CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 décembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s5297CEC5 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s63658818 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6C2746C6 { margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s6047437D { width:11.03pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CCA30AE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA04AE28A { width:35.22pt; display:inline-block } .s264C88EB { width:142.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF TUNIKOVA AND OTHERS v.   RUSSIA (Applications nos.   55974/16 and 3 others – see appended list)     JUDGMENT Art 3 (substantive and procedural) • Positive obligations • Failure to take adequate measures to protect victims of domestic violence and conduct an effective investigation due to continuing structural problem • Domestic legal framework lacking a definition of “domestic violence”, adequate substantive and procedural provisions to prosecute its various forms, and any form of protection orders • Deficient legal framework preventing authorities from taking a comprehensive view of a continuum of violence and dealing with it at a systemic level Art 14 (+ Art 3) • Discriminatory effects on women of continued failure to adopt legislation to combat domestic violence and provide any protective measures Art 46 • Pilot judgment • Detailed general measures indicated by the Court comprising all areas of State action to address comprehensively structural and discriminatory lack of protection of women against domestic violence   STRASBOURG 14   December 2021   FINAL   14/03/2022   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tunikova and Others v.   Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Dmitry Dedov,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma,   Andreas Zünd,   Frédéric Krenc, judges, and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the four applications (see the numbers and dates of introduction in the appendix) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four Russian nationals (“the applicants”) whose particulars are set out in the appendix; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the State’s obligation to provide protection from domestic violence and to declare inadmissible the remainder of application no.   53118/17; the decision to give priority to the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 23   November 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns complaints about the Russian authorities’ alleged failure to protect the applicants from acts of domestic violence and to carry out an effective investigation into these acts, as well as the discriminatory impact of gender-based violence on women. THE FACTS 2.     The Government were initially represented by Mr   M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by Mr   M. Vinogradov, his successor in this office. 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. CIRCUMSTANCES OF INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS The case of Ms   Tunikova (application no.   55974/16) 4.     Ms   Tunikova was represented before the Court by Mr   Gleb Glinka and Ms   Maria Voskobitova, lawyers practising in Moscow. 5.     In 2011 Ms   Tunikova met D. and they started living together. According to her, in 2012 D. assaulted her for a first time. He kicked and punched her and tried to strangle her. In 2013 she endured more incidents of verbal and physical abuse. Ambulance workers advised her to file a complaint with the police. D.   heard their discussion and held his temper for several months. 6 .     On 10   August 2014 a violent argument erupted between Ms   Tunikova and D. He allegedly hit her on the head and started pushing her through the kitchen towards the open balcony of their 15th-floor flat. Fearing that he would throw her off the balcony, she grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed him. He let her go and called an ambulance and the police. 7 .     Ms   Tunikova was charged with grievous bodily harm and spent the night at the police station. She was not feeling well and was examined several times by doctors. They diagnosed her with a concussion and noted abrasions on her head, shoulders and back. After her release, she was treated in the city hospital for seven days. 8 .     On 21   October 2014 Ms   Tunikova filed a private-prosecution complaint against D. on the charge of causing “minor bodily harm”, an offence under Article   115 of the Criminal Code. A magistrate of the Vykhino-Zhulebino district in Moscow heard Ms   Tunikova and her witnesses and discontinued the proceedings on the basis that the facts of the case disclosed indications of a publicly-prosecutable offence, that of threatening death or bodily harm under Article   119 of the Criminal Code, which the district police were competent to deal with. On 17   January 2015 the Vykhino district police declined to open criminal proceedings. In their view, it had not been shown that the threat of death had been sufficiently “real” or that Ms   Tunikova had reasons to fear for her life. 9.     