CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2BF5EB6D { margin-top:24pt; 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 } .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 } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s99FFA883 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sB2B1ABC4 { margin-left:12.12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.33pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sF1F033E { margin-left:-19.04pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB4993480 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:200%; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s58277305 { width:28.55pt; display:inline-block } .sDC0B6D6A { width:108.08pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION CASE OF A.P. v. ARMENIA (Application no. 58737/14)   JUDGMENT   Art 3 (substantive) • Positive obligations • State’s failure to protect fourteen-year old pupil with an intellectual disability from sexual abuse in her State school by a teacher, also a public official at the time • Failure to ensure existence of an appropriate legislative and regulatory framework for the prevention, detection and reporting of sexual abuse of minors and to provide training of persons working in contact with children • State school authorities’ failure to take appropriate measures to adequately protect applicant from sexual abuse Art 8 • Private life • Publication of applicant’s full name and address together with complete texts of judicial decisions dismissing her civil damages claim for sexual abuse on the publicly accessible online official judicial database, despite her specific request not to publish that information • Civil claim directly linked to and the consequence of the sexual abuse suffered • Disclosure of information left applicant and her family in constant uncertainty that she could be identified as a victim of a sexual crime • Interference not “in accordance with the law” Art 13 (+ Art 3) • Lack of effective remedy as a result of absence of possibility to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 18 June 2024 FINAL   18/09/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of A.P. v. Armenia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer , President ,   Tim Eicke,   Faris Vehabović,   Branko Lubarda,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   Anne Louise Bormann , judges , and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 58737/14) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Armenian national, Ms A.P. (“the applicant”), on 19 August 2014; the decision to give notice to the Armenian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 21 November 2023, 5 December 2023 and 28 May 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns a complaint lodged under Article 3 of the Convention by the applicant – a person with an intellectual disability who was a minor at the time of the events at issue in the present case – concerning the sexual abuse to which she was subjected by a teacher in her State school (who was also a public official). It also concerns the publication of details concerning a civil claim for damages lodged by the applicant (including her full name) in the publicly accessible online judicial database; it further concerns the lack of any legal possibility for her to claim compensation from the State for the ill-treatment that she suffered, raising issues under Articles   8 and 13 of the Convention respectively. THE FACTS 2 .     The applicant was born in 1997 and lives in a village in Armenia. She was granted legal aid and was represented by Mr K. Mezhlumyan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Kostanyan, and subsequently by Mr Y. Kirakosyan, Representative of the Republic of Armenia on International Legal Matters. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as can be seen from the documents produced before the Court, may be summarised as follows. background to the case 5 .     The applicant has had a mild intellectual disability from birth. 6 .     At the time of the events in issue the applicant was fourteen years old. She was a pupil in the ninth grade at her local State school, where A.G. – the   then administrative head of the village ( համայնքի ղեկավար ) , and a married man aged 49 – worked as a sports teacher. investigation 7 .     On 23 February 2012 the applicant’s mother, E.P., lodged a crime report with the police about the sexual abuse of the applicant by A.G. in a classroom at her school. 8.     On the same date the investigator took statements ( բացատրություն ) from the applicant and N.M. (a twelfth-grade pupil in the same school). 9 .     In particular, the applicant recounted three separate instances of her having been sexually assaulted by A.G. – the last one having occurred on the previous day (that is, on 22 February 2012); immediately after that incident, she had recounted what had just happened to several girls in her class, one of whom had then informed their class teacher, K.H. 10 .     