CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 8 septembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s265248CF { font-family:Arial; -aw-import:ignore } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s198041ED { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt; -aw-border:0.5pt single } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s5E706D64 { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000; -aw-import:ignore } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s7B60A3F1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; -aw-import:ignore } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B48E6E7 { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block; -aw-tabstop-align:left; -aw-tabstop-pos:28.35pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; 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 } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s411DB1B8 { -aw-bookmark-end:rules_on_benefits } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s53BB8C18 { margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-24.67pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .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 } .s2901D7D8 { 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; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:4; -aw-list-number-format:'(%4)'; -aw-list-number-styles:'lowerLetter'; -aw-list-number-values:'1'; -aw-list-padding-sml:4.83pt } .sB2DDB182 { -aw-import:ignore } .s8583703C { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block; -aw-import:spaces } .sAFB630D2 { -aw-field-start:true } .sEDA6939D { -aw-field-code:' REF paragraph00040 \\h \\* CharFormat ' } .sFABF527C { text-decoration:none; -aw-ignore:true } .s3193D72F { -aw-field-separator:true } .sED0D64B1 { -aw-field-end:true } .sA8C43CA1 { 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; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:4; -aw-list-number-format:'(%4)'; -aw-list-number-styles:'lowerLetter'; -aw-list-number-values:'2'; -aw-list-padding-sml:4.28pt } .s9346AB1E { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block; -aw-import:spaces } .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 } .sFB302254 { -aw-field-code:' REF complaint_about_police_work \\h \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s8BE04108 { -aw-field-code:' REF police_report \\h \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s22E7BDFE { -aw-field-code:' REF const_complaint \\h \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sB32E41C8 { -aw-field-code:' REF paragraph00024 \\h \\* CharFormat \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sE659BBA4 { -aw-field-code:' REF KZ \\h \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sCE798BCF { 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; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:5; -aw-list-number-format:'(%5)'; -aw-list-number-styles:'lowerRoman'; -aw-list-number-values:'1'; -aw-list-padding-sml:8.17pt } .sE3E84262 { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block; -aw-import:spaces } .sE499D52C { -aw-field-code:' REF complaint \\h \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sD32E6C51 { -aw-field-code:' REF paragraph00060 \\h \\* CharFormat \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sE01D633F { -aw-field-code:' REF const_complaint \\h \\* CharFormat \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s1455CE21 { 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; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:5; -aw-list-number-format:'(%5)'; -aw-list-number-styles:'lowerRoman'; -aw-list-number-values:'2'; -aw-list-padding-sml:5.95pt } .sA1EDE071 { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block; -aw-import:spaces } .s15515F3 { -aw-field-code:' REF ZKP \\h \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s964495C { -aw-field-code:' REF Police_DutiesandPowersAct \\h \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sFDA81F9F { -aw-field-code:' REF paragraph00010 \\h \\* CharFormat \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sCC34ADE8 { -aw-field-code:' REF police_version \\h \\* CharFormat \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s64BF9C84 { -aw-field-code:' REF paragraph00015 \\h \\* CharFormat \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .sE158F4DB { -aw-field-code:' REF ZKP \\h \\* CharFormat \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s1F79262A { -aw-field-code:' REF paragraph00063 \\h \\* CharFormat \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s29B7F392 { -aw-field-code:' REF contrary_to_domestic_law \\h \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s372E1378 { -aw-field-code:' REF Istanbul_Convention \\h \\* CharFormat \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s35EAA84 { -aw-field-code:' REF KZ \\h \\* CharFormat \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s591AD30A { -aw-field-code:' REF paragraph00089 \\h \\* CharFormat \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s16AF3D61 { -aw-field-code:' REF paragraph00101 \\h \\* CharFormat \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s7C1721B0 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-28pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s957C7903 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.05pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s42878C93 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s863F8E82 { -aw-field-code:' REF prevention_of_discrimination_act \\h 34 \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s32C4C6F8 { -aw-field-code:' REF