On 4   February 2015 Ms   Tunikova resubmitted a private-prosecution complaint against D. to the same magistrate. On 5   May 2015 the magistrate acquitted D. of the charges. He attached decisive importance to the statements by two police officers who had been called to the scene on 10   August 2014 and had not seen any injuries on Ms   Tunikova, and to the 17   January 2015 decision refusing the institution of criminal proceedings. 10.     Counsel for Ms   Tunikova filed an appeal. He pointed out in particular that the acquittal had been pronounced by the same magistrate who had already decided on Ms   Tunikova’s previous complaint. On 18   August 2015 the Kuzminskiy District Court in Moscow granted the appeal and assigned the case to another magistrate. 11 .     On 1   December 2015 the new magistrate discontinued the private ‑ prosecution case on the grounds that Ms   Tunikova and her counsel had not shown up at the hearing. On 16   March 2016 the Kuzminskiy District Court upheld that decision on the grounds that Ms   Tunikova had been sixteen minutes late for the hearing and that the law did not distinguish between “significant” and “insignificant” tardiness. On 6   July 2016 the Moscow City Court refused Ms   Tunikova leave to appeal to the cassation instance. 12.     On 26   June 2017 the Kuzminskiy District Court found that Ms   Tunikova had inflicted grievous bodily harm on D. and that her use of force in self-defence had not been justified. She was sentenced to imprisonment and a fine but released from serving the sentence due to a general amnesty act. The case of Ms   Gershman (application no.   53118/17) 13.     Ms   Gershman was represented before the Court by Ms   Vanessa Kogan and Mr   Egbert Wesselink of the Stichting Justice Initiative, a non-governmental organisation based in Utrecht, the Netherlands. 14.     In 2012 Ms   Gershman married O. In 2014 their daughter was born. 15 .     According to Ms   Gershman, on 23   November 2015 O. kicked and punched her. She complained to the police; a medical assessment recorded large bruises on her shoulders and ribs. Citing the fact that the injuries did not reach the threshold of gravity required for public prosecution, the police declined to open criminal proceedings. She was told to mount a private prosecution case for “battery” under Article   116 of the Criminal Code. 16 .     Between 24 January and 5   July 2016 O. allegedly assaulted Ms   Gershman several times both inside and outside their residence, including in the presence of their daughter. Hematomas and abrasions on Ms   Gershman’s body were recorded in medical documents; she was unable to work for seven days from 19 to 26   July 2016. On 5 and 17   July 2016 she reported the events to the police which declined to institute criminal proceedings on account of the minor nature of her injuries. 17 .     On 6 May and 16   June 2016 Ms   Gershman filed three private ‑ prosecution claims with magistrates in the Vidnoe and Cheremushki districts in Moscow. She complained of multiple counts of “battery” and three assaults occasioning “minor bodily harm”. Her claims were dealt with as follows. 18 .     On 29   September 2016 the Vidnoe district magistrate referred the complaint concerning five instances of “battery” to the police   because the offence of “battery” inflicted by family members had been reclassified as a publicly prosecutable offence (see paragraph 58 below). On 14   March 2017 the police investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings following another legislative amendment which removed the “battery” inflicted by family members from the sphere of criminal law (ibid.). 19.     On 8   December 2016 the Vidnoe district magistrate acquitted O. of two assaults which had allegedly taken place on 24 April and 3   May 2016. The magistrate had taken evidence from both parties, their witnesses, ambulance workers and police officers who had been called to the scene, and examined video recordings of the incidents which were found to contradict Ms   Gershman’s account of events. On 1   March 2017 the Vidnoe Town Court upheld the acquittal on appeal. 20 .     On 13   January 2017 the Cheremushki district magistrate acquitted O. in respect of the 5   April 2016 incident in which he had allegedly punched Ms   Gershman and caused her to fall on the stairs. The magistrate ruled that she had failed to prove that she had not been injured at a later point in time, after the incident had already ended. 21 .     