CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 10 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sF28C8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s75397A2C { font-family:Arial; color:#202122 } .s5CDD36FB { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s34CB5BFF { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4B65A808 { margin-left:34pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s67454822 { margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-style:italic } .sFF72608 { margin-left:51.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD27F934 { margin-left:51.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF7177B22 { width:0.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s449EBB0D { margin-left:-17.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-style:italic; list-style-position:outside } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9A6E8000 { width:6.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sAD86C9FD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .sC0098EF4 { width:5.1pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sECACE158 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s469162F0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .sE2D3E960 { margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s436F61AC { width:13.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { 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-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s507990D1 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s84F26B68 { line-height:113%; font-size:7pt } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s9CB9BE2 { 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-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9804041A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7B868B6A { width:9.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9DBDB8C1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s5AA3092B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .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 } .sC617E28F { width:20.21pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF0E62F66 { width:130.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF T.V. v. SPAIN (Application no. 22512/21)     JUDGMENT   Art 4 • Positive obligations • Significant shortcomings in domestic procedural response to an arguable criminal complaint of human trafficking and forced prostitution, supported by prima facie evidence • Ineffective investigation • Failure to act with the requisite diligence at the initial investigation stage and to pursue obvious lines of enquiry • Decisions provisionally dismissing her case superficial and insufficiently reasoned • Defective manner of implementation of criminal-law mechanisms amounting to a breach of respondent State’s procedural obligation • Significant procedural shortcomings demonstrating a blatant disregard for obligation to investigate serious human trafficking allegations   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 10 October 2024   FINAL   10/01/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of T.V. v. Spain, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mattias Guyomar , President ,   Lado Chanturia,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   María Elósegui,   Mykola Gnatovskyy,   Stéphane Pisani,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   22512/21) against the Kingdom of Spain lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Nigerian national, Ms T.V. (“the applicant”), on 20 April 2021; the decision to give notice to the Spanish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Article   4, Article 6   §   1 under its civil limb and Article   13 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the third-party comments submitted by the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) and the AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe), who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 3 September 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case mainly concerns a complaint under Article   4 of the Convention about the domestic authorities’ alleged failure to duly investigate the applicant’s criminal complaint that she had been a victim of human trafficking from Nigeria to Spain and sexual exploitation between 2003 and 2007. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant’s date of birth is disputed. The documents available contain information on three different dates of birth, ranging between 1981 (as in the latest residence and work permit granted to her by the Spanish authorities, see paragraph   55 below) and 1989 (as in the application form). A copy of a birth certificate issued by the National Population Commission of Nigeria shows that she was born in 1989. She lives in Spain and was represented by Ms P. Chandran, a barrister based in London, and Mr   R.   Uruthiravinayagan of Duncan Lewis Solicitors, a law firm based in London. 3.     