paragraph00082 \\h \\* CharFormat \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s873247CE { -aw-field-code:' REF contrary_to_domestic_law \\h \\* CharFormat \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s752CEA47 { -aw-field-code:' REF paragraph00093 \\h \\* CharFormat \\* MERGEFORMAT ' } .s99ADDC0F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-31.34pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDDCC5471 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:1; -aw-list-number-format:'(%1)'; -aw-list-number-styles:'lowerLetter'; -aw-list-number-values:'1'; -aw-list-padding-sml:2.33pt } .sFB2F0B8A { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block; -aw-import:spaces } .s47FA90AD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:2; -aw-list-number-format:'(%2)'; -aw-list-number-styles:'lowerRoman'; -aw-list-number-values:'1'; -aw-list-padding-sml:3.33pt } .sE1ABCE3F { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block; -aw-import:spaces } .sE6DE8A4B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:2; -aw-list-number-format:'(%2)'; -aw-list-number-styles:'lowerRoman'; -aw-list-number-values:'2'; -aw-list-padding-sml:3.33pt } .sB5F428DA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; -aw-import:list-item; -aw-list-level-number:1; -aw-list-number-format:'(%1)'; -aw-list-number-styles:'lowerLetter'; -aw-list-number-values:'2'; -aw-list-padding-sml:2.33pt } .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 } .s24D57840 { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff; -aw-import:ignore } .s95770030 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s540D80A0 { width:25.2pt; display:inline-block; -aw-tabstop-align:center; -aw-tabstop-pos:70.9pt } .s12F88F41 { width:141.42pt; display:inline-block; -aw-tabstop-align:center; -aw-tabstop-pos:297.7pt } .s6D7EA9DF { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block; -aw-tabstop-align:center; -aw-tabstop-pos:70.9pt } .sD28ED835 { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block; -aw-tabstop-align:center; -aw-tabstop-pos:297.7pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right }   FIRST SECTION CASE OF J.I. v. CROATIA (Application no. 35898/16)       JUDGMENT Art 3 (procedural) • Failure to carry out effective investigation into alleged death threats against vulnerable rape victim by her abuser father, in breach of domestic law   STRASBOURG 8 September 2022   FINAL   30/01/2023     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of J.I. v. Croatia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Marko Bošnjak, President , Péter Paczolay, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Alena Poláčková, Erik Wennerström, Ioannis Ktistakis, Davor Derenčinović, judges , and Renata Degener, Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no. 35898/16) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Croatian national, Ms J.I. (“the applicant”), on 17 June 2016; the decision to give notice of the application to the Croatian Government (“the Government”); the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the observations submitted by the Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by the European Roma Rights Centre, which was granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 7 June and 28 June 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last‑mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1. The applicant’s father was imprisoned following his conviction for multiple acts of rape and incest perpetrated against her. During his prison leave, he allegedly threatened through relatives to kill the applicant, because he held her responsible for his imprisonment. The applicant complained of the inadequacy of the authorities’ response to her allegations of serious threats by her father, maintaining that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her Roma origin. THE FACTS 2. The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Zagreb. She was represented by Ms S. Bezbradica Jelavić, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Background of the case 5. On 12 May 2009 the applicant’s father, B.S., was convicted and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for multiple acts of rape and incest perpetrated against the applicant. He was also found guilty of domestic violence in minor-offence proceedings. He was sent to serve his prison sentence in L. Prison. 6. The applicant underwent comprehensive psychological treatment following the trauma of the events. In 2014 she changed her name, hairstyle and appearance. 7 . In January 2015 B.S. was granted a prison privilege in the form of leave allowing him to visit a nearby town. On 6 June 2015 he was granted home leave, allowing him to return to his habitual place of residence. 8 . On an unspecified date, the applicant learned from her relatives that B.S. had been granted prison leave, was looking for her and had threatened to kill her because, in his view, she was responsible for his imprisonment. The relatives warned the applicant to stay away from the part of town where B.S. was staying during his prison leave. The applicant’s contacts with the police 9. On 11 August 2015 at 9.45 p.m., the applicant called the emergency helpline and said that she was afraid to walk around town because, according to her, her rapist, B.S., had escaped from prison and was threatening her through some relatives. 