the district prosecutor, in a reasoned decision, discontinued in accordance with criminal procedural law the investigation concerning the criminal offence of production and illegal possession of bladed weapons (see paragraph 61 below). It also ordered that the coercive measure against E.A. be lifted. The decision described all the evidence that had been obtained, as well as the statements given by the applicant and others. It reasoned that since the knives had been found in E.A.’s apartment and not in a public place and that the Ministry of Culture’s letter of 11   January 2010 had stated that they were only for ornamental use, it was clear that no criminal offence had been committed. D.     Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for damages 50.     On 2 May 2012 the applicant, relying on the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes (“the European Convention on Compensation to Victims”), lodged a request with the Ministry of Justice seeking compensation from the State as a result of the acid attack (see paragraph 89 below). 51 .     On 3 September 2012 the applicant, relying on the European Convention on Compensation to Victims and Articles 625, 640 and 641 of the Civil Code, as well as decision no.   12 of 14   September 2007 of the Supreme Court Joint Benches (see paragraph 73 below), lodged a claim for damages with the Tirana District Court against the Ministry of Justice, seeking compensation from the State as a result of the acid attack. She also requested to be exempted from paying the court fees on the grounds of lack of financial means, and to have the amount of the compensation determined by experts. 52.     The applicant submitted that she had subsequently withdrawn her claim as she had found it impossible to pay the court fees. 53 .     On 30 May 2013 the Tirana District Court discontinued the proceedings ( pushimin e gjykimit ) when the applicant and her lawyer failed to appear at the hearing. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Constitution 54.     The relevant provisions of the Constitution read as follows. Article 21 “The life of the person is protected by law.” Article 25 “No one shall be subject to torture, or to inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment.” Article 44 “Everyone has the right to rehabilitation and/or compensation in compliance with the law in the event that he has experienced damage owing to an unlawful act, action or the omission of the State authorities.” B.     Code of Criminal Procedure 55.     The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) in force at the material time had the following content. 56.     Article 24 § 4 of the CCP provided that the orders and directives of a higher ‑ ranking prosecutor were binding on a lower-ranking prosecutor. Article 24 § 5 provided that a higher-ranking prosecutor, either proprio motu or following an appeal, had the right to amend or repeal the decisions of a lower-ranking prosecutor. 57.     Under Article 61, a person who had suffered pecuniary damage as a result of the commission of a criminal offence could lodge a civil claim during the criminal proceedings to seek compensation for damage. Under Article 62 § 1, the request was to be submitted prior to the commencement of the judicial examination. In accordance with Article 62 § 3, a court could decide to sever the civil claim from the criminal proceedings if its examination delayed or complicated the criminal proceedings. 58.     Article 105 of the CCP provided for the right of any interested party to request copies and extracts of separate documents from the criminal investigation file, at that party’s expense. 59 .     Article 326 of the CCP, which provided for the prosecutor’s right to stay the criminal investigation ( pezullimi i hetimeve ), read as follows: “1.     When the perpetrator of the offence is unknown ..., the prosecutor may decide to stay the criminal investigation. 2.     The criminal investigation may be stayed once all possible actions have been carried out. 3.     The stayed criminal investigation may recommence by a decision of the prosecutor.” 60.     At the material time, there was no specific provision in the CCP for a right to appeal against a prosecutor’s decision staying a criminal investigation. 61 .     Article 328 of the CCP provided for the prosecutor’s right to discontinue the criminal investigation ( pushimi i çështjes ). Under Article   329 of the CCP, an appeal lay with the district court against the prosecutor’s decision to discontinue the criminal investigation. Relevant domestic case-law concerning the stay of the investigation 62 .     