CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 27 février 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29048B37 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s24E6874 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sC176A5AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .s7DF027B3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .sEBD403CE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:7pt } .sD37EA1E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:7pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s96B1B5AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE03C66E7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA3F87297 { margin-left:-3.99pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB4F4A965 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:50.4pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7788A309 { width:8.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s5E1F8B46 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s56A455C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s915ECF9D { width:130.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION CASE OF I.C. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 36436/22)   JUDGMENT Art 4 • Positive obligations • Respondent State’s failure to fulfil substantive and procedural obligations to protect an intellectually disabled woman from trafficking and servitude after her removal from State care and placement with a family on a farm (a “deinstitutionalisation” procedure) where she was forced to work without pay • Arguable claim and prima facie evidence of the applicant’s human trafficking and/or servitude triggered positive obligations • Lack of a legal and administrative framework, at the material time, for the deinstitutionalisation of persons with intellectual disabilities deprived of their legal capacity, affording practical and effective protection against trafficking and/or other forms of treatment contrary to Art   4 • Deficiencies in the placement process and in the support by the domestic authorities before and after the applicant’s placement gave rise to a credible suspicion of a real and immediate risk of trafficking or exploitation • Failure to take protective measures • Lack of an effective investigation • Defective implementation of criminal-law mechanisms Art 3 and Art 8 • Positive obligations • Failure to effectively investigate applicant’s allegations of rape, sexual violence and abuse during her placement • Lack of procedural accommodation in the domestic proceedings in view of the applicant’s vulnerability and her sensitive and intimate complaints • Deficient assessment by the domestic courts exposing applicant to secondary victimisation • Failure to effectively apply a criminal-law system punishing all forms of rape and sexual abuse Art 14 • Art 3 • Art 4 • Art 8 • Discriminatory treatment of applicant as a woman with intellectual disabilities • General institutional passivity and/or lack of awareness of the phenomenon of violence against women with disabilities in Moldova • Lack of reasonable procedural accommodation   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 27 February 2025   FINAL   27/05/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of I.C. v. the Republic of Moldova, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mattias Guyomar , President ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Gilberto Felici,   Diana Sârcu,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   36436/22) 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, Ms I.C. (“the applicant”), on 15 July 2022; the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”); 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 comments submitted by the Council of Europe Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and the AIRE Centre, who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 28 January 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case concerns the alleged labour exploitation and sexual abuse of the applicant, an intellectually disabled woman, in a family with which she was placed following her deinstitutionalisation from a State asylum (a residential neuropsychiatric institution). The applicant complains that the State failed to protect her from ill-treatment and human trafficking and to effectively investigate her allegations in that regard. She relies on Articles 3, 4 and 8 of the Convention, taken alone and read in conjunction with Article   14 of the Convention, as well as on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Soroca. She was represented by Ms S. Florescu and Ms O. Doronceanu, lawyers practising in Budapest and Chișinău respectively. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Obadă. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as can be seen from the documents produced before the Court, may be summarised as follows. Background to the case 5 .     The applicant has a moderate intellectual disability. She was abandoned at birth and has no known relatives. At the material time she had been in State care her entire life. 6 .     On 5 May 2011 the Soroca District Court deprived the applicant of her legal capacity on the basis of a medical report of 5 January 2011, which assessed her as being incapable of understanding and controlling her actions owing to her severe intellectual disability. The Court was not informed about any subsequent appointment of a legal guardian for her. 7.     At the time of the events, she had been living in a neuropsychiatric asylum under the auspices of the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs (“the Ministry”) for twenty-four years. The applicant’s deinstitutionalisation 8.     According to the applicant, a couple (L.P. and I.P.) approached the administration of the asylum with a request to take a person from the asylum into their care, a person who would be a suitable “bride” ( mireasă ) for G.B., an employee on their farm. 9.     