CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 19 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; 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 } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s54452357 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s4009AD63 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; 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 } .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 } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9A6E8000 { width:6.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7C819FA5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:17pt; text-align:justify } .sD4F9A385 { width:4.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s50A0504C { width:7.65pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s63C50DAF { margin-left:14.52pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAEA4704D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; 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 } .sAAD7ECD0 { width:5.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .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 } .sD95767A9 { width:33.22pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s436D3C2F { width:146.09pt; 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 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } SECOND SECTION CASE OF VIERU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 17106/18)   JUDGMENT   Art 2 and Art 3 (procedural aspects) • Positive obligations • Failure to conduct an effective investigation into credible allegations of physical and psychological domestic violence and into circumstances of applicant’s sister’s death • Failure to ensure prompt prosecution and punishment of domestic violence perpetrator Art 3 (substantive aspect) • Positive obligations • Failure to protect applicant’s sister from domestic violence against backdrop of documented and repeated failure by domestic authorities to prevent and stop violence against women, including domestic violence as a form of gender-based violence • Domestic legal framework at the material time and manner it was put into practice failed to effectively address and prevent a pattern of domestic violence characterised by long-term but low-intensity physical violence and unaccounted psychological violence • Investigating authorities’ failure to act rapidly, diligently and consistently in all instances of domestic violence • No assessment of the real and immediate nature of the risk of the recurrence of violence, taking due account of the specific domestic violence context and failure to take preventive and protective measures to avert that risk Art 14 (+ Art 2 and Art 3) • Discrimination • Domestic authorities’ failure to adequately address domestic violence against women • Applicant’s prima facie case of a general institutional passivity and/or lack of awareness of domestic violence as well as gender-based violence not rebutted   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 19 November 2024   FINAL   19/02/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vieru v. the Republic of Moldova, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Jovan Ilievski,   Saadet Yüksel,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Frédéric Krenc,   Diana Sârcu,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   17106/18) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Moldovan national, Mr Viorel Vieru (“the applicant”), on 4 April 2018; the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 15 October 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case concerns the alleged failure of the Moldovan authorities to effectively protect the applicant’s sister from domestic violence which culminated in her death and to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of violence leading to her death. The applicant relied on Articles 2, 3, 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Chișinău. He was represented by Ms V. Andriuţa, a lawyer practising in Sângera. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Obadă. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5.     From 2012 the applicant’s sister, T., was subjected to repeated episodes of domestic violence at the hands of her husband I.C., despite numerous protection orders. Their divorce was finalised on 24 November 2014 but the incidents of domestic violence continued. On 22 August 2016 T. fell from the fifth floor of her apartment and on 12 October 2016 she died from the sustained injuries. 6.     The domestic authorities examined various elements of I.C.’s conduct in parallel proceedings, as described below.         Proceedings under Law n o . 45 on domestic violence and the Code of Administrative Offences    First protection order 7 .     