The Government were represented by Mr L.E. Vacas Chalfoun, co ‑ Agent of Spain before the European Court of Human Rights. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.         The applicant’s account of the events of 2003-2011 5 .     According to the applicant, in 2003, when she was 14 years old and lived in Benin City, C., a female family acquaintance, approached her father and offered to take her to work in Spain on a forged adult passport. In return, she was to pay 70,000   euros (EUR) through her wages in Spain. She was not told the nature of her future work. According to the application form, in 2003 she travelled from Lagos (Nigeria) to Paris, and then to Madrid by plane. She then went to Arahal (a municipality south-east of Seville ), where C. met her and took her to a house where she lived with her partner, U. According to the applicant’s observations, she was “raped by U. and groomed by C.”, and physically abused and threatened by both. She was forced to work as a prostitute and remained under C.’s control until 2007, when she managed to escape. She continued to work as a prostitute in various regions of Spain. In 2010 she started receiving assistance from the Apip-Acam Foundation, a non ‑ governmental organisation (NGO) assisting people in need, including with housing and healthcare (see also paragraph   32 below).       criminal complaint and the ensuing investigation    The applicant’s criminal complaint of 9 June 2011 6 .     On 9 June 2011 the applicant appeared before the Zaragoza Provincial Brigade of the National Police Unit against Illegal Immigration Networks and Document Forgery ( Unidad contra redes de Inmigración Ilegal y Falsedades Documentales – “the UCRIF”). Relying on the legislation on protected witnesses, she complained that she had been a victim of human trafficking and sexual exploitation from 2003 to 2007, when she had been a minor. The Zaragoza UCRIF informed her of her rights as a victim or injured party, including the right to participate in the proceedings, to bring civil and/or criminal proceedings, to claim compensation or to waive such a claim (Article   109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, see paragraph   61 below), to receive free legal aid and to obtain assistance as a victim of violent crimes or crimes against sexual freedom. Her complaint may be summarised as follows. 7 .     In 2003, when she was 14 years old, a family acquaintance known in Nigeria by the surname N. (who, as the applicant subsequently learned, was known in Spain as C.) contacted her and suggested that she go to Spain to work as a prostitute. C. offered to assist her in obtaining an “adult” passport and making travel arrangements in return for her undertaking to pay her EUR   70,000 as a “debt” for bringing her to Spain. She accepted the offer. C.’s father assisted her in obtaining the passport and a flight ticket. C.’s parents performed a “voodoo ritual” on her (see paragraph   77 below for further details) and made her promise not to report C. to the Spanish police, as otherwise “voodoo would kill her”. Once the documents were ready in September 2003, she travelled from Lagos to Paris by plane, accompanied by a man in his fifties, a Nigerian national from Lagos whose name she could not remember. She travelled from Paris to Madrid, then by train from Madrid to Seville, and then by bus to Arahal, where C. met her. At the material time, C. was preparing to marry U., a Spanish national (whose surname C. eventually took). They lived in U.’s house in Arahal, at an address which the applicant could not remember. U. and C. married shortly after her arrival. C. taught her about prostitution and some words in Spanish. U. hit her with a belt and threatened her with further violence if she refused to pay the debt. 8 .     From the second month of her stay in Spain and for two years she worked as a prostitute in a club named R. in Arahal, which was managed by a Spanish man, “P.” As C. had previously worked as a prostitute in that club, the manager trusted her and never asked the applicant to provide a passport. He was unaware that the applicant was underage. 9 .     Later, and almost always accompanied by C., she “went” to different clubs, such as E. in Arahal and unspecified clubs in Cordoba and Motril (Granada). She travelled with C. to Puerto del Rosario in Fuerteventura (Canary Islands), where she “went twice” to a club called B. During her second time there, she was arrested. The police seized her passport. C. then provided her with a new passport and forced her to leave the island and go to Asturias. She also worked in a club named D. in Jerez de la Frontera (Andalusia), where the police arrested her again and seized her passport. She then travelled to Cadiz and later to Huelva, accompanied by C. at all times. C. took all the money she earned. On the rare occasions when she was not accompanied by C., she had to deposit money in a La Caixa bank account using the pseudonym “J.”. In 2005 C. separated from U. and moved with her to Seville. She started working as a prostitute in the east of the city, with other Nigerian women, under C.’s control. 