On 15 January 2013 L.P. submitted a request to the asylum administration to “take [the applicant] on holiday for a month”. The same document contains a handwritten note by the applicant which states “I agree to go on holiday with L.P. for a month.” 10.     Subsequently, L.P. and I.P. sought the permanent placement of the applicant in their family. On 21 February 2013 the asylum sought the approval of the Ministry for the termination of the applicant’s placement with the asylum ( exmatriculare ) to be integrated into the family of I.P. and L.P. The letter sent to the Ministry enclosed the following documents: the request made by I.P. and L.P., a request made by the applicant, the identity documents of I.P and L.P., unnamed certificates and the results of a social services investigation signed by the mayor of the village where the couple’s farm was located. 11 .     On 18 March 2013 the Ministry replied as follows: “... [A]fter examining the proposal ..., the [Ministry] supports the termination of services in respect of [the applicant] for the purpose of integrating her into the P. family and the community, in accordance with the established procedure. At the same time, because cases referred for highly specialised social services are usually the most complex, the Ministry requests that you inform the district social services in the area where [the applicant] will reside about the closure of the case and its referral for post-intervention monitoring in the community, for the purpose of securing [the applicant’s] social inclusion and participation in community life along with other persons.” 12.     On 28 March 2013 the director of the asylum issued Order no. 2 to terminate the applicant’s placement with the asylum “for the purpose of integrating her into the family of L.P. and I.P.”. The order referred to the Ministry’s letter dated 18 March 2013. 13.     On 12 February 2014 the asylum administration handed L.P. the applicant’s identity documents (her identity card, birth certificate, insurance card, disability certificate and medical card) and L.P. signed a receipt confirming this. 14.     The applicant lived at the farm belonging to the P. family from 15   January 2013 to 23 October 2018. According to the applicant, during her time there, she worked at the farm from 4 a.m. until dark every day, feeding the livestock, cleaning the stalls and other premises at the farm, carrying the milk and disposing of the rubbish for the entire farm. On a few occasions she was paid around 5 to 15 euros (EUR) (100 to 300 Moldovan lei (MDL)). At an unspecified point in time I.P. started raping and sexually abusing her. According to the applicant, she was subjected to rape for years despite her protests. She was told to keep silent otherwise her dogs would be killed, and that the police would not intervene because the son of L.P. and I.P. was in the police. The applicant escaped from the farm on several occasions and stayed in abandoned trains as she had nowhere to go. I.P. would find her and return her to the farm. 15.     On 23 October 2018 the applicant ran away and called a hotline for people with disabilities operated by a non-governmental organisation, the Alliance of Organisations for Persons with Disabilities, and complained of the treatment she had been subjected to at the farm: working for free, the sexual abuse at the hands of I.P., and the physical and psychological abuse and threats by L.P. The NGO contacted the police the following day, relaying the complaints made by the applicant over the phone. 16 .     On 25 October 2018 the applicant lodged a formal criminal complaint alleging that I.P. had sexually abused her. Her complaint, handwritten by a police officer, was made in the presence of a local social worker, V.N., and read as follows: “I [have] asked the police to question and bring to justice I.P., who, while I was working at his farm, had [sexual relations] with me, exploiting the fact that I have nowhere to go and am intellectually disabled. I was unable to refuse because he convinced me and tricked me [into believing] that no one would find out. I am sick of such a life, I want to leave the farm, I am afraid that I.P.’s wife will find out. He is not holding me by force, I can leave whenever I want.” 17 .     The applicant was interviewed as a victim on the same day, in the presence of the social worker V.N. Her statement, handwritten by a police officer, read as follows: “In response to the questions which have been asked, I am able to reply that ... while [I was] in the asylum ... an employee offered me work at a farm, where I could also meet a boy. She took me home and on the same day I.P. took me from her [and took me] to the farm, where I was supposed to work and live. He told me that he would feed me [and] buy me clothes and everything I needed. There was no agreement about payment, but I agreed to stay because I had nowhere to go and I knew the asylum would be closed. At the farm I met G.B., he was from another [orphanage]. I became friends with G.B. and [we] lived together [and] had sexual relations. We both took care of the cows, pigs and goats. It was winter when I.P. told me to come to his house to clean. He closed the door and told me to undress and lie down on the bed to have sex. I told him I was afraid that L.P. would find out, but he reassured me that she was away.” The statement then included a description of the sexual intercourse which had taken place, before continuing as follows: “It was pleasurable, it was all voluntary, then we had sex at the farm. I.P. would send G.B. to do chores [while we had sexual relations]. I told him every time that I did not want to have sex with him, but he told me that he loved me and I agreed.” The statement then included another description of the sexual intercourses