In September 2014 T. sought a protection order for herself and her two children, aged 14 and 5, against I.C., with whom she was in divorce proceedings at the time. In her request she noted that there had been a history of physical and psychological violence, including in the presence of the children, since 2012 and a recent occurrence of physical violence in September 2014, her injuries being confirmed by medical reports (bruises on the rib area and on the arms, with the largest measuring 7 cm by 2.5 cm, classified as insignificant injuries). In court proceedings, the child protection authority confirmed that it had been known that there had been other incidents of domestic violence in the household and that the older child had confirmed witnessing violence between the parents, although he himself had not been subjected to violence at the hands of his father. A police officer confirmed that in July 2014 I.C. had been held liable for insignificant bodily injuries under the Code of Administrative Offences and that in August 2014 the police had been called to intervene because I.C. had refused to leave T.’s apartment. 8.     On 26 September 2014 the Buiucani District Court granted her request, issuing a protection order valid for ninety days, for the duration of which I.C. was to refrain from any contact with T. or the children and to stay at least 300   metres away from them; he was also to follow a special psychological counselling programme for reducing violent behaviour and an alcohol rehabilitation programme. 9.     On 31 October 2014 a neighbour called the police emergency number 902 to report another incident. The police came to T.’s apartment and concluded that I.C. had failed to comply with the protection order, in breach of Article 318 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences and referred the case to the court. On 2 December 2014 the Buiucani District Court found that on 31 October 2014 I.C. had entered T.’s home, in breach of the protection order, and the court found him guilty of failing to comply with the protection order, which constituted an administrative offence, and sentenced him to a fine of 1,000 Moldovan lei (MDL – equivalent to 50 euros (EUR)). 10.     On 1 November 2014 the police issued a formal warning to I.C. to refrain from any domestic violence or conflict. 11.     On 3 November 2014 the child protection authority sought the intervention of the police, as I.C. had continued to harass and physically abuse T. in the children’s presence despite the protection order issued on 26   September 2014. 12 .     On 22 December 2014 T. called the police emergency number 902 to report that I.C. was forcing open the door to her apartment. On 26 December 2014 she submitted a formal complaint about the incident of 22 December, noting that I.C. had pulled her by the hair and pushed and hit her on her back with his legs in the presence of the applicant, who was visiting her from Germany. 13.     On 24 December 2014 T. called the police emergency number 902 again to report another incident with I.C. in her home. 14 .     On 16 February 2015 T. saw a psychologist to whom she had been referred by the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Women’s Law Centre. The assessment made on that date read as follows: “[T.] was married for fourteen years but divorced in November 2014 on account of domestic violence. ... During psychological counselling sessions T. described the physical and psychological abuse to which she was subjected during her marriage ... particularly in the last two years. She was beaten with fists, slapped with palms, kicked with legs, her head was pushed into a tree and she was strangled. The cause of the domestic violence was often jealousy, and for this reason her communications and telephone were controlled. She was stabbed with scissors, burned with a cigarette, strangled and threatened with gang rape and drowning. Her ex-husband took all her and her children’s documents and hid them. While under the influence of alcohol, he often smashed things in the house; on one occasion he took and ripped [some of ] her clothes, and stained [other clothes] with blood. Sometimes these scenes of violence occurred in the presence of the children. ... During counselling, [T.] was restless and agitated, with a pronounced sense of helplessness. ... [She manifested] shaking hands, palpitations and hyperventilation and she mentioned a partial paralysis of the facial muscles around her mouth and in her hands when she thought about the incidents of domestic violence. ... [She has] a moderate level of depression stemming from feelings of frustration and irritability combined with lack of self-confidence and vulnerability in respect of the physical and psychological violence [she experienced] at the hands of her former husband. The high level of restlessness ... is characterised by obsessive thoughts, psychological tension and fear. ... [T]here are also elements of post-traumatic stress, such as repeated memories of traumatising events accompanied by a heavy emotional load, irritability, flash-backs, increased sensitivity [and] sleep disorders. ...”    Second protection order 15.     On 19 February 2015 T. sought another protection order with reference to numerous incidents of domestic violence, particularly since March 2014. She also referred to a recent occurrence on 3 February 2015 when I.C. had followed her and her younger child from the kindergarten and had punched T. in her face; she had been able to flee from him to the police station only when two men had intervened on the street. The police had informed her of the NGO, Women’s Law Centre. She described the abuse she had suffered at the hands of I.C., giving examples of physical, psychological, sexual and economic violence. 