In one case a complainant, H.S., lodged a criminal complaint with the prosecutor’s office concerning the death of his sister. The prosecutor stayed the investigation on the basis of Article 326 § 1 of the CCP on the grounds that no perpetrator of the crime could be traced. The complainant instituted legal proceedings against the stay of the criminal investigation. He complained that he had not been informed of the content of the investigation file or the stay of the criminal investigation, that the prosecutor had not questioned all the witnesses and that he had no effective remedy to complain about the decision to stay the criminal investigation. The domestic courts dismissed his action. The Tirana Court of Appeal held that, since the criminal investigation had been ongoing, and since the prosecutor’s office had had the discretion to determine the investigative actions to be carried out, the complainant did not have legal standing. It reaffirmed that there was no right of appeal against a decision to stay criminal proceedings under the criminal procedural law. The complainant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court, which was dismissed by decision no. 4 of 18 January 2013. The Constitutional Court stated, among other things, that there was no remedy under domestic law against a prosecutor’s decision staying a criminal investigation. However, the fact that the complainant had had access to the domestic courts indicated that he had an effective right to appeal to a court. C.     Criminal Code 63.     The Criminal Code consists of chapters, which themselves are made up of sections. Chapter   II of the Specific Part of the Code is devoted to criminal offences against the person. Section I of Chapter   II covers intentional crimes against life and, at the relevant time, contained more than ten different provisions in respect of murder. Section   III of Chapter II deals with intentional crimes against health. Assault offences, which are further categorised according to the level of severity of the inflicted injury, fall under Section III and include torture (Article 86), causing serious intentional injury (Article 88), non-serious intentional injury (Article 89) and other intentional harm (Article   90). Of those offences, only the criminal offence of causing non-serious intentional injury (Article 89) falls into the category of private prosecution cases, which have to be brought by the individual concerned directly before the competent court, and can be withdrawn at any stage of the proceedings (Article 284 of the CCP). 64.     Article 88 of the Criminal Code provides that causing serious intentional injury resulting in disfigurement, mutilation or any other permanent damage to health is to be punished with imprisonment of between three and ten years. Article 279 provides, among other things, that the production and illegal possession of bladed weapons is punishable by a fine or up to five years’ imprisonment. 65.     Following amendments made to the Criminal Code in 2012, Article 130/a introduced domestic violence as a criminal offence. Battery or any other violent act, serious threat of death or serious injury, intentional injury against the spouse, former spouse, cohabitee, former cohabitee or any other person related by way of family ties to the perpetrator, with the intention of violating that person’s physical, psychosocial and economic integrity, is to be punished with imprisonment of between two and five years. 66.     In 2013 amendments were made to Article 50 of the Criminal Code, which now treats as an aggravating circumstance the commission of a criminal offence committed during or after a court protection order issued in respect of domestic violence. D.     Civil Code 67.     Article 608 of the Civil Code provides that anyone who unlawfully and wrongfully causes damage to another person or to that person’s property is obliged to pay compensation for the damage. He is not liable if he proves that he was not at fault. 68.     Article 609 provides that the damage must be the result of a person’s direct and immediate act or omission. 69.     Article 625 provides that a person who suffers non-pecuniary damage is entitled to compensation if there has been damage to his health or physical or mental integrity or if his honour, personality or reputation have been infringed, or if his right to respect for his private life has been infringed. 70.     Under Article 640, pecuniary damage includes the actual loss suffered and loss of profit. Reasonable and necessary expenses incurred may also be subject to compensation. 71.     Under Article 641, a person who causes damage to someone else’s health must pay compensation, regard being had to the loss or reduction of ability to work and medical or other expenses incurred in connection with the damage caused. Relevant domestic case-law concerning the payment of damages 72.     The Government submitted, as part of their observations, some domestic case-law concerning the payment of damages. 73.     In unifying decision no. 12 of 14 September 2007, following a civil claim for damages and expenses against the Albanian Insurance Bureau (a State entity) for the death of three people in a car accident, the Supreme Court Joint Benches ruled, in so far as relevant, as follows: “... [T]he domestic courts have accepted that three people lost their lives in a car accident ... [S]ubstantially under Article 608 of the Civil Code ... the legislature provides for the protection of the right to life, health, personality, dignity, private life and so on from the unlawful acts of a third party. If there is a violation of any of these rights as a result of the unlawful act, the injured party has the right to extra-contractual compensation ... In applying Article 609 of the Civil Code, the causal material link between the unlawful behaviour (the act or omission) and the fault