CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 2 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD9FE5EFA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:11pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s590A3EF4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sE2B5AFD7 { width:176.76pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s57CCD2D0 { width:48.07pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE0BAE19D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA260A83B { width:183.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8C49A017 { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C6C4B { width:7.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sEE251087 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE90BF664 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s61CAB3E5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8A9EE819 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7F6BAC5C { width:201.97pt; display:inline-block } .s330E12DF { width:11.11pt; display:inline-block } .s63A56736 { width:235.21pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sB20B16E1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s4AA8B09A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt }   GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF X AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (Application no. 22457/16)   JUDGMENT   Art 3 (procedural) • Effective investigation • Failure to use all reasonable investigative and international cooperation measures while examining sexual abuse in an orphanage alleged after children’s adoption abroad • Procedural obligation to be interpreted in the light international instruments, and specifically the Council of Europe “Lanzarote Convention” • Failure of Bulgarian authorities to provide applicants’ foreign parents with necessary information and support, leaving them unable to take active part or appeal until long after investigations concluded • Interviews with other children from the orphanage not adapted to their age and maturity and not video-recorded • Failure to assess the need to request interviews with the applicants • Failure to investigate alleged abuse of and by other children who had since left the orphanage • Failure to consider proportionate use of covert investigative measures • Authorities seeking to establish that the applicants’ allegations had been false, rather than to clarify all relevant facts Art 3 (substantive) • Positive obligations • Appropriate legislative and regulatory framework in place to fulfil State’s positive duty to protect vulnerable children in care from sexual abuse, in the absence of sufficient information to the contrary • No evidence of staff or authorities’ awareness of alleged abuse, which could trigger obligation to take preventive operational measures   STRASBOURG 2 February 2021   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of X and Others v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Robert Spano, President,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Ksenija Turković,   Paul Lemmens,   Yonko Grozev,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Faris Vehabović,   Dmitry Dedov,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc,   Carlo Ranzoni,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Marko Bošnjak,   Tim Eicke,   Péter Paczolay,   María Elósegui,   Raffaele Sabato, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 January 2020 and on 9 September 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 22457/16) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by five Italian nationals on 16 April 2016. The President of the Section to which the case had been assigned, and subsequently the President of the Grand Chamber, acceded to the applicants’ request not to have their names disclosed (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court). 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr F. Mauceri, a lawyer practising in Catania. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms R. Nikolova, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The five original applicants, a couple and their minor children, complained under Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention of the sexual abuse to which the three children had allegedly been subjected while living in an orphanage in Bulgaria, and of the lack of an effective investigation in that regard. 4 .     The application was assigned to the Fifth Section of the Court (Rule   52 § 1). On 5 September 2016 the Government were given notice of the complaints concerning the alleged abuse of the three minor applicants and the lack of an effective investigation in that regard. Pursuant to Rule   54   §   3, the Section President declared inadmissible the complaints raised by the parents on their own behalf . Accordingly, from that date onwards the application related only to the complaints of the three children, and the term “the applicants” in the present judgment will refer only to them. 5.     In a judgment of 17 January 2019 a Chamber of the Fifth Section composed of Angelika Nußberger, President, Yonko Grozev, André Potocki, Síofra O’Leary, Mārtiņš Mits, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer and Lәtif Hüseynov, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, declared the remainder of the application admissible and held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. 6.     On 12 April 2019 the applicants requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 of the Convention. The Panel of the Grand Chamber granted the request on 24 June 2019. 7.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. 8.     The applicants and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1). The Italian Government, who had been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 §§ 1 and 4), did not wish to avail themselves of that right. 9.