16 .     On the same day the Buiucani District Court granted her request, issuing a protection order valid for ninety days, for the duration of which I.C. was to refrain from any contact with the applicant or the children and to stay at least 300 metres away from them; he was also to follow a special psychological counselling programme for reducing violent behaviour and an alcohol rehabilitation programme. 17 .     On 2 April 2015 T. called the police emergency number 902 and the following day made a formal complaint in respect of two incidents: one on 31 March 2015, when I.C. had come to her apartment and disconnected the electricity, and another on 2 April 2015, when he had waited for her to return from the kindergarten and had hit her several times, after which he had fled and had come back later in the evening and hit her again several times in the face. A medical report of 3 April 2015 confirmed bruises on her face measuring 2.8 cm by 2.2 cm, which were classified as insignificant. On 3   April 2015 the police issued I.C. another formal warning and drew up an administrative offence report about his breaching of the protection order, contrary to Article 318 of the Code of Administrative Offences, and referred the case to the court. 18.     T. called the police emergency number 902 again on 17 and 18 April 2015 to report similar incidents.    Third protection order 19.     On 19 May 2015 T. sought another protection order against I.C., referring to the repeated breach of previous protection orders and the ongoing violence committed against her. Her statements were confirmed by the police. On 21 May 2015 the Buiucani District Court granted the request, issuing a protection order valid for ninety days, similar to the previous ones. 20 .     Despite the protection order, on 28 June 2015 in another incident, I.C. pushed T. on the street and she fell and hurt her head. A medical report from 29 June 2015 confirmed excoriations on T.’s elbows and bruises on her knee and leg, the largest measuring 3 cm by 2 cm; the injuries were classified as insignificant. 21.     On 27 July 2015 the Buiucani District Court found that on 28 June 2015 I.C. had breached the protection order, which constituted an administrative offence under Article 318 of the Code of Administrative Offences, and sentenced him to a fine of MDL 1,000 (equivalent to EUR 50).    Fourth protection order 22.     On 21 August 2015, at T.’s request, the Buiucani District Court issued another protection order valid for ninety days, similar to the previous ones. 23 .     T. called the police emergency number 902 on 14 October and 13   November 2015 and lodged a formal complaint in respect of an incident on 12 November 2015 when I.C. had twisted her fingers and arm and had taken money, her telephone and her keys, and another incident on 13   November 2015, when he had hit her on the face. A medical report from 14   November 2015 mentioned numerous bruises on T.’s face (the largest measuring 5 cm by 1.5 cm), legs (measuring 10 cm by 6 cm) and arms (the largest measuring 6 cm by 4 cm). The injures were classified as insignificant. 24.     On 18 November 2015 the Buiucani District Court found that only the judicial bailiff, and not the police, was authorised to draw up reports on the administrative offence provided for under Article 318 of the Code of Administrative Offences (breach of the protection order). The court, therefore, discontinued proceedings against I.C., concluding that he had not committed the administrative offence under that provision.     Fifth protection order 25 .     On 5 May 2016 T. sought another protection order. She referred to the criminal sentence of 23 March 2016 (see paragraph 38 below), following which I.C. had been released from detention and on 4 May 2016 had come to her apartment, intoxicated, had disconnected the electricity and had hit her again; the police had also been present. She referred to her constant fear and vulnerability. The police confirmed her statements and the child protection officer asked the court to grant the request. 26 .     On 6 May 2016 the Buiucani District Court granted T.’s request, issuing a protection order valid for ninety days, similar to the previous ones. 27.     According to the Government, on 19 May and 18 July 2016 T. had been visited by a social welfare officer, who had enquired about her situation and informed her of her rights. During the last visit, the social workers had proposed a place in a shelter, which she had refused.     Refusal of a request for a sixth protection order 28.     On 5 August 2016 T. sought the extension of the previous protection order. In addition to the history of violence, she referred to an incident of 23   May 2016, when I.C. had broken into her apartment and had taken belongings from her, in breach of the protection order, in respect of which the police initiated criminal proceedings on charges of theft. The police officer informed the court of I.C.’s violent behaviour and asked the court to grant the request. 29 .     On 8 August 2016 the Buiucani District Court rejected T.’s request. The court found that: “...