10 .     In 2007 she escaped from C. She lived in Madrid, and then worked as a prostitute in Malaga and, since 2009, in Zaragoza. On one occasion she was arrested by the police in Zaragoza during a raid. She was taken to the city’s social services due to her mental state. She was admitted to a medical facility and started receiving treatment. From 2007 onwards C. called her several times to remind her of the debt. In total, she had paid C. about EUR   25,000. C. attempted to contact her until 2010, when the applicant lost her mobile phone. Since then, she had not had any further news of her former pimp, but she knew that C.’s family had destroyed her father’s business in Nigeria and assaulted him in an attempt to make the applicant pay the debt. 11.     The applicant (who spoke Spanish and English but had no education) explained that she had not reported the events earlier as she had been subjected to a “voodoo” ritual during which she had undertaken not to report the perpetrators. Once provided with social and medical assistance, she was able to overcome her fears and understand the importance of filing a complaint. She provided details on C. and U.’s physical appearance and approximate ages. She stated that C. could be living in Seville and that U. could be living in Arahal.    Criminal investigation 12 .     On 9 June 2011 the UCRIF informed the public prosecutor’s office ( Ministerio Fiscal ) and Zaragoza Investigating Court no.   4 of the applicant’s complaint. The applicant was granted a protected witness status. Her personal details were accordingly redacted by the authorities in the domestic documents pertaining to both the criminal proceedings described below and her immigration status, to protect her anonymity in the domestic proceedings. The parties provided the Court with copies of those documents with the applicant’s personal data fully or partially redacted.      Measures taken between 2011 and early 2013 13 .     On 24 June 2011 the Zaragoza Investigating Court no.   4 opened a preliminary investigation but, in the same decision, discontinued it for lack of territorial jurisdiction to deal with the case. On 22   July 2011 it referred the case to an investigating court in Marchena with jurisdiction over Arahal. 14 .     On 7 November 2011 the Marchena Investigating Court no.   2 (“the investigating court”) opened a preliminary investigation. It instructed the Marchena Guardia Civil to (i) identify the victim and obtain her testimony; (ii) establish the whereabouts of C. and U.; and (iii) identify the management of the R. club in 2003. 15 .     It appears that at some point an NGO which had provided legal assistance to the applicant since April 2012 (SICAR cat, see paragraph   56 below for details) complained to the Ombudsperson ( Defensor del Pueblo ) about the lack of progress in the applicant’s case, which had had an adverse impact on her immigration status. In a letter of 25 October 2012 the Ombudsperson advised SICAR cat that no decision had been taken in the proceedings concerning her criminal complaint (see also paragraph   55 below in so far as her immigration status could be concerned). 16 .     On 24 January 2013 the investigating court instructed the Marchena Guardia Civil to provide the same information as previously (see paragraph   14 above) and issued summonses in respect of C. and U. for questioning as suspects ( imputados ) for alleged trafficking in human beings. In addition, the applicant was to be heard as a victim. 17 .     On 9 and 26 February 2013 the Guardia Civil informed the investigating court that they had been unable to establish the whereabouts of C. and U. or to find them in their database, and that the R. club had been run in 2003 by F.M. and F.S. In February 2013 the investigating court summoned F.M. and F.S. for questioning on suspicion of trafficking in human beings (Article   177 bis of the Criminal Code).      The applicant’s statement of 27   March 2013 18 .     On 27 March 2013 the applicant, assisted by SICAR cat, testified as a protected witness before an investigating court in the region where she was living. She was informed of her rights and confirmed that she was aware of the content of Articles   109 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraphs   61-62 below) and was claiming damages. She maintained her initial testimony and stated that she was currently receiving psychological treatment owing to a deterioration in her mental health caused by the events complained of. She further submitted that her family in Nigeria had relocated in order to avoid further threats and attacks.      Statements given in 2013 by the managers of the R. club 19 .     On 17 April 2013 F.M. and F.S. (see paragraph   17 above) testified before the investigating court as follows.   F.M. stated that between 1994 and 2009 he had been a manager of the R. club, which had been a hostess club at the time of the events. He had charged certain amounts for the rent of rooms, but not for services provided in them. The club had usually hosted twelve to fifteen women, but they had not been employed by the club and had had no contractual relationship with it.   