In her statement N.M. said that A.G. was not respected among the school’s pupils or the residents of the village in general, since he had a reputation as a shameless “skirt-chaser” ( կնամոլ – a word having a more pejorative meaning in Armenian than the English equivalent; literally translates as “woman addict”). At the beginning of February, according to N.M., during a joint sports lesson with the applicant’s class, A.G. had left the classroom with the applicant, who had returned after about twenty or twenty-five minutes. Her fellow pupils had tried to find out from the applicant what had happened; however, A.G. had returned to the classroom, so they had stopped asking the applicant questions. Knowing of A.G.’s bad reputation and suspecting that he had called the applicant away for the purposes of “something indecent”, the pupils had decided to follow up on the matter, including making plans to record on video anything that they might witness. About three weeks later, on 22 February 2012 N.M. had been in mathematics class with A.S., her class teacher (and a teacher of mathematics). Two girls from her class had come in late and had told N.M. that A.G. had called the applicant away from her lessons. Believing that A.G. had called the applicant away for the purpose of engaging in sexual relations with her, the pupils had decided to accomplish their plan of videotaping the entire process. Having received permission from A.S. to leave the classroom, N.M. had gone to the applicant’s classroom, but seeing that A.G. was there alone, had come back. A little later one of the pupils had reported that A.G. was taking the applicant back to the school from the courtyard. N.M. had once again asked for permission to leave and had left the classroom. She had asked a pupil from another class to give her a mobile phone so that she could make a recording and had approached the applicant’s classroom. N.M. had tried to record through a hole in the door but could not. Looking through that hole she had seen A.G. pulling the applicant towards himself and touching her bottom; the applicant had resisted. Horrified by what she had seen, N.M. had run back to her classroom and asked A.S. and the pupils to come and open the door to the applicant’s classroom in order to see what A.G. was doing to her; however, nobody had followed her. She had gone to the office of the headmistress, but the latter had not been there. She had then gone to another classroom, where N.G. was teaching; she had told N.G. that A.G. was alone with the applicant in the classroom and had asked her to come with her and to open the door; N.G. had also refused, telling her to go to the headmistress (S.M.), her class teacher (A.S.) or the applicant’s class teacher (K.H.). N.M. had then gone to another classroom where she had told H.B. (a history teacher) and the pupils in that class to come and see what A.G. was doing to the applicant. They had also refused to go with her. When N.M. had left that classroom, she had seen A.G. leaving the classroom in which he had been with the applicant. During the next break between lessons, N.M. had seen the applicant in the corridor; she had been in “bad shape” ( թույլ և տկար վիճակում ). Almost everyone had seen the applicant in that condition, including her class teacher, K.H., who had taken the applicant into her classroom. 11 .     On 24 February 2012 criminal proceedings were instituted on the basis of the applicant’s mother’s complaint (see paragraph 7 above) under Article 142 of the former Criminal Code (“the old CC”, in force until 1 July 2022 – see paragraph 70 below). 12.     The applicant and a number of witnesses were questioned on different dates at the end of February. 13 .     The applicant’s mother, E.P., stated, among other things, that A.G. was known in the village as a “shameless and immoral skirt-chaser”. About seven months previously she had asked A.G. to help her to apply for a social welfare benefit. On 23 February 2012 the applicant and her other daughter had returned from the school in tears and had told her that A.G. had touched the applicant inappropriately. The applicant had then told her that about three   weeks before that A.G. had touched her breasts in her classroom and asked to hold his penis after which she had cried and ran away; she had also told E.P. details of the events of the previous day (22 February 2012). After the applicant had finished recounting A.G.’s behaviour towards her, some of their relatives had come over to their home to discuss the situation; E.P. had then – later the same evening – lodged a crime report with the police (see paragraph   7 above). 14 .     During her questioning as a witness N.M. mainly reiterated the account of the events that she had given previously (see paragraph 10 above). She added that when she had run back to her classroom in order to alert A.S. and her fellow pupils of what was happening, she had even pushed A.S. out of the classroom. A.S. had then walked towards the applicant’s classroom but had then returned without having opened the door. N.M. had asked her to open the door, but A.S. had not even approached it. During the break she had told K.H. what had happened. K.H. had then approached the applicant and had taken her into her own classroom. 