[T]he reasons put forward for the extension of the previous protection order were declarative and unsupported by any pertinent evidence, such as police reports, witness statements and audio or video recordings proving [that] acts of domestic violence or a breach of the protection order of 6 May 2016 [had taken place]. No decisions were given to confirm [I.C.’s] guilt in committing acts of domestic violence in respect of family members or other breaches to lead [the court] to the conclusion that he had committed domestic violence after 6 May 2016 or had failed to comply with the protection order of 6 May 2016. No acts of violence were confirmed in court ... and the statements were declarative. The court notes the statements made by the [police officer], that [T.] had made two complaints after 6 May 2016 and that, in respect of her complaint of 11 July 2016, the police had informed her that a criminal investigation had been initiated on charges of theft in respect of unknown perpetrators. ... [I.C.] does not have the procedural standing of suspect or of an indicted party in those proceedings ... In respect of the other complaint, a report on the commission of the administrative of offence of breaching the protection order, was drawn up in respect of [I.C.] but no further details on this are available. The court concludes that the hostile nature of relations between [T. and I.C.] is insufficient to lead the court to order the extension of the protection order.” The decision was not appealed and became final.    Final protection order 30.     On 26 August 2016 T. sought a new protection order, arguing that on the night of 22 to 23 August 2016 she had been subjected to physical and psychological violence, which had culminated in her falling from the fifth floor. In particular, she argued that I.C. had met her at the entrance to her apartment building and had beaten and insulted her; she had run from him but he had managed to follow her into her apartment, where he had isolated her in the kitchen and had beaten her again. As a result of these events, she had fallen from the fifth floor and suffered multiple traumatic injuries. She submitted that she had felt particularly vulnerable while in the hospital because both I.C. and his mother had visited and threatened her. Her lawyer clarified that I.C. had gained access to the apartment because the children had let him in. 31.     I.C. attended the hearing and argued that there was no need for a protection order in respect of the children because he had taken care of them in the past. He submitted that the conflicts with T. had begun after she had returned from working in Italy, had started abusing alcohol and had tried to kill herself by cutting her veins or ingesting pills. He argued that on 23 August 2016 he had been called by a neighbour, G.S., who had indicated T., in a state of intoxication, lying at the entrance to her apartment building; he had brought her into her apartment and into the kitchen. While he had been speaking to his son, the neighbour G.S. had come in and told him that T. had jumped from the window. 32 .     On 27 August 2016 the Buiucani District Court granted T.’s request and issued a protection order valid for ninety days, which obliged I.C. to stay away from T. and her children. The court found: “... [T.] has been in intensive care since 23 August 2016 and continues to be treated in the neurosurgery unit ... following her fall from the fifth floor. The police officer submitted in court that [I.C.] had been registered as abusive for over a year; that he and [T.] had lived in the same apartment bloc, but in different sections; and that the police had been investigating [T.]’s emergency call, in which she had said that she had fallen as a result of [I.C.]’s aggressive behaviour. ... [The police officer also submitted that] a further four protection orders had been issued in respect of [I.C.], one of which had been breached beyond any doubt. ... The court has heard the [neighbour G.S.] , who stated that [T.] had been intoxicated on the evening of 23 [ sic ] August 2016, [but this] cannot be considered because it is rebutted by the medical certificate issued by the emergency hospital which does not reveal any alcohol intoxication in respect of [T.]. Moreover, this witness clarified that he had not seen what had happened after [T.] and [I.C.] had entered the apartment.”       Criminal proceedings related to domestic violence 33.     Following T.’s complaint of 14 November 2014, on 12 December 2014 the Buiucani prosecutor ordered the initiation of criminal proceedings on charges against I.C. of domestic violence, with reference to physical and psychological abuse and, in particular, an incident which had occurred on 15   September 2014. 34.     On 6 January 2015 the Buiucani police initiated criminal proceedings against I.C. on charges of deliberate failure to comply with a final court judgment (Article 320 § 1 of the Criminal Code). The decision referred to I.C.’s failure to comply with the protection order of 26 September 2014, the court’s decision of 2 December 2014 to sanction I.C. for breaching the protection order and the incidents of 22 and 24 December 2014, when he had entered T.’s home while she was there. 35.     On 22 May 2015 the Buiucani prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against I.C. on charges of domestic violence, with reference to the incidents of 2 and 17 April 2015. 