F.S. stated that until 2007 he had been a manager of the R. club, which had not been a hostess club. He had only received income from the rent of rooms.      Provisional dismissal of the case and the prosecutor’s appeal in 2013 20 .     On 26 April 2013 the investigating court provisionally dismissed the case against C., U., F.M. and F.S., as it had not been sufficiently established that the offence leading to the opening of the investigation had been committed (Article   641   §   1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, see paragraph   65 below). 21 .     On 20 May 2013 a public prosecutor appealed against that decision, taking into account the applicant’s submissions to the court concerning her ongoing mental health treatment and allegations of threats to her family in Nigeria. The prosecutor stated that the events described in the complaint could constitute the offences of trafficking in human beings and prostitution of a minor, as set out in Article   318 bis and Article   188   §   3 of the Criminal Code and in the wording of Institutional Law 11/2003 (see paragraphs   58 ‑ 59 below), as well as the offence of illicit association ( asociacion ilicita ), although the latter offence had become time-barred. The prosecutor considered that an extended statement should be obtained from the applicant and compared with the “existing documents” to correctly determine the law applicable at the time of the events. The prosecutor accordingly proposed that the Seville UCRIF be requested to (a) determine the date of the applicant’s entry into Spain and (b) identify, find and question C. and U. 22 .     On 21 April 2014 the investigating court allowed the appeal and ordered the above investigative measures to be taken. The court also held that the events complained of could constitute offences under Article   318 bis and Article   188 §   3 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs   58-59 below).      Statements by C. and U. obtained in 2014 23 .     At some point no later than May 2014 the police identified U. and on 22   May 2014 interviewed him in the presence of a lawyer. U. stated that in 2004 he had met C. in the R. club, where she had been working as a prostitute. C. had moved in with him at his home on L. Street in Arahal and in December 2004 they had married. C. had stopped working in prostitution. He denied that C. had ever travelled to Nigeria to recruit women to work in prostitution in Spain, that he had picked up any of C.’s friends at the airport or that he or C. had controlled and coercively retained a woman at their home. None of C.’s friends whom the couple had hosted – who had been approximately C.’s age – had been sex workers. He recalled that in 2005 a Nigerian woman aged about 22 had stayed with them for a week. He did not know what she had been doing during her stay (as he had not been at home all the time) and he had heard nothing about her once she had gone. In approximately 2006 C. had left him. 24 .     On 22 May 2014 the Seville UCRIF informed the investigating court that they had identified C. and U., obtained U.’s testimony (see paragraph   23 above) and were taking measures to establish C.’s whereabouts. The police also informed the court that their extensive experience in investigating illegal immigration and human trafficking cases allowed them to identify the following “ modus operandi ” in respect of the relevant offences. Women, typically in difficult social, family or economic situations, were usually recruited by their compatriots in their home countries, offered assistance in obtaining travel documents, and promised a “decent job”, normally in catering or service sector. They were rarely informed that they would be involved in prostitution. Once in the destination country, the women became dependent on the “organisations” (groups) which had brought them there, because of a “debt” generated by travel expenses. They had to work long hours for little or no financial reward owing to the exorbitant debts, which could also be accompanied by a penalty system for various breaches of the “house rules” imposed on them. Consequently, the victims remained tied to the relevant “organisations” for longer than they could have expected. The pimps maintained control over the women using coercion, threats, and physical violence. Their freedom of movement was restricted, and their use of telephones monitored and controlled. They were threatened with “voodoo rituals” and potential harm to their relatives in their countries of origin or subjected to penalties if they disobeyed. Their vulnerability was further increased by their lack of knowledge of the language and customs of Spain. 25 .     