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 15 January 2020 (Rule 59 § 3). There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Ms   R. Nikolova , Ms   I. Stancheva-Chinova   Agents , Ms   I. Sotirova , Legal adviser, Ministry of Justice,   Adviser ; (b)     for the applicants Mr   F. Mauceri , lawyer,   Counsel , Ms   R. Galante , Ms   P.S. Bach, psychologists, Relational Therapy Centre, Advisers.   The Court heard addresses by Mr Mauceri, Ms Nikolova and Ms   Stancheva-Chinova, and also their replies to questions put by the judges. Ms   Galante and Ms Bach also replied to judges’ questions.   THE FACTS THE BACKGROUND TO THE CASE 10.     The applicants are a brother (X, “the first applicant”) and his two sisters (Y, “the second applicant”, and Z, “the third applicant”) who were born in Bulgaria. X was born in 2000, Y was born in 2002 and Z was born in 2003. They were abandoned by their mother and were initially placed in institutions for very young children and then in a residential facility for children without parental care located in a village in the Veliko Tarnovo region (“the orphanage”). 11.     In 2010 they were placed on the list of children eligible for full adoption and subsequently on the list for international adoption. In 2011 an Italian couple applied to adopt them through the intermediary of a specialised association called Amici dei Bambini (“AiBi”) based in Milan. The prospective adoptive parents both worked in a cooperative specialising in psychiatric and social assistance and were aged between 45 and 50 at the time. They travelled to Bulgaria in January 2012 and met the applicants there several times before going on to adopt them. 12.     The adoption order was issued and in June 2012 the applicants, then aged twelve, ten and nine respectively, moved to Italy. 13 .     A first follow-up report on the adoption, drawn up by the association AiBi on 27 September 2012, found that the children were settling in well with the family, apart from a few incidents in which the younger girl, Z, had been aggressive to the mother, whom she had bitten. The three children had resumed their schooling and only the eldest, X, was having difficulties in school. THE APPLICANTS’ ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE The first disclosures by the applicants 14 .     On 30 September 2012, following an argument with her brother, the third applicant complained about his behaviour towards her, accusing him of touching her sexually. Alerted by this complaint and by the disclosures made to them by the three children on that occasion, the adoptive parents contacted the association AiBi. On 2 October 2012 a meeting took place with a psychologist and an educational adviser from the association. A report was drawn up on that occasion (see paragraph 53 below as regards the subsequent sending of a copy of this document to the Bulgarian authorities). The applicants’ parents, who claimed that the report had been falsified, subsequently lodged a criminal complaint. The outcome of that complaint has not been specified, but a note written by the police reveals that the signatures on the report did not correspond to the sample signatures provided by the persons designated as the document’s authors, and that some paragraphs had been added. According to the report, the children had told their parents that they had engaged in certain sexual practices among themselves, which the parents had not witnessed. As they were extremely upset and traumatised by these disclosures, the parents considered sending away the first applicant, whom they considered to be responsible for the situation. The psychologist recommended instead that they seek psychological assistance. With some hesitation the parents agreed, although the father wanted the sessions to be held away from the city where they lived in order to protect their privacy. The three children, who initially met the educational adviser on their own, said that they had been “silly” because they had played a game “that [they] shouldn’t have played” but which all the children in the orphanage had played. They expressed fears that the first applicant would be sent back to Bulgaria. 15.     After enquiring about specialists trained to deal with this type of situation, the parents had the children examined by two psychologists specialising in child abuse cases who were based in a relational therapy centre (“the RTC”) in a town more than 100 km from their home. Meetings were held between the psychologists, the parents and the children during October and November 2012, and regular counselling sessions were then arranged for the children. The report of 31 October 2012 by the psychologists from the RTC 16 .     An initial report concerning the applicants, entitled “Psychologists’ notes”, was drawn up by the psychologists on 31 October 2012. The report does not contain a verbatim record of the questions asked and the applicants’ statements, but rather represents a summary record which also includes the psychologists’ comments (for a more detailed account of the initial conversations with the psychologists, see the police record summarised in paragraphs 23 et seq. below). According to the report, the psychologists had conversations first with the parents and then with the children on 11 and 18 October 2012. The conversations with the applicants, described as “therapy sessions”, were conducted using the methods recommended for children who have been victims of abuse (see paragraph   22 below), and were videoed. 17.     According to the report, the parents stated that for the first three months, until the incident of 30 September, they had had no problems with the children, although they said that the younger girl, Z, used to lock the door when she was in the bathroom and had bitten her mother. 18.     The report stated that the first applicant, who talked to the psychologists next, had difficulty expressing himself in Italian and asked for his adoptive father to be present. The latter helped the child to explain what he wanted to say. 19 .     