36.     The three criminal cases were joined and referred to the court. 37.     In the course of the proceedings, I.C. was remanded in prison from 26   November to 25 December 2015 and placed under house arrest from 25   December 2015 to 23 March 2016. 38 .     On 23 March 2016 the Buiucani District Court found I.C. guilty on three counts of domestic violence and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, but suspended the enforcement of the sentence, placing him on probation for three years. The court obliged I.C. to follow a special treatment or counselling programme for reducing his violent behaviour. I.C. was released from house arrest. The court discontinued the proceedings on the count concerning deliberate failure to comply with a court judgment, concluding that it amounted to an administrative offence which was already time-barred.     In respect of the charges of domestic violence, the court noted that under Article 133/1 of the Criminal Code, only former family members could be charged with the criminal offence of domestic violence. However, the court held that the indictment did not concern the incident of violence of 24 December 2014, but only the incidents of 15 September 2014 and 2 and 17 April 2015. The events had been proved by witness statements, medical reports and statements made by the victim and I.C. himself. Suspending the sentence on probation, the court took note that the offence with which he was charged was less serious, that it was I.C.’s first conviction and that he was caring for two underaged children. 39.     The prosecutor, T. and her lawyer appealed against the judgment of the first-instance court, contesting the leniency of the criminal sentence in respect of the charges of domestic violence and the incorrect assessment of evidence on the charges concerning the breach of the protection order. The prosecutor also noted that I.C. had admitted his guilt on both counts and argued that only a custodial sentence would serve the purpose of punishing and preventing new offences. 40.     I.C. also appealed against that judgment, arguing that after the divorce on 24 November 2014, he had no longer lived together with T. and that, therefore, he did not qualify as a “family member” within the meaning of Article 133/1 of the Criminal Code. 41 .     In the course of the appeal proceedings the prosecutor changed his request and sought the requalification of I.C.’s acts of domestic violence as an administrative offence under Article 78/1 of the Code of Administrative Offences on account of the intervention of a more lenient criminal law and to discontinue the proceedings as time-barred. Also, owing to T.’s demise on 12   October 2016, the applicant sought to be acknowledged as her legal heir. 42.     On 9 February 2017 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the prosecutor’s and T.’s appeals but rejected I.C.’s appeal, partially quashed the first-instance judgment and delivered a new judgment on the merits, finding I.C. guilty of domestic violence (in respect of the incidents of 15 September 2014 and 2 and 17 April 2015) and sentencing him to two years’ imprisonment in a semi-open prison. The court rejected the award of any compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage, arguing that T., and not the applicant, had sustained damage from the criminal offences. The court reiterated that I.C. qualified as a “family member” under Article 133/1 of the Criminal Code despite his divorce from T. The court concluded that only a custodial sentence would be adequate in the circumstances of the case of repeated recurrences of domestic violence. The appellate court upheld the first-instance judgment concerning the discontinuation of proceedings in respect of the charges of deliberate breach of the protection orders. 43 .     The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment, arguing that the partial discontinuation of the criminal proceedings and the rejection of the civil claims had been erroneous. He noted that it had been, in particular, the absence of a firmer response from the authorities, for example the initiation of criminal proceedings against I.C., which had encouraged further acts of violence and he cited the protection orders which had been breached by I.C. Moreover, no authority had ever made sure that I.C. actually underwent a counselling programme to address his violent behaviour, in breach of the State’s positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention. This failure had resulted in the reoccurrence of violence. He argued that he had the procedural standing of an indirect victim, which entitled him to compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 44.     The prosecutor and the defence also lodged appeals on points of law. 45.     On 16 May 2017 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld all the appeals, quashed the appellate court’s judgment and ordered a fresh examination of the case. The judgment noted that the appellate court had failed to consider the prosecutor’s request (see paragraph 41 above), had failed to properly assess the circumstances in which I.C. had not complied with the protection orders and had improperly assessed the applicant’s entitlement to compensation. 