On 8 August 2014 the police located C. On 20 August 2014 she testified before the investigating court as a suspect, denying the applicant’s allegations. She submitted that she had arrived in Spain in 2000 by boat, and had moved to Arahal to work at the R. club, where at the age of 24 she had met U. She had married him that year and they had divorced in 2009. Except on days off, she had slept in R., the only Arahal club she had worked in. She denied U.’s involvement in any activity related to human trafficking or that he had threatened or hit another girl in her presence. A Nigerian girl, if any, would only have come to their home to have a meal with them. C. denied that she had brought the applicant or anyone else to Spain to work as a prostitute, or that she had asked anyone for money, otherwise she would have had to stop working as a prostitute herself. However, she had continued to work as a prostitute until 2012. She remembered having an argument with a Nigerian girl in 2006 and thought that the complaint could have been motivated by envy of C.’s looks and her having more clients. 26 .     On 3 October 2014 U. testified before the investigating court, reiterating his earlier testimony (see paragraph   23 above). He stated that neither U. nor anyone else had lived at 20 L. Street prior to September 2004, as there had been no water or electricity supply to the premises until then.      Further measures implemented in 2015 at the prosecutor’s request 27 .     On 29 December 2014 the public prosecutor stated that C.’s alleged acts could fall under both Article   318 bis §§   1 to 3 and Article   188   §   3 of the Criminal Code, and that those of U. could only fall under the latter provision. The prosecutor requested the investigating court to order the UCRIF to establish the applicant’s date of birth and date of entry into Spain, and to check the information about C.’s arrival in Spain and her marriage to U. Referring to the psychological treatment the applicant had been receiving, the prosecutor further requested a report on the effects of the events complained of on her mental health. On 27 January 2015 the investigating court granted that request. 28 .     In February 2015 U.’s defence argued that it was essential to determine the applicant’s age at the time of the events for a correct legal classification of the alleged acts and requested a forensic age assessment. In the meantime, they provided documents relating to U.’s marriage to C. in 2004, a contract naming U. as the buyer of the house at 20   L. Street in Arahal (dated February 2004) and documents pertaining to the installation of water and sewerage facilities at that address (dated June 2004). 29 .     On 10   April 2015 the Seville UCRIF reported to the court as follows:       On unspecified occasions the applicant provided three different dates of birth. The police report, admitted to the domestic investigation file with the applicant’s personal data partially redacted, read that two of those dates started with “198”.       There was no police record of her entry into the national territory, as she had entered the Schengen Area in France and the border checks must have been done there. There was no border check between Spain and France.       The applicant was arrested on 14 May 2005 in Puerto del Rosario in the Canary Islands and on 20 July 2005 in Cadiz for breaches of immigration law. In the UCRIF’s view, that could corroborate her account that C. had provided her with a new passport to travel from the Canary Islands to the Spanish mainland. The details of that new passport were unknown. The applicant was arrested again on 27 March 2009 in Zaragoza for a breach of immigration law. 30 .     The Seville UCRIF also forwarded to the investigating court discharge notes drawn up by psychiatrists of two Zaragoza hospitals in respect of the applicant. According to two discharge reports issued in 2010 by psychiatrists from a hospital in Zaragoza, the applicant was admitted three times between April and June 2010 for adaptive and psychotic disorders. At the time of the admissions, she was confused, with psychomotor restlessness, incoherent speech revolving around “voodoo”, and behavioural changes. Once her condition improved in April 2010, she moved to sheltered housing provided by the Apip-Acam Foundation. According to two undated discharge notes from another hospital, in 2011 she received inpatient treatment in connection with behavioural disturbances of a psychotic nature. The doctors noted, inter alia , that some of her behaviour patterns were related to a threat, real or fictious, for her and her family if she denounced the people who had brought her to Spain. 31 .     On 17 April 2015 F.M. and F.S. testified in court as suspects, reiterating their earlier submissions (see paragraph   19 above).      Social report of 21   May 2015 32 .     On 21 May 2015 the Apip-Acam Foundation (see paragraphs   5 and 30 above) prepared a social report in respect of the applicant, which was subsequently forwarded by the UCRIF to the investigating court. The report (admitted to the investigation file in a redacted version in so far as the applicant’s personal data was concerned and submitted by the Government to the Court in that version) summarised her story, as told by her to the NGO’s members, as follows.   