15 .     A.S. (see paragraph 10 above) stated that she was N.M.’s class teacher. She knew the applicant from their village as someone who was reserved, not particularly talkative, modest and vulnerable ( խեղճ ). She refused to describe A.G.’s character, stating that he had little to no contact with the teaching staff. She submitted that on 22 February 2012 N.M. had been very emotional when she had come back into the classroom; she had even tried to physically push her out of the classroom. Since N.M. had not said specifically why she was upset, A.S. had thought that there had been a fight. She had left the classroom and, seeing that all was silent in the corridor, she had returned to the classroom. They (meaning she and the pupils) had then seen the applicant in the courtyard walking in a tottery fashion. She had told the pupils that there was no noise in the corridor, to which they had replied that no noise was ever made during “that”. Surprised, she had asked what had happened and the pupils had made her understand that A.G. had been alone with the applicant and that something had happened. A.S. had then learned that N.M. had also approached teachers H.B., N.G. and K.H. about the same matter. 16 .     H.B. (see paragraph 10 above) stated, inter alia , that A.G. was known as a “skirt-chaser” in the village. On 22 February 2012 N.M. had entered his classroom in an emotional state and had asked him to go with her. Not knowing what exactly was going on, he had stayed where he was. When he had tried to clarify what was happening, N.M. had told him to come and see what A.G. was doing. He had then told N.M. that he was not on best terms with A.G. and did not follow her. 17 .   M.H. (a pupil who had been in H.B.’s classroom on the morning of 22   February 2012 – see paragraph 16 above) told the investigator that N.M. had asked her if she could borrow her mobile telephone in order to record A.G. and the applicant who, according to N.M., were alone at that moment. Shortly afterwards, N.M. had returned to the classroom and had asked H.B. and the pupils to come and see what A.G. was doing with the fourteen ‑ year ‑ old applicant. N.M. had been very emotional and had implored H.B. to go with her, but H.B. had not done so. 18 .     In the course of the investigation N.M.’s mother stated that they had received anonymous telephone threats and threats from A.G.’s relatives (via third parties) aimed at persuading N.M. to withdraw her statements. She was therefore afraid for her daughter’s safety. 19 .   On an unspecified date in March 2012 G.P. (the applicant’s uncle) was questioned. He stated, in particular, that A.G. was a “shameless” and “immoral” person who had the reputation in the village of a “skirt-chaser”. He was also a sports teacher and behaved strictly, roughly and vulgarly towards the pupils, who were afraid of him. On 23 February 2012 G.P. had heard from his nephew that there were rumours going around the village that A.G. had groped the applicant. Upon hearing that, he had gone to the house of his brother (the applicant’s father). They had summoned A.G. to the applicant’s house in order to ask him what had happened. Without even asking what that was about, A.G. had entered the applicant’s bedroom and had taken hold of the applicant – shaking her and shouting at her. The child had started shivering; they had taken A.G. outside and had told him that, if he had indeed done nothing to the child, then he could go and fetch the police. About two hours passed but he did not return (either with the police or without them). Having found out that A.H. (the school’s senior teacher) was at home, G.P., his son and his nephew had gone to her house and had asked if she was aware of what was happening in the school. A.H. had asked if the question concerned the applicant and, when G.P. had replied in the affirmative, she had told that she had known about it for a long time and that “they did not want to make a noise about it” since “they did not want to have to deal with” A.G. After that conversation, G.P. had called the police, who had arrived and had taken the applicant to the police station. The next day the applicant stated that A.G. had been abusing her for the past three months. When questioned, G.P.’s son gave an account of the events that was identical to that given by G.P. 20 .     On 6 March 2012 A.G. was charged with aggravated rape under Article 138 § 2 (3) of the old CC (see paragraph 67 below). 21 .     In the course of the investigation the applicant was subjected to forensic medical examinations and a forensic psychiatric and psychological examination. 22 .     