which had taken place. “He often came and sought sex from me and I could not refuse, he told me that he loved me and I agreed. He never beat me or threatened to beat me. When I told him that I would not have sex with him, he would say that I was his mistress. I was afraid his wife would find out. I enjoyed having sex with him. My complaints against I.P. are that I no longer wish to have sex with him, I am sick of it. ... Last time we had sex I told him that I did not want to, but he said it would be fast and I agreed. During oral sex I noticed that he had a scar in his [genital area] like one from an operation. I told G.B. about all this and ... he told his friend, who got a phone number from the Ministry and promised to call it. G.B. said that I should talk to the mayor, but I was afraid that L.P. would find out and [I] called the hotline instead and told them about my situation with I.P.” 18.     On 25 October 2018 the local authority called an extraordinary multidisciplinary meeting to discuss the applicant’s case, following the complaint lodged by the NGO on her behalf. The meeting was attended by the social worker V.N., a police officer, the mayor and an educator. The applicant reiterated her statements about the sexual abuse by I.P. and stated that she was afraid of I.P. and L.P. The social worker and the educator stated that the applicant could not remain in the care of I.P. and L.P. As a result, the applicant’s situation was assessed as being high risk and it was decided that she would be temporarily placed in an asylum in the district until the circumstances of the case were established. The criminal investigation 19 .     On 29 October 2018 a criminal investigation was initiated into the allegations of rape and sexual violence (under Article 171 § 3 (a) and Article   172 § 3 (a 1 ) of the Criminal Code). The decision referred to the applicant being forced to engage in sexual relations against her will by I.P., who had allegedly used psychological control and abused her inability to defend herself. The applicant was granted victim status. 20 .     On 31 October 2018 the applicant was heard by the police in the presence of the social worker V.N. and made statements almost identical to those recorded on 25 October 2018 (see paragraph 17 above). In addition, she noted that once when she had refused to have sex with I.P., he had threatened to kill her dog. She further clarified that she had been ashamed to report anything to the mayor and in any event no one would have believed her. The applicant had not wanted L.P. to find out because L.P. had been “like a mother” to her. The applicant also stated that I.P. had never physically forced himself on her, but had convinced her every time with “nice words”. 21 .     On 18 February 2019 the applicant was heard again. She answered various questions in the presence of her lawyer and a psychologist, and stated as follows: “... I was abandoned by my mother at the hospital. I don’t know my mother or my father, or if they are still alive. As a child I was placed in an orphanage, [and] later in a boarding school and then in the asylum, [where] I stayed for many years. I could leave the asylum only if I asked for permission, I would work for people in the village ... and they would pay me MDL 30 or 40 [per day]. ... A few years ago a woman working at the asylum told me that I could leave the asylum to live on a farm, where the masters ( stăpâni ) would take care of me. So I left with her and she called someone who came and picked me up, [I.P.] I.P. took me to the cattle farm, where I met his wife, [L.P.] It was autumn and he took me to the farmhouse ..., where a man [G.B.] had lived for some time. I.P. told me that I would be G.B.’s bride and told G.B. that he had brought him a bride and that we would live together on the farm. From that day on I stayed and lived with G.B. at the farmhouse. At first, I.P. and L.P. rarely came to the farm, I thought they would be like parents to me. They told me that I would continue living there and that they would bring me clothes, shoes and food, while I had to work with G.B. at the farm. I worked each day at the farm, I woke up at 3 or 4 a.m. because I had to take care of the cows ... After I had been at the farm for some time, I asked I.P. and L.P. to pay me at least MDL 700, and L.P. said that both G.B. and I would get paid. But later neither I.P. nor L.P wanted to pay us, [and] L.P. would get upset when I asked for money and say that we did not need money because she brought us clothes and food. During the years at the farm I was paid about four times, when I asked for pay, around MDL 300, 200 or 100. L.P. would bring us food at midday, [and] in the evening we usually did not eat or I cooked something from the vegetables they left us. I would buy things for myself from the [disability] pension I received (MDL 700). L.P. would never buy new things for me, she bought second-hand clothes or gave me clothes that she had worn ... L.P. was not always nice to me. Often she would be upset and would shout at me when there was no milk or when she did not like something, I do not even know why she was upset. Once she beat me because I had taken a carpet outside to clean [it] but it had got wet because it had rained. She slapped my face, pulled me by the hair and shook me a few times. Another time she beat me when a cow got sick, [and] G.B. witnessed her beating me. When she was upset, L.P. would call me names [and] threaten to kill me or to chase me from the farm. She chased me from the farm several times, especially when I said that I did not want to work without payment. Once she chased me away and I stayed with my puppies [in a train wagon] for four days without any food. Although they forced me [to go] away, I returned because I cared for G.B. and had nowhere else to go. Sometimes L.P. would send G.B. or I.P. to bring me back. They