The applicant arrived in Spain in 2004, when she was 14 years old. The process was facilitated by her family through an intermediary. She did not want to leave her family environment and was coerced to do so by a woman who had assumed control over her life, putting it at risk. The pimp and her associates obtained a passport, visa and ticket for her and covered her travel expenses.   The applicant described her route to Spain (see paragraph   7 above) and stated that it had only been in Arahal that the pimp had explained to her and her family that she was going to work as a prostitute. She started working in the R. club, where she worked for two years, living with the pimp and her husband. As she was unfamiliar with the job, the pimp’s husband told her how to interact with clients. He sometimes used physical violence against her. The couple controlled her movements, the number of customers she served and other aspects of her work, and restricted her contact with other sex workers. At the end of each night, they took everything she had earned. In the R. club, “they” gave her food and she did not pay to stay there. The pimp provided clothes for her. She remained isolated, she did not speak Spanish at that time and she did not have a mobile phone. The couple threatened to kill her using voodoo practices if she disobeyed.   After two years in Arahal, the applicant worked in Fuerteventura in a club named B., under the constant supervision of the pimp, who procured a forged passport for her. She also worked in a club named M.A. in Jerez de la Frontera and in Asturias, and was also taken to an unspecified location in France. She became pregnant on three occasions and was given abortion pills. On one occasion she was forced to work seven days after the abortion. On another occasion she had to seek medical assistance at a hospital in Huelva. She managed to escape from the pimp with the assistance of a client. The pimp continued to threaten her.   The report further specified that a social worker had referred the applicant to the Apip-Acam Foundation. At some point the police took her to a hospital in Zaragoza because of a behavioural issue. She received assistance from the Apip-Acam Foundation and entered its accommodation programme. Once an adequate regime of medical supervision was put in place, her condition improved.      Conversion of the preliminary investigation into ordinary proceedings and decision on additional investigative measures 33 .     On 8 June 2015 the investigating court converted the preliminary investigation into ordinary proceedings ( sumario ordinario ), issued an indictment against C. and U. and provisionally dismissed the case against F.S. and F.M. for lack of evidence that an offence had been committed. 34 .     U.’s defence appealed. On 10 August 2015 the investigating court allowed the appeal in part and decided: (i) to admit a copy of the social report, redacted only as regards the applicant’s personal details; (ii) to request a forensic institution in the region where the applicant was living to conduct an age assessment to determine her approximate biological age, leaving it to the experts to decide on the assessment methods to be used; (iii) to hear witnesses; (iv) to question F.S. and F.M., in particular about the presence of C. and any women accompanying her in the R. club at the time of the events; and (v) to summon C.      Statements by F.M., U. and C. in 2015 35 .     On 18 September 2015 the investigating court heard F.M. as a witness. He stated that he did not know C. or U. He had known some Nigerian girls who had been working in prostitution but had been unaware that any of them had been brought to Spain through an intermediary in Arahal. He had never suspected that any of them had been forced into prostitution. There had never been “such young girls” in the R. club. 36 .     During his questioning, F.M. was presented with two photographs of U. He stated that he did not recognise the person on the photographs and had never seen him in the R. club. 37 .     On 2 October 2015 U. and C. testified before the investigating court as accused, maintaining their earlier statements (see paragraphs   25-26 above). U. added that a woman who had once stayed with them for one night at Christmas had been C.’s friend, an adult, whose name could have been A. He did not know where she had come from. She had spoken perfect Spanish and had had dinner with them and their friends. C. denied knowing anyone named J. (apparently, reference was made to the pseudonym allegedly used by the applicant to deposit money in a bank, see paragraph   9 above). Statements by witnesses on U.’s behalf 38 .     