and the damage should be proved. In determining the actual damage caused by the unlawful fact and the relevant compensation, the causal juridical link between them should also be proved. The causal material link serves to identify the person responsible and the causal links among the three elements of the unlawful act: the unlawful behaviour, the fault and the consequence resulting therefrom, that is the damage to another person or to that person’s property ... The causal juridical link serves to demonstrate the causal link between the unlawful act, taken in its entirety, and the specific infringement of the lawful rights and interests [of another person] ... The loss of profit [provided for in Article 640 of the Civil Code] relates to the inability to obtain future pecuniary damages, that is, an asset which does not belong to the injured person at the time the damage has been caused. ... Non-pecuniary compensation for damage to one’s health under Article 625 of the Civil Code may be sought independently of a claim for pecuniary damage as a result of the loss or reduction of ability to work as provided for in Article 641 of the Civil Code. An injured person seeking compensation in reliance on Article 641 of the Civil Code bears the burden of proving the amount of income that he could no longer earn as a result of the loss or reduction of ability to work, after discharging the obligation to demonstrate damage to his health, its permanent or temporary nature, and the degree of damage.” 74.     In another case, a complainant had requested compensation from a State entity under Article 640 of the Civil Code for damage caused to his health as a result of a firearm injury caused by State police officers. In its decision no. 275 of 24   September 2009, the Supreme Court remitted the case for re-examination to the relevant court of appeal. It reasoned that, as a result of the complainant’s injury by the State police officers, it had been duly proved that damage had been caused to his health. 75.     In a decision of 25 November 2011, the Tirana District Court accepted a civil claim by complainants for compensation against State authorities and two private companies jointly and severally, lodged under, inter alia , Articles 625 and 640 of the Civil Code, as a result of their family member’s death in a massive explosion at a weapons decommissioning facility. The court reasoned that criminal responsibility was independent of the civil obligation to pay compensation, which related only to compensation for damage inflicted by the dangerous activity of decommissioning weapons. E.     The Domestic Violence Act (Law no. 9669 on measures against violence in family relations of 18 January 2006, as amended by Law no.   9914 of 12   May 2008, Law no.   10329 of 30 September 2010 and Law no.   47/2018 of 23 July 2018) 76.     The Domestic Violence Act, which entered into force on 1   June 2007, established a mechanism by which to provide victims of domestic violence with a protection order which may be issued by a civil court at the request of the victim. An emergency (“immediate”) protection order may be granted provisionally by a court if the perpetrator has threatened to commit acts of domestic violence or if the perpetrator poses a direct and immediate threat to the security, health or well-being of the victim or other family members (section 19). An emergency protection order remains valid until the court grants a protection order. The Act provides for better protection, not only for persons who are currently in a family relationship but also for persons who used to be in a family relationship, such as former spouses or partners (section 3). 77.     The adoption of a protection order or an emergency protection order does not prevent the victim from instituting criminal proceedings under the Criminal Code (section 24). The police, the prosecutor or a non ‑ governmental organisation may also request the adoption of a protection order or an emergency protection order (section 13). When the request has been submitted by the police or the prosecutor, the victim’s withdrawal will not lead to the discontinuation of the case (section 16). 78.     Section 10 lists the protection measures that may be ordered by a court. A protection order may thus include, among other measures, the removal of the perpetrator from the victim’s home (regardless of the perpetrator’s property rights), a prohibition on the perpetrator coming within a certain distance of the victim or other family members, a prohibition on the perpetrator entering or staying in the temporary or permanent residence of the victim, or any part thereof, the placement of women and their children in temporary shelters, or an order for the perpetrator to participate in rehabilitation programmes. 79.     The Domestic Violence Act also provides for the establishment of a shelter for victims of domestic violence (section 6 as amended) and a coordinated system for referring cases of domestic violence to the authorities. 80.     Breaching a protection order constitutes a criminal offence under Article 321 of the Criminal Code and is punishable by a fine or up to two years’ imprisonment. III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW AND MATERIAL CONCERNING GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE A.     