10 . According to the Government, immediately after receiving the applicant’s call, at 9.51 p.m. the police checked with the prison authorities whether B.S. had escaped. At 9.55 p.m. they were informed that he had not escaped but had been on prison leave and had returned to prison earlier that day at 6.30 p.m. Furthermore, no irregularities had been reported concerning his prison leave. The applicant was informed of the established facts and told to contact the nearest police station in case B.S. tried to contact her personally. According to the applicant, she had asked the police officer whether she needed to report the threats at a police station but was told that “it [would make] no sense to file a report since nothing had actually happened”. 11. The applicant subsequently moved to another part of town and stopped going to meetings at a social-welfare centre located in the area where B.S. would stay whenever on prison leave. 12 . On 3 September 2015 the applicant saw B.S. standing at a bus station. As soon as she saw him, she ran into a shop, from where she called the police, and two male police officers arrived twelve minutes later. The applicant told them that her rapist, B.S., was outside, that he had threatened through relatives to kill her and that she was too scared to go out of the shop, even though she had a ticket for a 2 p.m. bus. The police officers then went to talk to B.S., who stated that he had not seen the applicant or threatened her and that she was probably making that up so that he would no longer be granted prison leave. Both B.S. and the applicant were then accompanied by the police officers to their respective buses, to ensure that there was no contact between them. 13 . According to the applicant, the attitude of the intervening police officers towards her, as a person of Roma origin, was dismissive; they were brusque and arrogant and did not respond to her pleadings to give her a glass of water. They also made comments to the effect that they would have a lot of paperwork to do as a result of her call, since it had been the end of their shift. In response to her query whether it was necessary to report the threats to the appropriate police station, the officers said it was not because she had just reported them. 14 . According to the Government, the police officers found the applicant visibly disturbed and crying. They asked the shop employees for two glasses of water, which the applicant drank. They expressly told the applicant to report B.S.’s threats to the appropriate police station should she consider them to be serious. 15 . The relevant part of the official police report on the intervention, drawn up on 13 October 2015 by Officers D.M., M.J. and M.B., reads as follows: “Arriving at ... [the main bus station] at 1.05 p.m., I found [the applicant] who stated that ... she had spotted her father, B.S., who was serving a prison sentence because he had raped her, [and] that he had threatened, through some aunts, to kill her if he were to see her, which is why she immediately ran to the basement of the bakery and called the police, as she was too afraid to go out. [Along with the colleagues who had arrived in the meantime], ... we found B.S., who stated that he was serving a prison sentence ... and was on two days’ prison leave ... As regards any threats to his daughter, [B.S.] stated that he had never threatened anyone, that he had eight more months of the prison term remaining and that she was [making those allegations] so that he would not be able to [continue benefiting from prison leave]. [B.S.] was accompanied to his bus ..., as was [the applicant], and she was advised to report the threats to the police if she considered them serious ...” The applicant’s complaint concerning police conduct 16. On 11 September 2015 the applicant complained in writing to the sentence-execution centre of the V. County Court and the Ministry of Justice’s Prison Administration about the threats made by B.S. and the fact that he had been granted home leave from prison. She requested that his home leave be suspended. 17. The sentence-execution judge replied that she did not have jurisdiction to examine matters related to privileges granted to prisoners. 18. On 23 September 2015 the applicant submitted a request with L. Prison that B.S. not be granted prison leave. On 2 October 2015 the prison administration replied that, according to the information at their disposal, B.S. had not been suspected of any criminal offence during his prison leave and there was nothing to indicate that the applicant had lodged a criminal complaint against him. At the same time, the prison administration suspended the home leave that B.S. had been previously granted, but which he had not yet taken. 19 . Meanwhile, on 22 September 2015 the applicant complained to the Internal Department of the Ministry of the Interior about the conduct of the police officers on 11 August and 3 September 2015, claiming that it had been unlawful, and requesting that her complaint concerning B.S.’s serious threats be forwarded to the appropriate State Attorney’s Office for further action. 20. On 28 September 2015 the applicant’s complaint was forwarded to the Service for the Lawfulness of Conduct of the Z. Police Department, which obtained written statements from the police officers who had been involved in the interventions on the dates in question. Her complaint concerning B.S.’s serious threats was not forwarded to the appropriate State Attorney’s Office. 21. On 23 October 2015 the police internal control unit replied to the applicant, stating that there had been no omissions or misconduct in the work of the police officers. 