46 .     On 8 November 2017 the Chișinău Court of Appeal reheard the parties’ appeals and delivered a new judgment, deciding to discontinue the criminal proceedings on the charge of breaching the protection orders as being time-barred; to discontinue the criminal proceedings on the charges of domestic violence, requalifying the acts as an administrative offence; to discontinue the administrative proceedings on charges of inflicting insignificant injuries as being time-barred; and to award the applicant compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in the amount of MDL   50,000 (equivalent to EUR 2,417 at the material time). In respect of the charges of domestic violence, the court referred to amendments in the domestic criminal legislation, in accordance with which, in the absence of injuries of a mild level of severity, I.C.’s deeds were to be reclassified as the administrative offence of inflicting insignificant body injuries (Article 78 of the Code of Administrative Offences), for which proceedings were already time-barred. The court argued that it was impossible to reclassify the acts as domestic violence under Article 78/   1 of the Code of Administrative Offences because that provision had not existed at the time of the events and because after the divorce, I.C. and T. had no longer been considered family members. In respect of the charges of breaching the protection orders, the court noted that criminal liability was provided for only once the breach had continued after an administrative sanction had been imposed. While such responsibility would have been possible in respect of I.C. for the incident of 24 December 2014, the statutory limitation period in respect of this criminal offence had expired on 24 December 2016. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation as T.’s procedural successor and awarded him an amount commensurate to the level of the victim’s suffering, her age, the perpetrator’s capacity to pay, the socio-economic situation of the society in which the applicant lived, the nature of the acts committed, the psychological assessment of the victim and the amounts awarded in comparable cases. 47.     The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, reiterating his previous arguments (see paragraph 43 above) and noting that T. had been subjected to psychological violence, which had not been factored in the analysis of the appellate court and that the excessive length of proceedings had resulted in I.C.’s impunity, in breach of the State’s positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention. He also submitted that the amount of compensation was disproportionately low. 48.     On 28 February 2018 in a final decision, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the appellate judgment in full.     Criminal proceedings concerning incitement to suicide 49.     On 8 September 2016 the police initiated criminal proceedings in respect of I.C. on charges of incitement to suicide or attempted suicide (Article 150 § 1 of the Criminal Code). 50 .     On 9 July 2018 the prosecutor closed the investigation, concluding that there was an absence of the elements of an offence. In particular, the prosecutor relied on witness statements made by a neighbour G.S. and T.’s eldest child, according to which on the evening of 22 August 2016 T. had been alone in the kitchen before she fell, on witness statements reporting that T. had not remembered how she had fallen and on medical data which had shown alcohol in her blood at the time of the events. The decision also referred to four witness statements attesting to the existence of a domestic violence situation. The prosecutor concluded: “... Analysing all the circumstances and materials of the case ... it is concluded that [I.C.] did not commit the offence under Article 150 of the Criminal Code. The elements of this offence include (1) action or inaction of incitement to suicide or attempted suicide, (2) resulting consequences such as (a) suicide or (b) attempted suicide; (3) a causal link between the action and the consequences; and (4) the manner of incitement consisting of (a) persecution, (b) defamation, (c) insult [and/or] (d) systemic debasing of the victim’s dignity. At the same time, incitement refers to influencing the victim to take the decision to commit suicide, either by introducing the idea of suicide or by convincing the victim. ... Systemic debasement of the victim’s dignity refers to harassment at work, the debasing and brutal refusal to terminate a marriage, accusations against the victim of committing reprehensible acts, or other insulting behaviour in respect of the victim. In the light of the [considerations] above, ... it has not been found that [I.C.], by his behaviour in respect of the victim, incited [T.] to commit suicide. ... [T.] did not remember how she fell ... [and] she was intoxicated. On the basis of witness statements, [the court finds that I.C.] did not physically abuse the victim on the night of 23 [ sic ] August 2016. For this reason, it is not to be excluded that [T.] accidentally fell from the fifth floor [italics in original].” That decision was not appealed and became final. RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK         DOMESTIC LAW 51 .     