United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 81.     The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“the CEDAW Convention”) was adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly and Albania ratified it on 9   November 1993. The implementation of the CEDAW Convention is monitored by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (“the CEDAW Committee”), which makes general recommendations to the States parties on any specific matters concerning the elimination of discrimination against women 82 .     At its eleventh session in 1992, the CEDAW Committee adopted General Recommendation no. 19 on violence against women (A/47/38). It defined gender-based violence as “violence which is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately”. General Recommendation no. 19 stated that “States may also be responsible for private acts if they fail to act with due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate and punish acts of violence, and for providing compensation”. As regards comments on specific Articles of the CEDAW Convention, General Recommendation no. 19 further noted that “traditional attitudes by which women are regarded as subordinate to men or as having stereotyped roles perpetuate widespread practices involving violence or coercion, such as family violence and abuse, forced marriage, dowry deaths, acid attacks and female circumcision. Such prejudices and practices may justify gender-based violence as a form of protection or control of women. The effect of such violence on the physical and mental integrity of women is to deprive them of the equal enjoyment, exercise and knowledge of human rights and fundamental freedoms. While this comment addresses mainly actual or threatened violence the underlying consequences of these forms of gender-based violence help to maintain women in subordinate roles and contribute to their low level of political participation and to their lower level of education, skills and work opportunities”. 83.     On 26 July 2017 the CEDAW Committee updated its General Recommendation no. 19 by adopting General Recommendation no. 35 on gender-based violence against women (CEDAW/C/GC/35). According to General Recommendation no. 35, gender-based violence against women “is one of the fundamental social, political and economic means by which the subordinate position of women with respect to men and their stereotyped roles are perpetuated. Throughout its work, the [CEDAW] Committee has made clear that this violence is a critical obstacle to achieving substantive equality between women and men as well as to women’s enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the [CEDAW] Convention. It takes multiple forms, including acts or omissions intended or likely to cause or result in death or physical, sexual, psychological or economic harm or suffering to women, threats of such acts, harassment, coercion and arbitrary deprivation of liberty. ... Gender-based violence against women may amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in certain circumstances, including in cases of rape, domestic violence or harmful practices. ... When acts of gender-based violence against women amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, a gender-sensitive approach is required to understand the level of pain and suffering experienced by women, and that the purpose and intent requirements for classifying such acts as torture are satisfied when acts or omissions are gender-specific or perpetrated against a person on the basis of sex”. 84.     The CEDAW Committee recommended that measures should be taken in the areas of prevention, protection, prosecution and punishment, redress, data collection and monitoring, and international cooperation in order to accelerate the elimination of gender-based violence against women. 85.     As regards protection, the CEDAW Committee recommended that States parties, among other things, “adopt and implement effective measures to protect and assist women complainants of and witnesses to gender-based violence before, during and after legal proceedings and ensure that all legal proceedings, protective and support measures and services concerning victims/survivors respect and strengthen their autonomy”. 86 .     As regards prosecution and punishment, the CEDAW Committee recommended that States parties, among other things, “(a) ensure effective access for victims to courts and tribunals and that the authorities adequately respond to all cases of gender-based violence against women, including by applying criminal law and, as appropriate, ex officio prosecution to bring alleged perpetrators to trial in a fair, impartial, timely and expeditious manner and imposing adequate penalties; fees or court charges should not be imposed on victims/survivors; and (b)   address factors that heighten the risk to women of exposure to serious forms of gender-based violence, such as the ready accessibility and availability of firearms, including their export, a high crime rate and pervasive impunity, which may increase in situations of armed conflict or heightened insecurity. Efforts should be undertaken to control the availability and accessibility of aci