According to the report, the first applicant stated that at night one of the other boys in the orphanage, D., used to molest some of the younger children; the others had to watch, sitting in a circle as though in some sort of ritual. In the passages quoted from the first applicant’s account, he described the acts in question using few words. He said, for example, that “[D.] made [the children] lick his bottom and feet and then hit [them]”, and that “he did a wee in [their] mouths and then behind”. The first applicant said that he had told the director of the orphanage, whom he called E. (as regards the confusion surrounding this name, see paragraph 32 below), about these incidents and that she had assured him that she would call the police if it happened again. He admitted having played games of a sexual nature with his sisters, even after their arrival in Italy, saying “I did a wee in Z’s mouth and licked her bottom, then Y told me to touch her where she does her wee, then she did it to me, and I put my finger in her bottom”. He said several times “It’s my fault”. He added that he had watched his sister, the second applicant, “doing sex” with a boy from the orphanage. 20.     According to the report, the psychologists spoke to the second and third applicants together. In reply to a question from one of the psychologists concerning possible problems at home, Y said: “X touched my bottom and then did it to Z, and did a wee in her mouth”. 21 .     With regard to the second applicant the report stated as follows: “Y seems to have viewed it all as a game and did not attach negative connotations to the events, saying ‘I saw M. and B. doing sex and I did it with [my brother]’”. However, the report mentioned that both sisters appeared worried about their brother, who had been the victim of violence on several occasions, saying “X got hit more, I wasn’t hit so much”. The report did not say who had hit the children. It stated that the third applicant had spoken a little later in the discussion, describing another situation in which the children from the orphanage had apparently been taken to a “discotheque” where they had danced and where some men had then arrived and “played” with them in rooms on the premises. The third applicant stated that she was the only one who had put up a struggle, and said “I cried out loud and hit him”. 22 .     According to the report, during the conversations the applicants used dolls given to them by the psychologists to mimic the scenes they were describing. The psychologists concluded that the children were able to distinguish between fantasy and reality and between truth and lies, and that their accounts appeared credible and free from outside influence and were coherent in terms of places and times. The report stated that, as the children considered this type of behaviour to be normal or at least acceptable, the psychologists were recommending sessions of psychotherapy, together with educational support for the parents. The police record of the conversations with the psychologists, based on the video-recordings 23 .     The applicants’ first conversations with the psychologists were also the subject of a written record drawn up on 25 March 2013 by the police attached to the office of the R. public prosecutor for minors, on the basis of the video-recordings made by the psychologists (see paragraph 81 below). This record appears more detailed than the psychologists’ report of 31   October 2012. 24.     It transpires from this record that the applicants’ father was present at the conversation of 11 October 2012 with the first applicant and spoke occasionally. 25 .     According to the record, during that conversation the first applicant said that at night one of the older boys, D., used to switch on the lights and tell the children to sit on the floor. Being unable to explain properly what had happened, the first applicant showed, using the dolls, how a girl had licked the intimate parts of a boy’s body on D.’s instructions. D. had reportedly also struck the girl in the face. He had told the other children not to watch but the first applicant had nevertheless taken a look. The boy had reportedly been naked but the other children had not. The first applicant said that he had informed the director, E. (as regards the confusion surrounding this name, see paragraph 32 below), who had apparently scolded D. and threatened to call the police if it happened again. According to the first applicant’s account, D. used to ill-treat all the other children but the educators did not notice anything. Thus, D. had reportedly forced a boy to lick his feet and had struck him. He had hit the first applicant, had “done a wee in [his] mouth” and “a wee in [his] bottom while [the first applicant] was asleep” and had “put his willy in [the first applicant’s] bottom, which [had] hurt”. D. had only done that to him and to one little girl. The first applicant said that another boy, G., had also “done a wee in [his] mouth and [his] bottom” and had hit the other children. The women from the orphanage had said that it was wrong to hit people. 26.     According to the record, the first applicant said that after their arrival in Italy he had “done a wee in [his sister Z’s] mouth and bottom” and that his other sister, Y, had told him to touch her intimate parts and he had told her to do the same to him. Lastly, he added that in Bulgaria G. had “done sex” with his sister, Y, against the latter’s wishes. 27.     The psychologists spoke next to the two sisters. It appears from the record that the father remained in the room during the conversation but did not speak. The second applicant recounted the incident of 30   September 2012. She said that she had asked her brother to “touch [her] bottom” and that he had “put his finger in [her] bottom”. He had done the same thing to their little sister and had “done a wee in [her] mouth”. The third applicant confirmed what her sister had said. 28 .     