22 . On 26 October 2015 the Z. Police Department filed a full report on the police conduct in relation to the events of 11 August and 3 September 2015, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “As per your request and bearing in mind [the applicant’s] complaints, we inform you that the enquiries made did not confirm the allegations of the complaint, which we therefore deem ill-founded. The enquiries made showed no omissions, unlawful acts or inappropriate behaviour on the part of the police officers who had intervened in the events in question. More precisely, as regards the actions taken on 11 August 2015, ... it has been established that on the day in question at 9.45 p.m. ... a female made a call to the [Z. police] ... saying that she wanted advice relating to events which had taken place six years previously, when she was raped by her father B.S., who according to her knowledge had escaped from L. Prison ... [The applicant] went on to say that she had heard from her aunts that on that day (11 August 2015) her father had attended a barbecue at his sisters’ in D., and that she was afraid of him although he had not threatened her in person. The police operator informed ... [her superior], who [checked with the competent authorities and established that B.S. had been released on prison leave ... and that he had returned to L. Prison on 11 August 2015]. ... [The police operator informed the applicant] ... of the fact that her father was in L. Prison, and advised her to call [the emergency helpline] or the closest police station if her father was to contact her in any way ... As regards the actions taken on 3 September 2015, ... at 12.53 p.m. the Z. police station received a call from [the applicant], requesting police intervention, saying that she was at the Z. main bus station where she was hiding from her father, who was on [prison leave]. ... On arrival at the scene ... at 1.05 p.m., Officer D.M. found ... [the applicant] ... who stated that ... she was in [a] bakery because she had seen her father B.S., who was serving a prison sentence in L. Prison for having raped her, and who had threatened her, via some aunts, that he would kill her once he found her, which was why she immediately ran to the basement of the bakery and asked for police help, as she was scared. ... [Two more police officers arrived at the scene and spoke to B.S.] ...” 23 . The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), complaining of the failure of the domestic authorities to protect her from intimidation and repeat victimisation by B.S., and of their failure to carry out an effective investigation into the serious threats against her life. She also complained that she had been discriminated against as a woman of Roma origin. The applicant relied, inter alia , on Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention. The relevant parts of her constitutional complaint read as follows: “... 20.1.1. Violation of the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention The applicant was the victim of multiple rape by her own biological father, B.S. In addition, B.S. had also been convicted of domestic violence against the applicant. Owing to the sexual abuse sustained, the applicant spent some time in a [women’s] shelter ... During the criminal proceedings [against B.S.], the applicant was extremely traumatised, felt suicidal and was prone to self-mutilation. However, as a result of her work and efforts, the applicant managed to recover from self-destruction and she got her life back on track by severing all ties with her previous life. She moved to another part of town [and] changed her name ... In addition, the applicant had actively worked on herself and on improving her psychological condition, so that, despite being a victim of sexual abuse, she had managed to overcome the trauma and was currently in a stable relationship. She changed her name and address in order to prevent her father from being able to find and hurt her once he came out of prison. To make it even more difficult for him to recognise her, she also changed her hair colour. In view of the extremely serious and heinous crimes committed against her by her own father, it is not surprising that the applicant was very disturbed to learn that her father was looking for her and that he wanted to kill her. Despite all this, the police officer who answered her call on 11 August 2015, and those who intervened on 3 September 2015, were extremely insensitive to the situation and the feelings of the applicant, and their conduct was contrary to the Protocol on procedures in sexual abuse cases and the Protocol on procedures in domestic violence cases. ... However, [despite the existing legislation], neither the police officer who answered her call on 11 August 2015, nor those who intervened on 3 September 2015, acted towards the applicant with heightened sensitivity, but instead in a humiliating and discriminatory manner based on her sex and [Roma origin]. This is apparent from the following facts: [the police officers] did not have some paper or a pen to note down the applicant’s statement; one of the police officers arrogantly asked the applicant if he could use her mobile phone to call his boss, because he ‘did not have credit on his mobile phone’; they completely ignored the applicant’s request for a glass of water; ... they also ignored her request for them to walk next to her while accompanying her to the bus ..., instead of which the police officers walked in front of her; [and] they rudely and arrogantly ... commented in front of the applicant: ‘Now we will have a lot of paperwork to do, and it is the end of our shift.’ In addition, the entire time they were eyeing the applicant superficially and with spite, as if thinking ... ‘Gypsy business’ ... The police officers’ actions caused the applicant to feel even more ashamed and guilty. Instead of feeling protected, she had the impression that they were not going to do anything about her complaint. Having asked the police officers whether she had to go to the S. police station in order to report what had just happened, they told her there would be no point in doing so because she had just reported everything. [The police officers did not contact her relatives to check her allegations of threats towards her, merely checking where B.S. was reported to be staying when he was on prison leave.] Owing to the manner in which the police had treated her, the applicant was disappointed, distressed and traumatised and had to take tranquilisers in order to calm herself down. Besides, owing to her retraumatisation, the applicant began vividly remembering the violence she had suffered, which was why she could no longer enjoy an intimate relationship or be close to her [current] partner as before. ... 20.1.2.1. Omissions in relation to the applicant’s complaints Despite the fact that the applicant had told the police in great detail the reasons for her intense fear and unease, the police did not check her allegations ... As justification for their cursory ... performance of duties, the police stated that B.S. had not threatened the applicant directly. However, that explanation given by the police deliberately left out a crucial fact as to why this was so, namely that, by changing her identity, appearance and address, the applicant was still managing to keep herself concealed from her father. Therefore, the only reason why the threats had not been uttered directly to the applicant, and why they had not been fulfilled, lay in the fact that the applicant’s father was unable to find her. However, that did not prevent him from actively looking for her while he was at large. ... The applicant has been put in the position of having to wait for a physical and potentially lethal attack just in order to be able to seek the protection of the State and judicial authorities, which means that the State has consciously left the applicant exposed to the danger stemming from her father ... 20.1.2.2. Failure to investigate the applicant’s allegations The State’s procedural obligation has also been violated by the fact that there has been no effective official investigation relating to the applicant’s complaint concerning the unlawful acts on the part of the police. ... [The police control unit’s letter dated 23 October 2015] thus generally states that ‘having received her calls, the police officers quickly took adequate measures prescribed by law, thereby informing the applicant of possible further actions ...’. However, it is not specified which actions and measures were carried out and which law prescribed them, nor does it name the intervening police officers [on the dates concerned] ... which leads to the conclusion that the applicant’s complaints were not taken very seriously. Furthermore, contrary to what was stated in the letter, the applicant was never informed of any further actions which she could have taken, and when she herself asked whether she needed to report the events to ... [the police], she was told that she did not because she had just reported it. Despite that, no official proceedings were initiated following her complaint. ... Given that the criminal offence of making threats under Article 139 § 2 of the Criminal Code is prosecuted on a mandatory basis, it was the obligation of the police to send her criminal complaint to the Z. State Attorney’s Office, in particular since the police officers told the applicant that her statement of 3 September 2015 was considered a complaint to the Z. police station concerning threats. ...” 24 . On 8 December 2015 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the response of the police internal control unit was not a decision amenable to constitutional review under section 62 of the Constitutional Court Act. The decision was notified to the applicant’s representative on 17 December 2015. Subsequent developments 25. On 29 April 2016 B.S. was released from prison on parole until 5 March 2017. On the same date the police issued an expulsion order against him, on the ground that he was a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina and had no regularised status in Croatia. He was escorted to the border, from which he left for Bosnia and Herzegovina. 26. According to the Government, B.S. was denied entry to Croatia on two occasions in 2017. He died on an unspecified date thereafter. 27. The Government stated that, in 2018, after they had received notice of the present application, the appropriate State Attorney’s Office created a case file for the purpose of conducting an inquiry and determining whether the applicant had filed criminal complaints against B.S. that had not been properly registered. 28. On 10 September 2019 the Z. Municipal State Attorney’s Office received a special report from the Z. Police Department, stating that the latter was unable to conduct an information interview with the applicant as ordered because she could not be found at her registered address. She informed them by telephone that day that she was away and that she would return in mid-October 2019. 29. The Z. Municipal State Attorney’s Office then sent two further summonses to the applicant, which were returned undelivered. 30. On 16 October 2019 the applicant received a call from the police. She informed them that she did not wish to make a statement without her lawyer. The applicant’s lawyer informed the police that she was in a very difficult mental state and was not capable of making any statements relating to the events. 