In parallel proceedings, on 31   May 2016 Ms   Gershman asked the police to institute criminal proceedings against O. for “tormenting”, an offence under Article   117 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 60 below). She listed the recurrent instances of ill-treatment and attached medical evidence. On 6   June 2016 the police rejected her request. They found that O.’s conduct did not constitute “tormenting” because he did not have “intention to cause systematic injury”. On 26   August 2016 the supervising prosecutor ordered the police to carry out an additional inquiry. The inquiry yielded no new elements and concluded with the decision not to prosecute, which was issued on 1   December 2016. The supervising prosecutor set aside that decision on 13   January 2017 and ordered the police, within twenty days, to assess the severity of Ms   Gershman’s injuries, obtain a statement from her, and identify witnesses. It is unclear whether the police complied with the prosecutor’s instructions. 22 .     On 3 January and 23   April 2017 O. allegedly assaulted Ms   Gershman during her visitation meetings with their daughter. Following the first attack, she sustained a concussion and bruising on her head and back, and was unable to work from 5 to 18   January 2017. She reported both assaults to the police which declined to investigate on the grounds that “battery” no longer constituted a criminal offence. Ms   Gershman sought to prosecute O. in administrative proceedings: a case under Article   6.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (see paragraph 58 below) was opened on 2   November 2017 but discontinued on 1   January 2018 on the grounds that O.’s whereabouts could not be established. 23 .     On 26   November 2019 O. allegedly assaulted Ms   Gershman in the courtroom during a child custody hearing. She sustained a concussion and bruising on her scalp and took a fifteen-day sick leave. On 4   December 2019 the police refused to open a criminal investigation into “repeat battery” under Article   116.1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 58 below). The case of Ms   Petrakova (application no.   27484/18) 24.     Ms   Petrakova was represented before the Court by Ms   Mari Davtyan, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 25 .     In 2006 Ms   Petrakova married A. They had two children and lived together in the flat of which A. was the owner. According to her, between late 2007 and April 2015 – when their marriage was terminated by divorce – A. assaulted Ms   Petrakova more than twenty times. The police declined to investigate her reports on the grounds that the threats had not reached the threshold of being “real” and that an offence of “battery” was subject to private prosecution. Ms   Petrakova was to pursue charges against A. in a magistrates’ court. 26 .     On 28   April 2015 Ms   Petrakova asked the district police chief for protection. She listed all alleged assaults by A., attached medical evidence and pleaded with the police to intervene. She emphasised that A. had beaten, humiliated and insulted her, that he had threatened to kill her and burn their joint property, and that she lived in constant fear. The police interviewed Ms   Petrakova and A. and, on 8   May 2015, issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings which reproduced the text of previous decisions. On 1   July 2015 a supervising prosecutor annulled that decision and ordered an additional inquiry which was to include in particular a medical assessment of her injuries. On 22   July 2015 the police issued a decision with the identical text. According to it, obtaining Ms   Petrakova’s medical record and carrying out a medical assessment “turned out to be impossible within the established time-frame”. 27 .     On 10   May 2015 Ms   Petrakova reported to the police that A. had taken her mobile phone and punctured the tires of her car. On 23   June 2015 a hospital informed the police that Ms   Petrakova and a female friend had been treated there for bruises and abrasions. On that day A. attacked them while her property was being valued. The police refused to investigate both incidents. With regard to the assault, they used the same wording as before, and, with regard to the damage to her phone and vehicle, they stated that it was insignificant. 28 .     On 5   August 2015 a magistrate of the Vykhino-Zhulebino district in Moscow discontinued Ms   Petrakova’s private prosecution case against A. on the basis of a general amnesty act. 29 .     On 13   October 2015 a supervising prosecutor weighed in on the matter of Ms   Petrakova’s complaints. He directed the police to take note of A.’s repetitive pattern of assaults and launch an investigation into the offence of “tormenting” under Article   117 of the Criminal Code. The police opened a criminal case and took a statement from Ms   Petrakova. She detailed the twenty-three cases of assault since 2007 and her unsuccessful reports to the police. She indicated that A. possessed an air gun and a hunting rifle. The police obtained medical records, commissioned medical examinations, interviewed Ms   Petrakova’s friends who had witnessed some assaults, and took statements from A. who accepted in part her account of the events. 