At the time of the events, Article 201/1 of the Criminal Code, enacted by Law no. 895 of 18 April 2002, defined domestic violence as follows:   “[Domestic violence is] a deliberate act or omission, manifested physically or verbally, committed by a family member in respect of another family member, inflicting physical suffering resulting in mild bodily harm, psychological suffering, or pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage.” The offence of domestic violence was punishable by community service of 150 to 180 hours or by imprisonment for a term of up to two years. Paragraph 3 provided that the same act, if it incited someone to commit suicide or to attempt suicide, was punishable by imprisonment for a term of between five and fifteen years. 52 .     An amendment to the Criminal Code, enacted on 16 September 2016, redefined domestic violence as follows: “(a)     ill-treatment and other violent acts which result in mild bodily harm; [or] (b)     isolation or intimidation with a view to imposing one’s will or establishing control over the victim; [or] (c)     deprivation by economic means, including deprivation of basic means of survival and neglect, which result in mild bodily harm.” 53.     An amendment to the Code of Administrative Offences, enacted on 16 September 2016, included domestic violence as a minor offence (Article 78/1) defined as “ill-treatment or other violent acts, committed by a family member, which result in insignificant bodily harm”. 54 .     At the time of the events, Article 133/1 of the Criminal Code and the Law no. 45 of 1   March 2007 on preventing and combating domestic violence defined divorced spouses as family members only if they lived together. The legal texts were amended to exclude the condition of cohabitation on 16   September 2016. 55 .     At the time of the events, Article 150 of the Criminal Code defined incitement to suicide as “influencing a person to commit suicide or to attempt suicide through systemic persecution, defamation, offence or debasement of the victims’ dignity by the perpetrator” and was punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to four years. 56.     At the time of the events, Article 320 of the Criminal Code criminalised the deliberate non-enforcement or evasion of the enforcement of a court judgment if it was committed after the application of an administrative sanction. The offence was punishable by a fine of from 550 to 650   conventional units or community service of from 150 to 200 hours or with imprisonment for a term of two years. An amendment to the Criminal Code, enacted on 16 September 2016, criminalised, under Article 320/1, explicitly the non-enforcement of court orders for the protection of victims of domestic violence. The offence was punishable by community service of from 160 to 200 hours or imprisonment for a term of up to three years.       INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL 57 .     The relevant parts of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Concluding Observations on the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of the Republic of Moldova, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/MDA/CO/4-5, 29 October 2013, read as follows: Violence against women “19.     While welcoming the adoption in 2008 of Law No. 45-XVI on preventing and combating domestic violence, through which new protection measures were introduced, in addition to the amendment to the Criminal Code in 2010 to criminalize domestic violence and marital rape, the Committee reiterates its serious concern about the high prevalence of domestic violence, including against older women, which is coupled with a lack of a comprehensive data on the magnitude and forms of violence against women. The Committee further expresses its concern at:   (a)     The inconsistent application by courts, prosecutors and police officers of laws aimed at combating domestic violence, which undermines women’s trust in the judicial system, in addition to the lack of awareness among women of existing legal remedies;   (b)     The failure of the police and prosecutors to pay attention to low-level injuries and the fact that it often takes repeated acts of violence to initiate criminal investigations, in addition to the reluctance of the police to intervene in cases of domestic violence within the Roma community;   (c)     The ineffectiveness of protection orders against alleged perpetrators, which are either not issued by courts or issued with delays; the failure of police officers to enforce such orders; the lack of sufficient services, including shelters, to support victims from rural areas and Transnistria; and the non-coverage by the State system of legal aid to victims of gender-based violence.” 58 .     The Council of Europe Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO), in its Baseline Evaluation Report on legislative and other measures giving effect to the provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) in the Republic of Moldova, GREVIO/Inf(2023)26, published on 14 November 2023, in so far as relevant, stated the following: “94.     