The report issued following the psychiatric and psychological expert examination indicated that the applicant had insufficiently developed intellectual capabilities and was impressionable, which could have affected her behaviour in the situation at hand. The applicant had been suffering from anxiety and fear, and had rubbed her hands together and cried when speaking about what had happened. Because of the applicant’s psychological condition, and the level of her intellectual and personal development, she had understood only the superficial side of what had happened to her – not the nature and meaning of those actions. 23.     On 13 March 2012 a confrontation was held between A.G. and N.M. during which the former denied the latter’s account of the events in question, asking why N.M. had not entered the classroom where he and the applicant had been together. N.M. replied that the reason had been his abrupt personality – she had been afraid; even the male teacher (that is to say H.B. – see paragraph 16 above) had been afraid; moreover, she had wanted to expose him to everyone in the school. 24 .     On the same date the charges against A.G. were modified and he was charged with aggravated rape and “indecent acts” under Articles 138 § 2 (3) and 142 § 2 of the old CC (see paragraphs 67 and 70 below). The investigator found the following to have been established. “... [A.G.], taking advantage of the fact that he was the administrative head of the village ... and [a school teacher] and had a reputation among the pupils as a strict teacher ... at the end of November 2011 ... instructed [the applicant] to come to his office in the village administrative office building where, taking advantage of the girl’s [deferential] attitude towards him as the administrative head of the village and a teacher, he caressed her [intimate body parts] ... and then, employing force ... and threatening to kill her should [the applicant] make a noise, raped her ... Also, on 10 January 2012 and at the beginning of February 2012, ... during a sports lesson, [taking advantage of] his authority as a teacher, [A.G.] instructed [the applicant] to go with him to an [empty] classroom ... where he, in the same manner, engaged in sexual intercourse with [the applicant], overcoming her resistance. Subsequently, on 22 February 2012 ... [A.G.] released the pupils from the sports lesson and called [the applicant] into a classroom, where he caressed her [intimate body parts]; ... however, noticing that someone was watching through the hole in the door, he ceased his actions and asked [the applicant] to return to her classmates.” 25 .     On 16 March 2012 A.M., a former pupil of the same school who had graduated in June 2011 after finishing eleventh grade (that is, a year earlier than usual), stated to the police that she had known A.G. for a long time as the administrative head of their village and as her sports teacher. When A.M. had been in the tenth grade, A.G. had actively started seeking contact with her by, for instance, remaining with her in the classroom when there was nobody around, making conversation with her (including about her personal life), and so on. One day in May 2010 A.G. had bought her a dress and had confessed that he had fallen in love with her. A.M. had first rejected him, saying that she did not want to have sex until she was properly married, but A.G. had convinced her that everything would work out for her – she would be able to get married even after losing her virginity; he had then had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter they had met often; eventually, in January 2011, when A.M. was in the eleventh grade, she had become pregnant by A.G. They had continued to see each other until almost the completion of her pregnancy (around September 2011). She stated that she had not reported A.G. before because she had been afraid to do so; but now she merely wanted to tell the truth about what had happened to her. 26 .     On 26 March 2012 S.M., the school headmistress (see paragraph 10 above), was questioned. She stated, inter alia , that the applicant had limited intellectual capabilities and would often communicate by nodding her head or by uttering very brief phrases. Pupils obeyed A.G., and were even afraid of him. On 22 February 2012 K.H. (see paragraph 9 above) and A.H. (see paragraph 19 above) had come to her office, stating that “something” had happened between A.G. and the applicant, but that they did not know exactly what. She had then summoned the applicant, who had not said anything specific. Thereafter, she had summoned N.M., who had told her that she had seen through the hole in the door A.G. and the applicant standing by the wall in the classroom. According to S.M., N.M. had told her nothing further about that incident. The next day S.M. had learned that the applicant had confessed that A.G. had had sexual intercourse with her; the forensic medical examination had confirmed that. 27 .     