30 .     In parallel civil proceedings, Ms   Petrakova sued A. for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 8   February 2016, on leaving the civil court, A. assaulted her, punched her in the face and ripped her jacket. On 17   February 2016 the police declined to open criminal proceedings, citing minor nature of the damage. 31 .     On 1   April 2016 the investigator in charge of the criminal case issued two decisions. Both decisions reproduced the text of Ms   Petrakova’s statement relating to the twenty-three incidents of assault. In the first decision, the investigator expressed a view that the systematic element of “tormenting” implied that beatings should be not just repetitive but also “internally consistent with the perpetrator’s desire to cause particularly torturous physical or mental suffering to the victim”. The acts by A. had not contained any such element, they had been “ordinary household conflicts caused by personal animosity in connection with their living under the same roof”. Since Ms   Petrakova had not suffered actual bodily harm, the investigator held that three incidents of assault should be characterised as “battery” rather than “tormenting”. The second decision refused institution of criminal proceedings without specifying to which of the twenty-three incidents it referred. 32 .     On 21 July and 31   August 2016 magistrates in the Ryazanskiy and Vykhino-Zhulebino districts in Moscow, respectively, discontinued private prosecution cases against A. in relation to the 23   June 2015 and 8   February 2016 assaults. They held that since the divorce Ms   Petrakova and A. had no longer been “family members”, whereas, owing to legislative changes in 2016, battery committed by strangers was not a criminal offence. 33.     On 6   September 2016 a magistrate of the Vykhino-Zhulebino district found A. guilty of two instances of criminal “battery” with regard to the assaults of 22   December 2014 and 11   March 2015, and sentenced him to 120   hours’ community service. 34.     On 18   November 2016 the Kuzminskiy District Court, on appeal by Ms   Petrakova’s counsel, quashed the 31   August discontinuation decision and the 6 September judgment on the grounds of the incorrect legal characterisation of A.’s acts. The case was returned to the magistrate who, in turn, sent it back to the prosecutor’s office. 35.     On 4   April 2017 the police received the file from the prosecutor’s office. Seven days later they adjourned the proceedings on the grounds that A.’s whereabouts could not be established. On 28   April 2017 the adjournment decision was set aside. On 13   May 2017 the investigator issued the decision to discontinue the proceedings by reference to the 2017 changes in the legislation by which battery committed by family members had been reclassified as an administrative offence. 36.     On 17   November 2017 the investigation was resumed. On 25   November and 1   December 2017, first the supervising prosecutor, and later the Kuzminskiy District Court established that the length of the investigation had exceeded a reasonable time, that the decisions of 1   April 2016 had been premature and incomplete, and that there had been no progress in the case since 28   March 2017. On 17   December 2017 the investigation was again suspended. 37.     On 8   February 2018 the prosecution became time-barred. According to the Government, on 3   September 2019 a deputy head of the Moscow police set aside the suspension decision of 17   December 2017 and ordered the investigation to be resumed. The case of Ms   Gracheva (application no.   28011/19) 38.     Ms   Gracheva was represented initially by Ms   Mari Davtyan and later also by Ms   Valentina Frolova, lawyers practising in Moscow and St   Petersburg. 39.     In 2012 Ms   Gracheva married D. and they had two children. In 2017, their relationship deteriorated and she decided to apply for divorce. 40 .     According to her, on the night of 30   October 2017 D. checked her mobile phone and accused her of having an affair. He allegedly punched and kicked her, ripped up her passport and took her mobile phone. In the morning he took her to the district police inspector Sh. to apply for a new passport. He stayed in the inspector’s office the entire time she needed to fill in the application. The following day Ms   Gracheva went to her mother and told her about the abuse. Her mother took photos of the injuries and suggested that she report the abuse to the police but Ms   Gracheva demurred, fearing retaliation against herself and her children. 41 .     D. continued to control Ms   Gracheva’s movements and insisted on driving her to the office and back home. On the way home, he suddenly changed direction. When she asked him to let her out of the car, he refused and locked the doors. 