On 18 September 2015 the investigating court heard five witnesses on U.’s behalf. Two of them were U. and C.’s neighbours in a gated community on L. Street; the third witness was U.’s friend since childhood; the fourth stated that he was U.’s acquaintance for twenty years, and the fifth was U.’s cousin and his best man at U.’s and C.’s wedding. All the witnesses stated that they had not seen anyone living with the couple in the house between 2004 and 2006, nor any indication of anyone else being there. The neighbours stated that they had never heard screams or loud voices at the couple’s home. None of the five witnesses knew if C. or U. had frequented the R. club, or if C. had had been engaged in prostitution there. One of the neighbours stated that no one could have lived in the gated community in 2003, as the premises had only been handed over to the residents in 2004. Two of the witnesses (U.’s cousin and U.’s friend) had not noticed any change in U.’s financial situation at the relevant time. The applicant’s court testimony of 23 November 2015 39 .     On 23 November 2015 the applicant, assisted by SICAR cat, testified before the court by videolink. According to a handwritten transcript of her testimony, she maintained her initial complaint. She submitted that at some point U. had attempted to hit her, but had not actually assaulted her, and that he had once threatened to cut off her fingers. She stated that she had slept both in the clubs where she had worked and in U. and C.’s house and provided a description of the house. After spending two years in Arahal, she had gone to the Canary Islands with C. after her separation from U. She had never given money to U., but had deposited money into C.’s account in the La Caixa bank. C. had hit her on a number of occasions, both in the club and at home. The applicant had not sought medical assistance as she had been unfamiliar with the medical system in Spain. At some point C. and U. had gone with her to the Canary Islands. When she had worked in the club, C. had no longer worked there as a prostitute. At the end of her shifts, she had returned to C.’s home to sleep. Sometimes she had gone to the club by bus or taxi, and sometimes U. had driven her there. In reply to the court’s questions, she stated that she had been 15 or 16 years old, not 14, when she had lived in C.’s house. Initial and further forensic age assessment reports 40 .     On 5 October 2015 a forensic expert conducted an age assessment of the applicant pursuant to the court’s order (see paragraph   34 above). The applicant told the expert that she had been born in 1981. After studying the medical documents, examining the applicant, assessing the anthropometric and dental examination data and evaluating the development of secondary sexual characteristics, the expert provisionally concluded that the applicant’s data were compatible with a person over 18 years old. 41 .     Further test results were received by the expert, such as (i) an X-ray examination of her left carpal bones conducted using the Greulich and Pyle method, which assessed her bone age to be that of an eighteen-year-old female; and (ii) an orthopantomography (a panoramic dental X-ray) which assessed her dental age to be above the age of 18. In a report dated 24   November 2015 the forensic expert concluded as follows: “In accordance with the criteria of the [German Working Group for Forensic Age Diagnostics, AGFAD] international protocol, and having studied the anamnesis, conducted a [physical] examination and examined the radiological data ... I conclude that all the [results] correspond to a person at least eighteen years old.” 42 .     On 20 December 2015 U.’s defence requested the court to dismiss the case and acquit him. Referring to the age assessment results, U. argued that the applicant had been 18 years old at the material time. She would therefore have been 6 years old at the time of her alleged entry into Spain. U.’s defence therefore assessed her account as irrational, improbable and in clear contradiction with the age assessment report. 43 .     Following a request by the prosecutor, in March 2016 the investigating court ordered that the forensic expert report be supplemented to establish the applicant’s maximum possible age, that is, to determine the age range in which the applicant could fall according to the tests carried out. 44 .     In a supplementary forensic report dated 26 April 2016 the expert concluded as follows:       according to the physical examination, the applicant was at “Tanner stage V”, which corresponded to 15 years or older; the relevant guide did not contain any other scales for determining puberty;       the X-ray of the carpal bones was consistent with the standard for an eighteen-year-old or older according to the Greulich and Pyle Atlas; the atlas did not contain any images beyond the age of   18, as there were no further radiological changes in a female beyond that age that could be quantified;       as regards the orthopantomography, the condition of the applicant’s molars was statistically consistent with an age interval of 22.4 years, with a margin of +/- 1.9 years. Termination of the investigation and referral of the case to the Audiencia Provincial 45 .     