One of these programmes [aimed at reducing violent behaviour for perpetrators convicted of domestic violence] was developed on the basis of the DULUTH Model and adapted to the Moldovan context. During the period 2020-2021, 57 perpetrators of domestic violence followed the programme. This programme adopts a gender-based cognitive behavioural approach to counselling and educating perpetrators on developing alternative skills to avoid violent behaviour. 95.     ... Even so, the capacities of the available services are regarded as insufficient to meet the needs. Furthermore, there are no specific measures to evaluate the impact of the programmes on perpetrator behaviour and/or victim safety ... 98.     GREVIO strongly encourages the authorities in the Republic of Moldova to: ...b.     increase the number of perpetrator programmes for domestic violence and improve their availability across the country ...; c.     promote the attending of both mandatory and voluntary programmes by perpetrators by ensuring a more consistent application of existing referral mechanisms and by fostering the interplay between perpetrator programmes and criminal proceedings and other procedures, while prioritising the safety of victims and their access to justice ... 138.     There are seven public institutions which provide shelter services for victims of domestic violence, victims of trafficking or single mothers who are in need of emergency accommodation. According to the information submitted by the authorities, the state-run shelters have an estimated total capacity of 182 beds, 57 are free of charge and victims can stay for up to three months, with the possibility of extending it to six months. In addition, there are 12 shelters run by non-governmental organisations. These, however, do not receive sufficient funding to provide specialist support for women victims of gender-based violence and rely mostly on private donors and international grants to support victims of violence. 184.     GREVIO welcomes the inclusion of psychological violence in the domestic violence offence set out in Article 201/1 of the Criminal Code, the formulation of which appears to capture a pattern of repeated and prolonged abuse, by criminalising the conduct of causing ‘isolation or intimidation with a view to imposing one’s will or establishing control over the victim’. It further welcomes the inclusion of psychological violence in the definition of domestic violence provided in Article 2 of the Law on Preventing and Combating Family Violence. ... 186.     GREVIO notes that it is difficult to verify whether psychological violence in all its manifestations is prosecuted and punished, as the convention requires. According to the national prevalence survey on domestic violence against women carried out by the National Bureau of Statistics in 2010, 57.1% of Moldovan women have suffered from psychological violence in their lifetime. According to the OSCE-led Survey on Violence against Women, the most prevalent form of violence committed by an intimate partner is psychological violence, mentioned by 71% of the respondents. The survey revealed that psychological violence is a widely spread form of intimate partner violence in the Republic of Moldova, indicating that women had experienced it with a current or previous partner. In the absence of data on the implementation of relevant offences, GREVIO is concerned that such a prevalent form of violence remains unrecognised by the Moldovan criminal justice system. This is confirmed by the information provided by the People’s Advocate of the Republic of Moldova, which indicates that very few criminal cases end with sentences for psychological violence. 187.     GREVIO strongly encourages the authorities in the Republic of Moldova to: a.     increase awareness, including through training, among judges, law-enforcement agencies and legal professionals, of the gendered nature and consequences of psychological violence as one of the most prevalent forms of violence against women in the Republic of Moldova, and to review the application of the existing criminal offences on psychological violence by the courts, in order to ensure that the relevant provisions are effectively used to investigate, prosecute and punish all its manifestations, including its digital dimension. ... 191.     ... GREVIO welcomes the criminalisation of domestic violence in the Moldovan criminal legislation, but notes, however, that the parallel qualification of domestic violence as a contravention raises a number of issues. 192.     GREVIO observes that certain concerns were expressed by women’s rights NGOs [according to which], since the introduction of a domestic violence provision in the Contravention Code, the number of criminal cases initiated has halved compared to previous years, while the number of contravention cases has doubled. GREVIO wishes to draw attention to the difficulties that arise from the co-existence of two domestic violence offences. First, there appears to be no uniform criteria applied consistently to distinguish between the contravention and the criminal offence of domestic violence. Leaving the qualification of the legal nature of the act to practitioners solely based on the severity of bodily injury, and without clear guidance, may result in serious cases of physical violence being charged as a contravention a