42 .     On 3   November 2017 Ms   Gracheva moved to her mother’s place, together with the children. She went to see Inspector Sh. and told him that it was her husband who had ripped her passport. Sh. replied that he knew that D. was “that kind of man”. D. continued to stalk Ms   Gracheva in front of her house and followed her movements around town using the feed from public CCTV cameras. 43 .     On 10   November 2017 Ms   Gracheva accepted D.’s offer of a ride. Once in the car, he locked the doors, took her mobile phone and showed her a knife. He stopped the car in the woods, put the knife to her throat and demanded that she confess to adultery. He said that he would kill her and melt her body in acid. In the end, he took her to the office unharmed. 44 .     On the following day Ms   Gracheva told her mother about the incident. Her mother filed a police complaint on her behalf. Police inspector Z. phoned her to arrange a meeting. At 9   p.m. she visited his office and gave a statement about the assaults, threats and kidnapping. On 19   November 2017 the police took a statement from D. 45 .     On 29   November 2017 another police inspector, G., summoned Ms   Gracheva to make a statement. He accepted photographs of the injuries her mother had taken. According to Ms   Gracheva, he repeatedly suggested that she should withdraw her complaint, claiming that D.’s conduct was a “manifestation of love”. 46.     As D. testified later, on or about 1   December 2017 he had formed a plan to punish Ms   Gracheva for alleged infidelity by chopping off her hands. He had bought an axe and a set of elastic bands to stop bleeding. He had stashed them in the boot of his car and scouted the woods for a secluded place. 47 .     After Ms   Gracheva filed for divorce, D. put his plan into action. On the morning of 11   December 2017 he locked her in the car and took her to the location, tied her hands and with several blows of an axe hacked off both of her hands. She went numb from shock and offered no resistance. 48 .     D. applied elastic bands to the stumps to stop bleeding and took her to the emergency ward of the Serpukhov town hospital. From there, he went to the police and turned himself in. He was eventually charged with kidnapping and threats of death in connection with the incident of 10   November, and with kidnapping and causing grievous bodily injury with respect to the assault of 11 December. 49.     Ms   Gracheva suffered a permanent loss of her right hand which was amputated at the wrist; her left hand had been salvaged and reattached but only regained a limited range of motion and function. 50 .     By judgment of 15   November 2018, as upheld on appeal on 21   January 2019, the Serpukhov Town Court found D. guilty as charged and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment. During the trial, the court heard testimony from district inspectors G. and Z. When asked what protective measures he had recommended to Ms   Gracheva, Inspector G. replied that he had suggested that she “limit her communication” with D. 51.     Ms   Gracheva sought to pursue criminal proceedings against Inspector G. for professional negligence. On 21   February 2018 the Serpukhov Investigations Committee opened a criminal case which was closed on 21   May 2018. The investigator found that Inspector G. and Mr   D. had given “concordant evidence” to the effect that, even if criminal proceedings against D. had been instituted and a measure of restraint applied, it “would not have swayed [D.’s] resolve to commit assault on Ms   Gracheva”. Inspector G. had not therefore committed any wrong, as there had been no causal link between his actions and the assault on Ms   Gracheva. 52.     On 7   June 2018 the supervising prosecutor ordered the investigator to resume the investigation. On 13 October and 30   December 2018 the investigator suspended the proceedings, claiming that he was unable to contact Inspector G. who had gone on a mission to another region. 53.     Counsel for Ms   Gracheva complained to a court about an ineffective investigation. On 16   May 2019 the Serpukhov Town Court declared that it lacked jurisdiction to give an assessment of whether or not the investigation had been effective. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK CRIMINAL LAW Assault: Articles   105 to 115 of the Criminal Code 54 .     Chapter   16 of the Criminal Code covers offences against the person, including murder and manslaughter (Articles   105 to 109) and three levels of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (Articles   111 to 115). “Grievous bodily harm” (Article   111) may involve the loss of a body part or the termination of pregnancy; “medium bodily harm” (Article   112) leads to a long-term health disorder or loss of ability to work, and “minor bodily harm” (Article   115) covers injuries that take up to twenty-one days to heal. Article   115 covers both “non-aggravated” and “aggravated” forms of “minor bodily harm”; the latter include those committed for racial, ethnic, social or “disorderly” ( хулиганские ) motives or with the use of a weapon. 