When questioned as a witness, the applicant’s class teacher, K.H. (see paragraphs 9, 10 and 14 above), stated, inter alia , that after classes on Saturday, 18 February 2012 N.M. had approached her, saying that she had something to tell K.H. about one of the pupils in her class. N.M. had then stated that there was something going on between A.G. and the applicant. When K.H. had asked for details, N.M. stated that A.G. was engaging in intimate relations ( ինչ-որ ինտիմ հարաբերություններ ) with the applicant. K.H. had then stated that she was surprised and, not believing what N.M. was saying, she told N.M. that, even though she did not understand the seriousness of what she was saying, in any case N.M. had been right to tell her. K.H. had then told N.M. that she would try to find out the truth of the matter, and would give it her attention. On Wednesday, 22 February 2012 N.M. had approached her during the break after the first lesson of the day, saying that she had something to tell her about the same matter that she had told her about on the previous Saturday and asking K.H. to go and see the condition that the applicant was currently in. K.H. had then gone to her classroom and had seen the applicant standing still by the door. She had asked the applicant what was going on, but the applicant had not replied. She had then left the applicant in the classroom and, when she had been leaving the classroom, she had seen the senior teacher, A.H. (see paragraph 19 above), and had told her that A.G. had “an issue” with her pupil, which needed to be clarified. They had gone together to the office of the headmistress, where K.H. had said “the same” to the headmistress, who had then said that she wished to speak to the applicant. K.H. had accompanied the applicant to the office of the headmistress and had then returned to her classroom to continue with her lessons. At the end of classes she had asked the other pupils to leave and had had a conversation with the applicant. The applicant had given replies to her questions when K.H. had spoken about other topics but had kept silent when speaking about A.G., staring at the same spot with a strange facial expression. K.H. had then asked the applicant if she would want any man to “come close” to her and she had replied “no”. K.H. had then asked the applicant if she wished K.H. to protect her, and the applicant had replied “yes”. K.H. had then explained to the applicant that, if someone wanted to approach her or to hurt her, she should not allow it, should shout and tell that person that she would tell K.H. She had then told the applicant to go home. The next day K.H. had learned that criminal proceedings had started in respect of A.G. Thereafter, from a conversation that she had had with the applicant’s parents, she had learned that A.G. had raped the applicant. 28 .     On 17 July 2012 the case was sent to the Regional Court for examination on the merits. The relevant parts of the indictment read as follows: “... [A.G.] has been described by the school staff as a strict teacher, [and an] immoral person ... [who engages in] shameless behaviour, as a result of which pupils are afraid of him and do not dare to contradict him ... At the end of November 2011 [A.G.] instructed [the applicant] to go to the village administrative office building after classes. After classes [the applicant] went to the village administrative office building ...; [A.G.], threatening that he would kill [the applicant] if she made a noise ... had forcibly had sexual intercourse with her ... On 10 January 2012 ... [A.G.] permitted the pupils to go outside to play but instructed [the applicant] to stay in the classroom, ... He closed the door of the classroom after the pupils had left ..., threatened to beat [the applicant] if she made any noise ... and had sexual intercourse with her ... At the beginning of February 2012 ... [A.G.] again had sexual intercourse with [the applicant] in [the applicant’s classroom] during a joint sports class with the twelfth grade ... Several pupils in senior classes, having noticed the frequent instances of [A.G.] and [the applicant] spending time [together alone] – and knowing of [A.G.’s] reputation as a ‘skirt-chaser’ – on [N.M.’s] initiative decided to clarify the reasons for their [so doing] ... On 22 February 2012 ... having noticed that someone was observing [them] ... [A.G.] ceased his actions and ordered [the applicant] to join her classmates. [N.M.], wishing to have teachers and pupils witness what had happened, immediately informed them thereof, but the latter avoided [doing that], citing various excuses, and did not go. ... [A.G.] denied that he was guilty [of anything] and submitted that ... he had asked [the applicant] to leave the classroom in order to ask her to tell her mother to go to the village administrative office building the next day [and to] bring with her the documents necessary for [applying for the above-mentioned welfare benefit] ... On 22 February 2012, ... when the pupils had left to play in the courtyard, he had summoned [the applicant] and asked if her mother’s social welfare issue had been resolved ... [A.G.’s] arguments are ill-founded ...” trial 29 .     The Regional Court conducted the trial in camera . 30.     In the course of the trial a number of witnesses – including the pupils, certain teachers and the headmistress of the school – gave evidence. 31 .     