31. On 9 July 2020 the Z. Municipal State Attorney received a special report from the Z. police station, stating that an information interview with the applicant could not take place because she did not wish to respond to their calls. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Relevant domestic law and practice 32 . The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code ( Kazneni zakon , Official Gazette no. 125/11, as amended), as in force at the material time, read as follows: Threats Article 139 “(2) Whoever makes a serious threat to kill or inflict serious bodily injury on another ... shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment not exceeding three years. ... (4) [A] criminal offence punishable under paragraph (2) of this Article shall be prosecuted at the request [of the victim], save for an offence ... committed ... against ... a closely connected person [which shall be prosecuted on a mandatory basis].” 33 . The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , Official Gazette no. 152/08, as amended), as in force at the material time, read as follows: Article 205 “(1) A [criminal] complaint shall be submitted to the appropriate State Attorney in writing, orally, or by other means. (2) ... An oral [criminal] complaint shall be recorded in writing ... (3) If the [criminal] complaint was filed by the victim, the filing thereof shall be confirmed to the victim in writing stating the basic content of the complaint ... (4) If a [criminal] complaint has been filed with a court, the police or a State Attorney’s Office that lacks jurisdiction, they will accept the complaint and immediately deliver it to the appropriate State Attorney. ...” Article 206 “(1) Following the examination of the [criminal] complaint, the State Attorney shall dismiss it if it is established: (a) that the reported offence is not prosecuted on a mandatory basis; ... (d) that there is no reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed the reported offence ...” Article 207 “(1) If there are grounds to suspect that a criminal offence has been committed for which criminal proceedings are conducted on a mandatory basis, the police shall have the right and duty to take the necessary measures: 1) find the perpetrator of the criminal offence, to ensure that the perpetrator or participant does not hide or escape, 2) discover and secure traces of a criminal offence and objects that may serve in establishing the facts and 3) collect all information that could be useful for the successful conduct of criminal proceedings. (2) The police shall notify the State Attorney about any enquiries into criminal offences immediately, and no later than twenty-four hours from the moment the action was conducted ... (4) On the basis of enquiries made, the police, in accordance with a special regulation, shall draw up a criminal complaint or a report about the enquiries made, stating all the evidence which they have gathered. The content of statements made by individual citizens in the gathering of information shall not be entered in the criminal report ... The criminal report ... shall be accompanied by objects, sketches, pictures, documents on the measures and actions taken, official notes, statements and other material that may be useful for the successful conduct of the proceedings. (5) Should the police subsequently learn of new facts or evidence, or discover traces of a criminal offence, it shall collect the necessary information and inform the State Attorney of it immediately. (6) When making criminal enquiries, the police shall also act in accordance with the provisions of a special law and the rules adopted on the basis of that law.” 34 . The relevant provisions of the Police Duties and Powers Act ( Zakon o policijskim poslovima i ovlastima , Official Gazette nos. 76/09 and 92/14), as in force at the material time, read as follows: Section 11 “(1) If there are grounds for suspicion that a criminal offence has been committed for which criminal proceedings are initiated on a mandatory basis ..., the police shall conduct a criminal inquiry.” Section 36 “(1) If there are grounds for suspicion that a criminal offence has been committed for which criminal proceedings are initiated on a mandatory basis ..., a police officer may collect information from a person who is likely to have knowledge of the circumstances related to that criminal offence ... (2) A police officer may collect information from citizens on [police] premises, in their workplace, in another suitable place or – with the prior consent of the person – in his or her home. (3) A police officer shall gather information from the victim of a criminal offence, acting with special precautions.” Section 62 “(1) A police officer is obliged to receive a complaint of a criminal offence for which criminal proceedings are to be initiated on a mandatory basis. If the complaint is made by telephone or other telecommunication device, the electronic record thereof shall, where possible, be provided, and an official note shall be drawn up. (2) If the complaint is submitted orally, the complainant shall be warned of the consequences of false reporting and, if necessary, clarifications and submission of documentation and other data referred to by the complainant shall be requested in order to assess the justification of the complaint. A record shall be made of the oral report in which the warnings given shall be entered. (3) If, despite the explanations