55 .     Causing a loss of life, grievous, medium or aggravated minor bodily harm is subject to public prosecution; the offence of non-aggravated “minor bodily harm” is liable to private prosecution, meaning that the institution and pursuance of criminal proceedings is left to the victim who is expected to collect evidence, identify the perpetrator, secure witness testimony and bring charges before a magistrates’ court. Private prosecution proceedings can be terminated at any stage up until the delivery of judgment in the event that the victim has agreed to withdraw the charges. “Battery”: Article   116 of the Criminal Code and Article   6.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences 56 .     Other forms of assault which may cause physical pain without resulting in actual bodily harm are treated as “battery” ( побои ) under Article   116. This provision has recently been amended a number of times. 57 .     Up until 3   July 2016 any form of “battery” constituted a criminal offence punishable by a fine, community service, or up to three months’ detention. Aggravated battery could be punished with a longer period of deprivation of liberty. Prosecution of the offence was left to the private initiative of the victim. The law did not differentiate between various contexts in which the offence could be committed, whether within the family or between strangers. 58 .     On 3   July 2016, Article   116 was changed in a number of ways. First, the ordinary, “non-aggravated” form of battery was decriminalised and reclassified as an administrative offence under the new Article   6.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences. Article   6.1.1 includes the same provisions as the initial Article   116 but provides administrative penalties for first-time offences in the form of a fine, community service, or up to fifteen days’ deprivation of liberty. Second, the new form of “aggravated battery” was created. It included in particular battery committed in respect of “close persons”, that is to say spouses, parents, siblings and domestic partners, and was punishable by a deprivation of liberty. That form of battery became subject to a mixed “public-private” prosecution regime which applies to some other offences, such as rape. Under this regime, proceedings are instituted at the victim’s initiative, but the investigation and prosecution are led by the authorities and cannot be discontinued even if the victim withdraws the complaint. Third, the new Article   116.1 was added to the Criminal Code. It created a new offence of “repeat battery” defined as battery committed by a person who has been convicted of the same actions in administrative proceedings within the previous twelve months and whose actions do not constitute aggravated battery under Article   116. The offence can only be prosecuted privately and is punishable by a fine or up to three months’ detention. 59 .     On 7   February 2017 the reference to “close persons” was removed from the definition of “aggravated battery” in the text of Article   116 for the purpose of decriminalising acts of battery inflicted by spouses, parents or partners. The only remaining forms of aggravated battery now include battery committed for racial, ethnic, social or disorderly motives. “Tormenting” and threats of death: Articles   117 and 119 60 .     The offence of “tormenting” ( истязание ) under Article   117 is defined as “the causing of physical or mental suffering by means of systematic infliction of battery or other forcible actions which do not result in grievous or medium bodily harm”. The act of “tormenting” is punishable by up to three years’ deprivation of liberty. 61.     Threats to kill or cause grievous bodily harm “if there was reason to fear that the threat might be carried through” constitute a publicly prosecutable offence under Article   119, punishable by community service or up to two years’ deprivation of liberty. INFORMATION ON GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE IN RUSSIA 62.     For statistical information, research and documentation relating to gender-based violence in Russia which was available to the Court at the time of delivery of the Volodina v.   Russia judgment, see paragraphs   40-45 of that judgment (no.   41261/17, 9   July 2019). New relevant information is summarised below. Reports by Russia’s High Commissioner for Human Rights 63 .     