According to the record, when asked by one of the psychologists whether similar things had occurred in the orphanage in Bulgaria, the second applicant said that they had, and that she had “done sex” with her brother and other children. She mentioned two boys, D. and G., but said that she had not done anything with them. Both girls said that they had been hit but that it was mostly their brother who had been hit. The second applicant added that she had seen a boy and girl, B. and M., “doing sex” and that her brother had told her that they could do it too. 29.     The record further stated that during a second conversation with the two sisters on 18 October 2012 a psychologist had asked the second applicant to share what she had said to her father about a discotheque. Y told her that she had danced with a boy, Br., in the discotheque and that her brother and sister had also danced in pairs with other children. Afterwards, there had been cake and they had gone to bed. The psychologist asked what they had done then. Y replied, using the dolls to help her, that she had “done sex” with the boy with whom she had danced, that he had been on top of her and that it had hurt. She said that she had pushed him at one point and that he had held her mouth closed. She told the psychologist that she had subsequently done the same thing with other boys   and said that they had gone to the discotheque three times. 30.     The third applicant said that no one had done these things with her and that she had shouted to her sister and Br. that it was wrong. Both sisters said that the other girls in the orphanage, even the youngest ones, used to do the same things. 31.     The police record also made reference to a conversation held on 5   November 2012 with the first applicant in the presence of his father, to whom he had apparently made fresh disclosures. The psychologist began by reassuring the first applicant that it was not he who was naughty but rather the grown-ups who had taught him to do “certain things”. The first applicant then mentioned a man, N., and another called Ma. who he said had hit his sister with a stick. 32 .     According to the record, the psychologist asked the child if he could remember what the “grown-ups” used to do in the orphanage. The first applicant replied that they had gone several times to a discotheque and that the grown-ups had danced with them. His sister Y had told him that N. had forced her to “do sex” in the bathroom. The first applicant said that he had told E.D., one of the welfare assistants in the orphanage (initially referred to mistakenly as the director, see paragraphs 19 and 25 above), who had spoken about it to the director. The first applicant said that N. had promised not to do these things any more but had nevertheless done them again. 33.     The applicants’ father then said that N., who he thought was one of the employees of the orphanage, had first abused the first applicant and then other children, and that other adults had also been involved. The first applicant then named those adults as K., Da., O. and P. 34 .     According to the record, the first applicant said that N. had forced him to “do sex” in the bathroom, had put his penis “in [the first applicant’s] bottom” and had “done a wee in [his] mouth”. He said that K. and Da. had done the same thing to him. He added that some of the “ladies” from the orphanage “used to do sex” with the children; he said that he had done it with one of them, that he had cried, and that she had hit him. Lastly, he stated that the police had come once to the orphanage and once to the school to talk to the children. However, he had not said anything as these things had not happened again. The calls made by the applicants’ father to Telefono Azzurro 35 .     On 6 November 2012 the applicants’ father contacted the Italian helpline for children in danger, managed by Telefono Azzurro, a public ‑ interest association. According to the detailed record of the conversation provided by the counsellor, the father stated that the applicants had told the psychologists with whom they were having sessions that they and all the children in the orphanage where they had lived in Bulgaria had been subjected to what the father described as serious sexual abuse. He said that the applicants had identified eight adults as the perpetrators of the alleged abuse: five men who had performed various tasks in the institution and three women who looked after the children. He reported that the applicants had also mentioned abuse and what he described as deviant sexual practices on the part of adults from outside the orphanage, which had allegedly taken place in a kind of discotheque during holidays organised by the orphanage. According to the father, the applicants had also said that violence and sexual abuse among the children, which involved the older children ill-treating the younger ones, had occurred systematically in the orphanage at night, when the children had been left unsupervised by the staff, who apparently slept one floor higher up. 36.     The first applicant had reportedly said that he had been abused for the first time at the age of six and had been raped by one of the workers in the orphanage, a certain N. He said that he had complained to the director, who had apparently called the police.   However, he had withdrawn his accusations when questioned by the police, as N. had threatened him and struck him in the face. 37.     Again according to the record, the applicants’ father sought advice as to what action to take. The possibility was raised of informing the public prosecutor’s office in Milan, where the association AiBi, which had acted as an intermediary in the adoption process, was based, and contacting the Italian Commission for Intercountry Adoption ( Commissione per le Adozioni Internazionali – “the CAI”) in Rome, as the central authority designated under the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co ‑ operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. The applicants’ father said that he did not wish to involve the judicial authorities at the family’s place of residence, in order to preserve the children’s anonymity. 