N.M. essentially reiterated her earlier description of the events (see paragraphs 10 and 14 above), providing some additional details. She submitted, in particular, the following: “... Seeing that I could not do anything, and being afraid to open the door myself, I went to my classroom. I entered the classroom and immediately addressed [A.S.], and the kids understood at once what was going on. I explained [my concerns to A.S.], and asked [A.S.] to open the door [to the classroom where A.G. and the applicant were alone together] and see what the head of our village was doing there. [A.S.] and the pupils went out and moved towards the door; then [A.S.] made a sign with her hand, saying it was not our business, and we left. Then, once everyone was back in the classroom, and seeing that nobody was doing anything, I went to the office of the headmistress and, seeing that she was not there, I quickly ran to [N.G.]. Several days before this incident I had informed [N.G.] that there ... were such suspicions and had asked [N.G.] not to tell anyone, so that we could [make a] video recording. [N.G.] advised me to speak either with the headmistress or the applicant’s class teacher. Seeing that N.G. was not coming either ... I went to the eleventh graders’ classroom, where [H.B.] was giving a lesson. I explained to him that [A.G.] was doing immoral things; he said that he did not want to have anything to do with that man [because] he had had a conflict with him, and did not come [with me] ... The entire school understood what had happened ... Then during the break I met [K.H.] and told her what I had seen. Thereafter, senior pupils [began boycotting A.G.’s] classes. One or two days later the kids organised a protest; then the whole village became aware of what [A.G.] had been doing on school grounds...” N.M. was asked, inter alia , the following questions, to which she replied as follows: “... [Prosecutor]: When you asked [A.S.] to go out [of the classroom with you], what did she say? [Answer]: We approached the door on tiptoes; [A.S.] put her finger to her lips to hush us, and told us that it was none of our business; we left; I understood what was going on. ... [Defence lawyer]: The headmistress testified that she had invited you to her office to find out what was happening between [A.G.] and [the applicant]. [N.M.]: As far as I remember, no such thing happened. ... [Defence lawyer]: When you saw all that, why didn’t you tell other teachers? [N.M.]: I went and told to come and see what the administrative head of the village was doing to a fourteen-year-old child. [Defence lawyer]: And why did they not come? [N.M.]: I think they had understood [what was actually going on]. I think [N.G.] was well aware – which is why she did not come. ...” 32 .     The relevant parts of the statement made by A.S. (see paragraph 15 above) at the trial are as follows: “... I did not realise what was going on ... [Prosecutor]: You did not know why [N.M.] was calling you? [A.S.]: No, [N.M.] did not say anything specific. I thought there had been a fight; I thought that was about [a certain teacher who had the same first name as the applicant]. ... [Prosecutor]: If [N.M.] had stated that there were immoral acts going on between [A.G.] and [the applicant], what would have you done in that case? What step would you have taken? [A.S.]: I am not sure. ... [Presiding judge]: You mentioned that the children made you understand that something had happened; you say that you did not understand anything – you even thought that it concerned a teacher [who had the same first name as the applicant]; what does that mean...? [A.S.]: When I went out and then came back to the classroom, I told [the children] not to worry – it was peaceful [outside] and there were no sounds ..., to which [the pupils] replied that there was no sound during ‘that’. [Presiding judge]: And why did you not go to check where [A.G.] and [the applicant] were? [A.S.]: Well, when I saw from the window that [the applicant] had left [the classroom], why would I go? They were no longer together. [Presiding judge]: In your pre-trial statement you mentioned that [the applicant] had been walking ‘totteringly’ but now you do not mention [that detail] ... [A.S.]: That had been noted incorrectly; when I said ‘walking in a tottery fashion’, I meant that [the applicant] had leaned towards the wall ...” 33 .     H.B. (see paragraph 16 above) stated to the trial court that he had told N.M. that he had not been on good terms with A.G. and had not accompanied her when she had asked him to; he had learned only afterwards that “they” (that is, A.G. and the applicant) had been “alone in the room”. 34 .     