On 26 September 2016 the investigating court observed that it had conducted all necessary proceedings to prove that an offence had been committed, that the accused had participated therein, and that it had established all the relevant circumstances. The court concluded the investigation and referred the case to the Seville Audiencia Provincial.    Proceedings before the Seville Audiencia Provincial 46 .     The public prosecutor requested that the case be provisionally dismissed. U.’s defence requested that the case be provisionally or definitively dismissed. 47 .     On 10 January 2017 the Seville Audiencia Provincial upheld the investigating court’s decision to terminate the investigation and ordered the provisional dismissal of the case. The court summarised the applicant’s complaint and further found as follows: “On 24   November 2015 the [forensic expert] issued a report on the biological age of the victim. [The expert had] studied the anamnesis, conducted a [physical] examination and reviewed the radiological evidence consisting of the X-ray of the left carpal bones and the orthopantomography. Based on the relevant medical and legal considerations and using the criteria of the [AGFAD] international protocol, [the expert concluded] that all the [results] corresponded to a person whose most likely minimum age [was] 18   years old. According to the [forensic] report, the victim was 6 years old in 2003, which makes it unlikely that she entered Spain on an adult passport as stated in the complaint or that she worked as a prostitute in establishments open to the public, since the police monitors the age of prostitutes. Therefore, it is appropriate to order the provisional dismissal as requested by the public prosecutor’s office and [the] defence.” 48 .     The applicant appealed, arguing that age assessments were generally ineffective and unreliable, as evidenced by several studies and highlighted, inter alia , in a report published in 2011 by the Ombudsperson entitled “Adults or Minors? Age assessment proceedings” and the domestic case ‑ law. No alternative or further tests had been carried out in her case. In any event, the Audiencia Provincial had disregarded the content of the forensic report, concluding instead that the applicant had been 18 years old at the time of the assessment. Even assuming that she had been trafficked to Spain at the age of six, the proceedings could not have been dismissed based on the victim’s age. The applicant stressed that the authorities had failed to take into account the entirety of her testimony, which had remained detailed and consistent throughout the proceedings. She had provided specific dates, described the routes she had taken and named the clubs where she had been exploited. Her submissions about her arrests were corroborated by other evidence, such as police records and her description of the R. club’s manager corresponded to F.M. She could not have known about C. and U.’s marriage and separation if she had not personally witnessed those events. U. had admitted that a Nigerian woman had stayed at his home for a few days. Those elements justified the continuation of the investigation. 49 .     C. and U. objected to the appeal, reiterating that the presumption of innocence required a minimum amount of evidence, which was clearly lacking in the case at hand. U. insisted that the evidence had been duly collected and examined during the investigation, and that the applicant had neither made a timely request for the submission of any additional evidence nor appeared before the investigating authorities. The forensic report only highlighted and deepened the contradictions in her statements, thus depriving her allegations of a rational basis. The public prosecutor challenged the appeal on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to maintain the accusations. Indeed, the only prosecution evidence was the victim’s statement made four years after the events complained of, which could not be corroborated by other evidence concerning various aspects of the complaint, including the applicant’s age. 50 .     On 14 June 2017 the Seville Audiencia Provincial upheld the decision of 10 January 2017 as follows: “The provisional dismissal of the proceedings is not based on the age of the protected witness, the alleged victim of the events under investigation, but on the inability [for her] to have entered Spain on a passport meant for an adult in 2003, when she was 6   years old; she could have only arrived in Spain from Nigeria accompanied by her parents which, according to the complaint, was not the case. Consequently, since the appeal does not challenge the medical forensic evidence which determines the [applicant’s] age, it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the order ...”    The applicant’s amparo appeal and its dismissal 51 .     On 27 July 2017 the applicant lodged an amparo appeal against the decisions of 10 January and 14 June 2017. Relying on Articles 14 (equality) and 24 (right to a fair hearing) of the Constitution, she contended that her case concerned an aspect of a fundamental right on which there had been no previous rulings by the C