38.     The applicants’ father called the helpline again on 15 November 2012 and said that, on the advice of a lawyer and a prosecutor whom he knew, he had decided against applying to the Italian judicial authorities since, in his view, they did not have jurisdiction to deal with the case and he did not want to interfere with the family’s privacy. He said that he had reported the children’s disclosures to a representative of the association AiBi in Milan, who had told him that she had never heard of such a serious case and that she would inform the “local authorities”, without specifying which ones. 39.     The applicants’ father asked whether Telefono Azzurro could alert the media, but the counsellor drew his attention to the risk to the family’s private life and added that it was important at this stage to bring the case to the authorities’ attention. 40.     The applicants’ father called again on 20 November 2012 and said that he had tried calling a child protection helpline in Bulgaria and, following the advice given to him, had sent an email to the Bulgarian State Agency for Child Protection. However, he had received no reply (see paragraph   42 below).   He said that the applicants had recounted further episodes of abuse in which children from the orphanage had allegedly been subjected to what he described as perverted sexual practices and that they had identified ten individuals – seven men and three women – as the perpetrators. 41 .     During a further call to the helpline on 26 November 2012 it was agreed that Telefono Azzurro would report the case to the Milan public prosecutor’s office. The applicants’ father would contact the Italian CAI and the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice, as the central authorities responsible for intercountry adoption in the two countries. The reports made to the Bulgarian authorities 42 .     On 16 November 2012 the applicants’ adoptive father sent an email to the Bulgarian State Agency for Child Protection (“the SACP”), asking for a telephone number to call in order to report abuse in an orphanage. He did not provide any details or even mention the name of the institution in question, but his own name featured in his email address. 43.     The same day the association Telefono Azzurro sent an email to the Nadja Centre, a Bulgarian foundation specialising in the protection of at ‑ risk children and responsible for running the national helpline, informing it that it had been contacted by an Italian national who had adopted three children in Bulgaria and who wished to lodge a complaint of serious abuse of his children. The message did not contain the applicants’ names or any details by which they could be identified. On 20 November the Nadja Centre forwarded this message to the SACP. On 23 November the latter informed the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice about the matter, stating that it could not conduct any checks as it did not have the children’s names or the name of the institution in question. The SACP requested the Ministry to open an inquiry within the scope of its powers. 44 .     In a letter of 23 November 2012, which was written in Bulgarian and was scanned and sent by email to the applicants’ father on 26 November 2012, the SACP told him that it had been informed of his report of alleged abuse but that it needed additional information in order to be able to carry out checks, and in particular the name of the institution in question and the children’s Bulgarian names. The father wrote back saying that he could not understand the email and asking for it to be sent as a Word file so that he could have it translated. There was no follow-up to this correspondence by either side. The complaints made to the Italian authorities 45.     On 22 November 2012 the applicants’ parents sent a complaint to the CAI setting out the facts referred to in the report of the psychologists from the RTC dated 31 October 2012 and those reported to Telefono Azzurro (see paragraphs 16-22 and 35-41 above). In particular, they gave the first names of seven men, including N., and four women, who they said had been named by the applicants as the abusers. Some of these individuals, they said, had been members of the orphanage staff while others had come from outside. The parents alleged that groups of children from the orphanage had been taken “on holiday” to a village where they had visited a place they called a “discotheque”, and where they had been molested and sexually assaulted by individuals from outside the orphanage. The first applicant had allegedly been forced to watch his sisters being raped. The parents alleged that the children, left unsupervised during the night at the orphanage, had subsequently repeated with the younger children the behaviour of which they had themselves been victims. 46 .     On 1 December 2012 the association Telefono Azzurro sent the Milan public prosecutor the records of the telephone conversations with the applicants’ father, a letter from him setting out the alleged facts, and the report of 31 October 2012 by the psychologists from the RTC. 47.     In his letter the applicants’ father alleged that all the children in the orphanage had been subjected to abuse by employees (the names of eleven employees – eight men and three women – were given), that during stays at a holiday camp the children had been taken to a “discotheque” where staff members and people from outside had forced them to submit to what he described as perverted sexual practices, that the first applicant had been forced to watch his sisters being raped, and that at night the older children had copied this behaviour and abused the younger children. The father specified that in the orphanage the children had been left unsupervised at night and had not been segregated, and that all the staff including the director had been aware of the abuse. He maintained that the director had been alerted to the abuse but had merely scolded the children she considered to be responsible. The director and the representative of the association AiBi in Bulgaria had allegedly warned the applicants that they must not tell their prospective adoptive parents what had happened, adding that if they did so the parents might send them back to the orphanage. 