The school headmistress, S.M. (see paragraph 26 above), testified that she had been teaching during the first study hour on 22 February 2012. As was her habit, she had approached the window; from there she had seen that the entire ninth grade was outside in the school courtyard. She was very surprised because they were supposed to be having a sports class. So she had immediately gone out to find out what was going on, as she had known that A.G. was supposed to be taking the ninth-graders for that class. S.M. had opened the door of her classroom and had seen A.G. coming out of the staffroom, so she had asked him why the pupils were running around outside, enquiring whether they had abandoned the lesson. A.G. had replied that the pupils had asked to go outside, so he had allowed them to do so and that he would soon join them in the courtyard. Having clarified the situation, S.M. had continued her lesson. During the break after the second lesson, when S.M. had already been back in her office, the senior teacher (A.H. – see paragraph   19 above) and the ninth-grade class teacher (K.H. – see paragraph   9 above) had come to S.M.’s office and had said that something had happened between A.G. and the applicant but they did not know what exactly. She had tried to find out from the applicant; but – incapable of proper speech – she had simply been nodding her head in reply to S.M.’s questions. S.M. had then been told that N.M. was aware of the matter, so S.M. had invited N.M. to her office. The latter had told her that through the hole in the door to the applicant’s classroom she had seen A.G. and the applicant standing next to the wall and had immediately approached several teachers, asking them to go to the classroom to witness what was going on, but that they had refused; by then the applicant had already left the classroom in question. The next day S.M. had heard – meaning that it had spread all over the school and the entire village that “they” had seen something; precisely what “they” had seen she still did not know. It had been common gossip that A.G. and the applicant were having a relationship, and that A.G. was engaging in sexual relations with the applicant. Whether that was true or not she could neither confirm nor deny. To the prosecutor’s question whether S.M. had not sought to clarify from N.M. the reason for the latter calling on the other teachers to follow her, S.M. replied: “Maybe so that they could come and see that they were standing by the wall”. When requested by the presiding judge to characterise A.G., S.M. stated: “He is a bit [emotionally] unstable but a humane person ... Now the victims are his enemies right? But if something happens to them ..., they will need help, [A.G.] will be the first one to be there and help. He is that kind of a good person.” 35 .     During the trial A.M. (see paragraph 25 above) also gave evidence, essentially reiterating her previous statement and explaining that she had not approached the authorities earlier because A.G. had been at large and she had been afraid; she had gone to the police after the incident with the applicant. She also stated that before entering the courtroom, she had been threatened by A.G.’s son. 36 .     The applicant’s mother, E.P. (see paragraph 13 above), stated, among other things, that one day at the beginning of 2012 her daughters (the applicant and her sister) had come back from school crying, saying that people at the school were saying that the applicant and A.G. were “together”. E.P. had started getting ready in order to go to the house of the senior teacher (A.H. – see paragraph 19 above), but the applicant’s uncles had come to their house and asked the applicant what had been happening at the school. The applicant had told them everything and they had summoned A.G. to their house. After A.G. had left, they had telephoned about two hours later to see if he was coming back to clarify what had happened; he had not shown up, so they had telephoned the police. A day later A.G.’s wife and his mother had come to their house; the wife had been very rude to the applicant. Subsequently, on another day, A.G.’s mother had come to their house with a big stick in her hands making threats. About a month later A.G.’s brother ‑ in ‑ law had come to their house offering the family money to withdraw their crime report; E.P. had refused. In response to a question posed by the prosecutor, E.P. replied that she had been the one who had personally dealt with matters relating to the above-mentioned social welfare benefit. In any case, it had already been a year since the family had stopped receiving any social assistance because, according to E.P., A.G. had had it terminated. 37 .     On 4 September 2012, while the trial was still ongoing, an online newspaper, which had been closely following the applicant’s case, published an article entitled “Mother says she killed her baby – claims [A.G.] was the father”; the article named A.M. as the mother (see paragraphs 25 and 35 above). Following the publication of that article, the prosecution requested the trial court to provide it with the records of the respective statements that A.M. had given before and during the trial. 38 .     On 10 September 2012 the police launched an investigation in respect of A.G. under Article 140 of the old CC (compelling someone to engage in sexual acts – see paragraph 70 below). Thereafter, on 16 September 2012 the police launched an investigation into the alleged murder of A.M.’s new-born baby and charges were brought against A.G. and A.A. (a woman from the same village). 