given, the police officer concludes that no criminal offence subject to mandatory prosecution has been committed, he or she shall warn the complainant that the filing of the complaint is not justified. At the express request of the complainant, the police officer will put the criminal complaint on record.” Section 63 “(1) If, when a criminal complaint is filed or enquiries are made, it is established that the complaint concerns a criminal offence subject to private prosecution or that the event does not have the elements of a criminal offence, the police shall inform the complainant accordingly ...” Section 64 “(1) If there are grounds for suspicion that a criminal offence has been committed for which criminal proceedings are initiated on a mandatory basis ..., the police shall collect information on that criminal offence ..., [including the] perpetrator, participants, leads, evidence and other circumstances useful for detecting and clarifying that criminal offence ... (2) Unless otherwise prescribed by law, when the police gather information and data on a criminal offence for which criminal proceedings are initiated on a mandatory basis, they shall compile a criminal report and submit it without delay to the appropriate State Attorney.” 35 . The relevant provisions of the Prevention of Discrimination Act ( Zakon o suzbijanju diskriminacije , Official Gazette no. 85/2008) provide as follows: Section 1 “(1) This Act ensures the protection and promotion of equality as the highest value of the constitutional order of the Republic of Croatia; it creates conditions for equal opportunities and regulates protection against any discrimination on the basis of race or ethnic origin or skin colour, gender, language, religion, political or other conviction, national or social origin, wealth, membership of a trade union, education, social status, marital or family status, age, health, disability, genetic inheritance, gender identity, expression or sexual orientation. (2) Discrimination within the meaning of this Act means putting any person in a disadvantageous position on any of the grounds under subsection (1) of this section, including his or her close relatives. ...” Section 16(1) “Anyone who considers that, owing to discrimination, any of his or her rights has been violated may seek protection of that right in proceedings in which the determination of that right is the main issue, and may also seek protection in separate proceedings under section 17 of this Act.” Section 17 “(1) A person who claims that he or she has been a victim of discrimination in accordance with the provisions of this Act may bring a claim and seek: 1. a ruling that the defendant has violated the claimant’s right to equal treatment or that an act or omission by the defendant may lead to the violation of the claimant’s right to equal treatment (namely, a claim for acknowledgment of discrimination); 2. a ban on [the defendant’s] carrying out acts which violate or may violate the claimant’s right to equal treatment or an order for measures aimed at removing discrimination or its consequences to be taken (namely, a claim for a ban or for removal of discrimination); 3. compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the violation of the rights protected by this Act (namely, a claim for damages); 4. an order for a judgment finding a violation of the right to equal treatment to be published in the media at the defendant’s expense.” 36 . The relevant provisions of the Protection against Domestic Violence Act ( Zakon o zaštiti od nasilja u obitelji , Official Gazette no. 137/2009, as amended), as in force at the material time, provided as follows: Protective measures Section 11 “(1) The aim of protective measures is to prevent domestic violence, ensure the health and safety of the victim and eliminate the circumstances which enable or are favourable to a new offence being committed; they are applied in order to put an end to the endangering of victims of domestic violence and other family members. (2) In addition to protective measures prescribed by the Minor Offences Act, the court may apply the following protective measures: – compulsory psychosocial forms of treatment, – barring orders in respect of the victim of domestic violence, – the prohibition of harassment and stalking of individuals who are victims of violence, ...” Application of protective measures Section 18 “(1) Protective measures under section 11 of this Act can be applied on their own, without imposing a sentence or another minor-offence sanction. (2) Protective measures can be applied at the request of the authorised prosecutor or the victim of domestic violence.” 37 . Section 164 of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act ( Zakon o izvršavanju kazne zatvora , Official Gazette no. 128/1999, as amended), as in force at the material time, provided as follows: “3. At the prison’s request ..., the parole office will perform the tasks necessary for the reception into the community of the prisoner following release [from prison] in line with the law regulating parole. 4. Prior to releasing a prisoner who had been imprisoned for a criminal act against sexual freedom ..., the prison ... shall inform the unit of the Ministry of Justice responsible for support to victims and witnesses with a view to the victim, the injured person or their family being informed.” 38 . The relevant part of the Rules on Privileges of Prisoners ( Pravilnik o pogodnostima zatvorenika , Official Gazette no. 66/2010), reads as follows: Rule 4 “(1) Privileges entailing more frequent contact with the outside world are: ... 