48 .     On 21 December 2012 the applicants’ father also contacted the Italian police department specialised in tackling online child pornography and informed it of the applicants’ allegations, stressing that the alleged abuse had been filmed by individuals wearing balaclavas to cover their faces. He produced copies of the psychologists’ report of 31 October 2012, the complaint to the CAI, a list of the Facebook profiles of the alleged abusers and a list of the supposed victims, pointing out that some of the children had been adopted in Italy. The applicants have not informed the Court of any action taken in response to this complaint. 49 .     On 8 January 2013 the association Telefono Azzurro sent the Milan public prosecutor additional information provided by the applicants’ father concerning other instances of violence apparently reported by the children. According to these accounts, the children from the orphanage had been taken to private apartments where the men and some of the women working at the orphanage, including the aforementioned N., a photographer and the photographer’s wife, had been present and where the children had allegedly been sexually abused. The adults’ faces had reportedly been covered with balaclavas and the scenes had been filmed and shown on a screen. The applicants had also stated that similar abuse had taken place in the toilets of the orphanage and had likewise been filmed. The applicants’ father also complained about the attitude of the association AiBi, which he criticised for not providing him with the support he had expected. The article in L’Espresso 50.     The applicants’ father also contacted an Italian investigative journalist. On 11 January 2013 the weekly magazine L’Espresso published an article under the heading “Bulgaria, in the ogres’ den” (a version of which was posted on the Internet under the title “Bulgaria, in the paedophiles’ den”), reporting on the allegations made by the applicants’ father but without naming the persons concerned or the orphanage. The article stated that dozens of children from the orphanage in which the applicants had been placed in Bulgaria had been subjected to systematic sexual abuse by staff members and outsiders, in particular at a discotheque in a holiday village. The article described an organised network, with acts of paedophilia and violence, including threats issued with weapons, being committed by masked men, and added that some scenes had been videoed. It stated that the youngest children had been the victims of one of the older children, who used to enter their dormitories at night, and that the first applicant had reported these incidents to the director of the orphanage, who apparently had done nothing to put a stop to them. The author of the article added that he had travelled to Bulgaria in December 2012 and could confirm the existence of the places and people described by the applicants, which he said matched their descriptions. He mentioned that he had met with the local police, who claimed to have been unaware of the situation. The article stressed that psychologists had considered the applicants’ accounts to be credible. 51.     As of 12 January 2013 the article in L’Espresso was the subject of several articles in the Bulgarian media. THE MEASURES TAKEN BY THE BULGARIAN AND ITALIAN AUTHORITIES The initial inquiries and the first preliminary investigation in Bulgaria 52.     Following the messages sent by the applicants’ father and by the Nadja Centre (see paragraphs 42-44 above) and the publication in the Bulgarian media of the disclosures made in the article in L’Espresso , the SACP carried out checks which enabled it to identify the applicants. 53.     In parallel, the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice contacted the association AiBi, which had been named in the press article. On 14   January 2013 the association informed the Ministry of the applicants’ identity and sent it two reports, dated 27 September and 3 October 2012 (see paragraphs   13 and 14 above).   The Ministry passed on that information to the SACP. 54 .     On 14 January 2013 the President of the SACP ordered an inspection of the orphanage. The inspection was carried out on 14 and 15 January 2013 by the regional children’s rights department. According to the report drawn up by the inspectors on 21 January 2013, as sent to the Court (this document does not include any attachments and does not state whether written records were drawn up of the interviews and whether audio or video-recordings were made), the inspectors checked the content of the documents and the safety of the buildings. They interviewed the mayor of the municipality, who was responsible for the running of the orphanage, the director, the general practitioner, the welfare assistant, the psychologist, the nurse and other staff members who were on duty at the time of the inspection. According to their report, the inspectors spoke to the children in groups of four or five, in the context of informal conversations which focused progressively on questions concerning possible acts of violence or unwanted physical contact. The older children who could read and write were asked to reply to an anonymous questionnaire which – again according to the report – they could complete without any staff member present. The questionnaire, devised by the SACP as a tool for assisting inquiries concerning children in residential care, consisted of seven mainly multiple-choice questions in which the children were asked whether they had been subjected to insults or violence or if anyone had touched their bodies “in a way [they] didn’t like” and if they knew who to turn to if there was a problem. 