39 .     By a decision of 21 January 2013 the investigator terminated the prosecution proceedings in respect of A.G. The decision stated, in particular, the following: “...in the course of the investigation ... [A.G.] was charged ... with having compelled [A.M.] to engage in sexual acts and having organised the murder of a new-born baby, those actions having been undertaken in the following manner: ... having blackmailed [A.M.] [by threatening to have her held criminally liable for theft] ... [A.G.] compelled a 15-year-old [A.M.] to regularly have sexual relations with him, as a result of which [A.M.] became pregnant by [him] in 2011. Not being able to persuade [A.M.] to terminate her pregnancy, [A.G.] organised the murder of [her] new-born. On 8 October 2011 ... pursuant to [A.G.’s] instructions ... nurse [A.A.] and her daughter went to [A.M.’s] house ... where, having complied with [A.G.’s] prior instructions, [A.A.] took the new-born baby to the adjacent garden and ... killed the new-born baby by means of suffocation. On 16 October 2012 ... detention was applied in respect of the accused [A.G.]. The evidence gathered as a result of a complete, thorough and objective examination disproved the murder of [A.M.’s] new-born baby by [A.A.] upon [A.G.’s] instructions and [A.M.’s] rape by [A.G.]; accordingly, on 21 January 2013, decisions were taken to terminate ... [A.A.’s and A.G.’s prosecution]. On the same day [A.G.] was charged... with having compelled [A.M.] to engage in sexual intercourse with him. ... on the basis of the [Amnesty Act], which has entered into force ..., [I] decide ... to terminate [A.G.’s] prosecution...” 40 .     On 27 February 2013, having found the facts as described in the charges (see paragraphs 20, 24 and 28 above) as established, the Regional Court convicted A.G. of the rape of a minor, considering it one (continuous) crime as regards all three counts of rape, and of indecent acts committed in respect of a minor under, respectively, Articles 138 § 2 (3) and 142 § 1 of the old CC (see paragraphs 67 and 70 below); he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. 41 .     The Regional Court’s judgment was appealed by the applicant and A.G. As regards the applicant’s appeal in particular, it was argued that, although it had been found as established that A.G. had raped the applicant three times on three different occasions (different time and place), the trial court had convicted him of one count of rape. 42.     On 14 May 2013 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the Regional Court’s judgment essentially reiterating the description of the facts in the charges and the evidence examined during the trial. 43 .     The Regional Court’s judgment was upheld at final instance by a decision of the Court of Cassation of 15 July 2013. That decision was sent to the applicant on 17 July 2013. 44 .     The publicly accessible online judicial database (Datalex), which is the official database to which court decisions are published systematically, does not contain any details concerning the criminal case. It merely states the number of the case (together with A.G.’s name), listed as “in camera proceedings”. claim for damages 45 .     On 17 February 2014 a civil claim for compensation in the amount of 60,000,000 Armenian drams (AMD) for non-pecuniary damage was lodged against the State (represented by the Ministry of Finance) on behalf of the applicant by her father. It was submitted – with reference to the Regional Court’s judgment (see paragraph 40 above) – that it had been established that A.G., having abused his authority as administrative head of the village and school teacher, had sexually assaulted the applicant on four different occasions between November 2011 and February 2012. That abuse had moreover taken place in the village administrative office building during A.G.’s working hours and in the school during class hours whereas he was under an obligation to protect the applicant’s safety and her best interests. Referring to the Court’s case-law and the relevant domestic and international legal instruments concerning the rights of children and the rights of persons with disabilities, it was argued that, despite its international obligations, including under Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect children from violence, including sexual abuse (see paragraph 78 below), the State had failed to create the requisite tools and mechanisms for the protection of children (and especially disabled children) in State schools and public bodies. It was submitted that the number of sexual offences in respect of minors had risen and that children coming from socially disadvantaged groups were the most common victims of such crimes. Such a child was the applicant, who had an intellectual disability and whose family was extremely poor and who had been abused in a place where she should have been most protected and by a person who should have protected her from such abuse in the first place. Furthermore, with reference to the Court’s relevant case-law and