4. leave [allowing the prisoner to go] with a visitor to the town where the prison is located, ... 6. leave [allowing the prisoner to go] to his or her place of residence ...” Rule 13 “(6) In determining the possibility of granting privileges listed in ... Rule 4, paragraphs ... 4 [and] 6 of these Rules, in addition to other conditions set out in the Rules, the following will also be taken into account: – the type and circumstances of the criminal offence committed, – the prisoner’s attitude towards the committed offence, – the reaction of the victim and the victim’s family to the prospect of such privileges being granted ...” 39 . Section 17 of the Probation Act ( Zakon o probaciji , Official Gazette 143/12), as in force at the material time, provided as follows: “1. When deciding whether to grant the privilege of leave to a prisoner for him or her to return to his or her place of residence, the penal institution or prison may request a report from the probation office. 2. The report to the penal institution or prison shall contain information about the prisoner’s family, the circumstances in his community, the circumstances relevant to the decision on the granting of leave and, when possible, the relationship of the victim or the victim’s family vis-à-vis the criminal offence committed.” 40. The Protocol on procedures in domestic violence cases ( Protokol o postupanju u slučaju nasilja u obitelji ) was adopted in 2008 by the Ministry of Family, Homeland War Veterans and Intergenerational Solidarity. As regards the duties of the police, it provides that when they receive information in any way and from anyone about an instance of domestic violence, two police officers, preferably one male and one female, must intervene without delay and interview the victim in separate rooms without the alleged perpetrator present. They also have an obligation to obtain the necessary information concerning the violence suffered by the victim, interview and institute appropriate proceedings against the perpetrator, and inform the victim of his or her rights. 41 . In decision no. U-IIIBi-2349/2013 of 10 January 2018, the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 23 of the Constitution and Article 3 of the Convention on account of the ineffective investigation by the police into a complaint made by a suspect during her questioning. 42. The relevant parts of the 2015 Annual Report of the Ombudswoman for Gender Equality of the Republic of Croatia read as follows: “2.1.4. Failures of the police and the judiciary in dealing with victims of domestic violence In relation to the work and conduct of police officers in cases of domestic and partner violence, the Ombudswoman emphasises the good practice in principle as well as the established cooperation and communication with the Ministry of the Interior, which is reflected in the taking into account of her warnings and recommendations. However, in some cases, certain omissions were noticed, that is examples of poor practice in the actions of the police, as well as judicial bodies, the State Attorney’s Office and the courts, which are described below. On the basis of her long experience in practice, the Ombudswoman has established the following principal omissions of the authorised bodies in their work of fighting against and prevention of domestic violence: In their handling of domestic violence, as well as in their further reporting to the court, the police often do not take into account, nor do they state in the report or the indictment the entire context and chronology of violence between the family members, between the victims and perpetrators, especially the so-called history of domestic violence or previous violence, whether previously reported or not, but they exclusively deal with the event for which they are intervening. ... In some cases, the police do not react to violence because it is not defined in the Protection from Domestic Violence Act ... 2.1.5. Recommendations ... 5) Introduce special police departments with mixed police personnel (male-female) employed professionally and highly educated who will deal exclusively with domestic violence in a gender-sensitive manner. 6) Continuously educate police officers, State Attorneys and judges on sex and gender equality and on domestic violence, international standards, declarations and conventions related to the prevention of violence against women ... Through education, ensure a unified understanding and application of the ‘zero tolerance’ policy towards domestic violence and violence against women in general by State Attorneys and judges, and understanding that violence against women is gender-based violence.” 43. The relevant parts of the 2021 Annual Report of the Ombudswoman for the Equality of Sexes of the Republic of Croatia read as follows: “2.1.6. Act of the police and the judiciary towards victims of domestic violence The Ombudswoman points out that the greatest progress in the area of processing and combating domestic violence and violence among close persons has been made by the police. During the reference period, the Ombudswoman has recorded how in anti‑discrimination proceedings against the police [initiated following complaints to her office] ... in an increasing number of cases the Police Directorate already in the early stages of [her] involvement recognises sex discrimination in its ranks and takes swift and effective measures to combat it and punish those responsible. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the police continued in 2021 education of its officials, and continued to improve the system of early recognit