55.     According to the same report, there were fifty-two children living in the orphanage at the time of the inspection: twenty-four girls and twenty ‑ eight boys. Twenty-one of the children were aged between two and seven and thirty-one were aged between eight and thirteen. Thirty-four people worked in the institution, including three men (a caretaker, a heating technician and a driver) whose jobs did not involve contact with the children and who did not have access to their dormitories.   The report stated that, according to the information gathered, the children in the orphanage were never left unsupervised, that they were accompanied by a female educator on their way to school, that access by outside visitors was subject to checks and that there were security cameras around the outside of the premises, the footage from which was viewed on a regular basis. The report further specified that the children were divided among seven dormitories by age and, in the case of the older children, by gender, and that the layout of the dormitories was such that they could not move from one dormitory to another without being seen by the staff members on duty. No reference to violence or sexual abuse was made in the replies to the questionnaire or the conversations, which merely mentioned arguments and instances of being hit by other children, mostly at school. 56 .     The report also stated that, according to the psychologist who prepared a quarterly review concerning the children on the register of children eligible for adoption and who had monitored the applicants among others, neither the applicants nor the other children had ever mentioned ill ‑ treatment or sexual abuse and had shown no signs of such treatment. It also emerged from the information gathered that the children occasionally displayed aggressive behaviour towards each other, which was regarded as normal at that age. In the view of the staff members, the children had no difficulty in confiding in others. Some of the staff cited the example of one girl, M., who had apparently told the other children stories about sexual abuse in her family. The other children had immediately reported this to the staff, prompting an inquiry. According to the director, the second applicant had even told others about these events as if they had happened to her. The director conjectured that this episode could have been the source of the applicants’ allegations. 57.     On the basis of this report the SACP concluded that there was no evidence that children from the orphanage had been subjected to the treatment reported in L’Espresso . Nevertheless, in view of the seriousness of the allegations, the SACP forwarded the file to the Veliko Tarnovo district and regional prosecutors’ offices. Following the inspection the SACP sent a team of psychologists to the orphanage from 18 to 24   January 2013. The team likewise found no cause for alarm. 58 .     The article in the magazine L’Espresso aroused interest among the Bulgarian media, which sought clarification from the SACP and from the management of the orphanage. An article published on 16 January 2013 on the news website Vesti , entitled “The allegations of sexual abuse in an orphanage are fabricated” reported on the statements made by the President of the SACP on television in the following terms: “The reports in the Italian press concerning alleged violence against children in a Bulgarian orphanage are slanderous and fabricated. ... The magazine did not state where the institution is located, prompting the SACP to conduct its own inquiry. According to the SACP, the institution is the residential facility for children without parental care located in the village of ... The SACP conducted an inspection in that facility lasting less than two days. Nevertheless, it is now satisfied that these accusations are unfounded. ... The President of the SACP considers it likely that the accusations were fabricated not by the children themselves but by their new parents in Italy. [He] stated that, despite the short duration of the inspection carried out, the findings were categorical. ...   ... the orphanage stressed that the Italian family’s intention ... had been to adopt two girls, and that they had made a concession in taking the eleven-year-old brother as well. The new ‘parents’ had then wanted to send the boy back. For that reason, according to [the President of the SACP], the father had lied, saying that the boy and his sisters had been playing ‘doctor’. [He stated that] ‘this is most likely a case of manipulation on the part of an adoptive parent, perhaps resulting from his lack of preparedness’ for dealing with three children between the ages of eight and eleven. ‘I visited the children myself yesterday and I can tell you that I’m greatly reassured’ he said. He added that it was out of the question that the older children could have abused the younger ones, given the young age of all the children in the orphanage. Speaking on BTV, he said: ‘There are children’s homes ... where sexual and physical violence goes on, but that is not the case here’.” 59 .     On 29 January 2013 the news website Darik News published an article, accompanied by a photograph, stating that two members of the Bulgarian parliament had visited the orphanage with the mayor and the chair of the local council and had been received by the director. The article referred to the report in the Italian press according to which three children living in the orphanage had suffered sexual abuse, and reported on the “indignation” of the MPs, according to whom the Italian press had been “spreading fake news”. One of the MPs was quoted as saying to the educators: “We all know that this press report is slander”. The article stated that at the end of the visit the villagers had also been invited into the orphanage and had “expressed outrage at the slanderous remarks”. 60 .     On 28 January 201