The 2018 report noted the systemic nature of the problem of violence against women which had remained “an unacceptable and most cruel form of gender-based discrimination”. According to opinion polls, violence against women was an important issue for a majority of Russians (73%); a third of respondents (32%) state that women are likely to have experienced physical violence of a non-sexual nature; female respondents (38%) mention it more frequently than male (25%); and 49% of women polled fear becoming victims of family violence. The High Commissioner reiterated her 2017 recommendation to the Government to develop a comprehensive federal domestic-violence law. 64 .     In 2019 the High Commissioner reported that legislation on domestic violence had been drafted by a specialist working group set up on commission from the Chairperson of the Federation Council. The legislation aimed to introduce new approaches to protect victims of domestic violence while “preserving the family unit and providing assistance in difficult life situations”. In the spirit of openness and transparency, the legislation was published for discussion on the Federation Council’s website (see paragraph   67 below). The High Commissioner emphasised that domestic violence was “unacceptable in any circumstances” and was “an offence against fundamental human rights”, recognised as such in more than 120 States that had introduced protection orders in their legislation. 65 .     The 2020 report did not mention the draft legislation. It observed that COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine measures had increased levels of stress in families. The High Commissioner had received nearly twice as many complaints of domestic violence, and a 20% increase in the number of applications had been reported by the Women and Children Crisis Centre in Moscow during the confinement. National Action Strategy for Women 66 .     Research on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence in the Russian Federation (April 2020) [1] was prepared in the framework of the project “Co-operation on the implementation of the Russian Federation National Action Strategy for Women (2017-2022)”. The project, implemented by the Council of Europe in co-operation with Russia’s Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, focused in particular on ways of preventing violence against women and domestic violence. The research found as follows: “[Section 4.1] In Russia, the National Action Strategy for Women [NASW] 2017-2022 and the Action Plan to implement the strategy are the two policy documents that explicitly address the issue of violence against women [VAW], with special attention to domestic (‘family’) violence [DV] and sexual violence. While the policy documents conceptualise domestic violence as a form of violence that has a particular impact on women, they do not elaborate on how VAW stems from inequality and discrimination. The NASW describes VAW as an indication of social disadvantage and characterises it as a problem stemming from substance abuse ... Neither the NASW nor the Action Plan provide definitions of the terms ‘violence against women’ or ‘domestic violence’ that would indicate a recognition of the context in which VAW is perpetrated or take into consideration the experiences of victims/survivors. There is no state policy dedicated exclusively to VAW or to DV. Furthermore, while a draft law is pending approval, there are no definitions of VAW or DV in Russian legislation. In fact, the phrase ‘domestic violence’ only appears in a federal law on the provision of social services, but without a definition of the term. [Section 4.4] The Ministry of Internal Affairs ... routinely collects information about perpetrators and victims of registered crimes (i.e. sex, age, nature of the injury) as well as the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator (i.e. stranger, known person, spouse, partner, family member ...) ... There are several shortcomings in the data collection methodology and process used by the Ministry of Internal Affairs ... First, there is a lack of consistent terminology. Law enforcement statistics that were reviewed for this study use terms that broadly refer to violence occurring in families and between family members or narrowly to mean violence between spouses ... Second, law enforcement data on DV includes only people who are legally considered ‘family members’ (limited to parents, children, siblings, other blood relatives and spouses) and they exclude non-married partners or former spouses. Third, law enforcement statistics refer only to criminal proceedings, omitting complaints of victims of domestic violence that did not result in criminal proceedings and all administrative offences. Data from other sectors (e.g. victim/survivor admissions to healthcare facilities, emergency medical response records, contact with social services) either do not exist or were not accessible for this study ... [Section 5.1] A new draft law ‘on prevention of domestic violence’ was published on 29   November 2019 in the Russian Federation Council website for public comments ... The draft sets out an obligation for several relevant statutory agencies (social services, law enforcement etc.) to take a range of preventive measures and introduces protection orders for victims of domestic violence, which is an important step towards their protection from further violence. However, the definition of ‘domestic violence’ provided in Article   2 of the draft law makes it unclear which acts this draft law is intended to cover. It seems reasonable to consider that it intends to cover all acts which do not qualify as administrative or criminal offences; thus, it seems to cover those situations that benefit from the partial de-criminalisation of domestic violence introduced in 2017. If this interpretation is correct, the draft law and the preventive measures contained therein are to be intended as providing a non-criminal law response to ‘low-level’ domestic violence, which would also mean that impunity for such acts will not be impacted. The draft does not seem to go as far as criminalising all forms of domestic violence, in fact, it does not seem to change the status quo after the reforms in 2016 and 2017 ... [Section 5.2.2] In terms of investigation, domestic violence complaints are handled under a general instruction that regulates the receipt and registration of reports on crimes and administrative violations [Order of the Ministry of the Interior no.   736 of 29   August 2014]. This instruction contains no specific protocols for how to deal with complaints of domestic violence or other forms of VAW. The text provides no instruction on immediate protection of DV victims or risk assessment. [Section 6.1] In Russia, district police officers ( участковый ) are a community police force that are most often engaged in dealing with DV cases. They are not specialised in dealing with DV, but one of their specific duties is to conduct ‘preventive work’ with persons who have committed offenses or crimes in the family sphere ... The district police have the authority to register people who are considered disorderly, which includes perpetrators of DV, under prevention control measures ( профилактический учет ) for the duration of one year ... This system is characterised as preventive work, and the focus of police action is on the behaviour of the perpetrator. There is no regulation pertaining to how police are to assess or manage the victim’s safety in the context of DV. No analysis was found to determine the effectiveness of this measure in preventing repeated violence or reducing DV, such as studies of recidivism ... Experts point out that police officers are typically not very active in carrying out this type of prevention work, neither registering offenders nor maintaining contact with those who have been registered. The reasons for police inaction are said to be the heavy caseload of many district officers combined with the low priority assigned to DV cases, or due to personal biases. The lack of attention to the safety of the victim is especially concerning in light of the fact that international practice has demonstrated that the specific actions of initiating or being involved in legal proceedings tend to trigger further and more intensive violence. Aside from procedural inadequacies in the law enforcement system to prevent escalation of domestic violence, it has been widely documented that the police systematically fail to initiate proceedings in DV cases. Due to commonly-held misconceptions and gender stereotypes present throughout the law enforcement and justice systems, police often do not see the need to intervene in what they consider ‘private matters’ and do not recognise domestic violence as meriting preventive measures or investigation. Lawyers who represent survivors of DV report that police, in fact, frequently blame women for the violence or try to dissuade them from making formal complaints.” Draft legislation on domestic violence 67 .     On 29   November 2019 a draft law on the prevention of domestic violence was published on the website of the Federation Council [2] . Members of public were invited to submit comments and suggestions within two weeks. Over 11,000 comments were received. As of the date of this judgment, the draft law has not been submitted to the State Duma for consideration. THE LAW         JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 68.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION 69.     The applicants complained that the State authorities failed to protect them from acts of domestic violence due to a deficient domestic legal framework and a lack of legal remedies against domestic violence and also failed to investigate the acts of violence of which they had been victims. They relied on Article   3 of the Convention, taken alone and together with Article   13, which read, in the relevant parts, as follows: Article   3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment ...” Article   13   “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”