would also mistreat G.B. [and] would shout at him [and] hit him (L.P. hit him once with a bucket because a cow had died), and I remember that [once] G.B. left the farm but L.P. later found him because there was no one else to work at the farm and told him to come back, promising to never beat him again, and he returned. I.P., the owner of the farm, has often humiliated me. The first time he told me to come to his house in the village [was so I could] fetch a needle and thread. L.P. was not at home. I.P. locked the door and [forced me to have oral and vaginal sex]. When I returned to the farm I told G.B. what had happened, but G.B. was afraid of I.P. and did nothing. I could not become pregnant because when I was pregnant at 20 the doctor from the asylum took me to the hospital for an abortion ... when I woke up [from the anaesthesia] I was told that I had had [fallopian] tubal ligation and would not be able to have children. I wanted to have children, but I was not allowed.” The applicant described nine occasions when oral sex had taken place and two occasions when vaginal sex had taken place, referring to the fact that she had cried, refused to have sex and complained of intercourse being painful. She said that I.P. had attempted anal sex, threatened to kill her kittens and forced her to keep their sexual relations a secret. Her statement then continued as follows: “I called the hotline because I no longer want such a life. I want I.P. to leave me in peace, no longer chase after me [and] no longer seek sex from me. I am not lying, I am telling you how things are.” 22 .     A medical examination report dated 6 November 2018 revealed that the applicant had a sexually transmitted disease, but no signs of violence on her body. 23 .     In reply to a request by the prosecutor for an inquiry into the employment status of workers at the farm, on 19 November 2018 the State Labour Inspectorate replied that on the basis of documents and explanations provided by the owners of the farm (I.P. and L.P.), it had been impossible to establish any labour relations between the applicant and the farm owners. The Labour Inspectorate stated that it was in fact for a court to determine if such relations had existed, on the basis of evidence to be provided by the applicant. A subsequent official check carried out by the Labour Inspectorate on 10 June 2019 focused on reviewing official employment documents and concluded that there was no labour agreement in respect of the applicant. 24.     A medical examination report dated 22 November 2018 revealed that I.P. had a ten-centimetre scar in the inguinal area and no sexually transmitted disease. 25 .     A psychiatrist and a psychologist examined the applicant on 11   February 2019. The experts were asked by the prosecutor to clarify if the applicant was able to correctly determine the circumstances of the case and distinguish reality from fantasy, if there were signs of trauma after the alleged rape, sexual abuse and exploitation, and if the applicant showed any signs of dependency on the perpetrator. The report issued concluded as follows: “[The applicant] has a moderate intellectual disability, ... underdeveloped reasoning [and] affective instability ... She had the same condition at the time of the events. She has limited capacity to understand her own actions and to make statements. She needs the support of a legal representative.   ... She is capable of carrying out unskilled work and taking basic care of herself. ... [She] is not prone to exaggerating perceived reality [and] there are no signs of pathological fantasy. ... [She] has an IQ of 50. ... [She] has a minimal degree of personal and social autonomy [and] is able to handle simple social situations, but would be disoriented in subjectively complex circumstances. ... Her affective autonomy is not fully developed [and] she has a high [level of] suggestibility. To conclude, [the applicant] has a mild intellectual disability [and] limited capacity to correctly understand the nature and content of actions carried out in respect of her, but she is able to explain, in simple language, facts which are important for the case. There are no signs of increased imagination [or] exaggeration of perceived reality, [and] no inclination towards fantasy. There are no signs of psychological trauma. She has limited capacity to understand her own actions [and] what is happening to her, and to put up resistance; [she] is prone to developing various forms of dependency on third parties, including the perpetrator.” 26.     On 21 February 2019 the prosecutor formally charged I.P. with rape and sexual abuse (under Articles 171 and 172 of the Criminal Code). He noted that I.P. had known about the applicant’s limited capacity to understand, her intellectual disability and her previous institutionalisation at the asylum and that I.P., together with his wife, had taken the applicant from the asylum and psychologically forced her to have sexual relations on a regular basis by inducing her to do so or threatening to kill her dogs, to which she was particularly attached. The prosecutor relied on the results of the medical report dated 11 February 2019, noting the applicant’s diagnosis and the fact that she had no inclination to exaggerate perceived reality or fantasise, as well as the absence of any signs of psychological trauma. 27 .     On 18 March 2019 the applicant, represented by a lawyer, asked the Soroca prosecutor to additionally investigate I.P. for human trafficking and sexual harassment (under Articles 165 and 173 of the Criminal Code). The request referred to the applicant’s statements made to the police, the medical report of 11 February 2019 and the psychological assessment of 6   November 2018 (see paragraphs 20, 25 and 43), pointing out that the facts clearly included elements of harassment, labour exploitation and sexual exploitation. It noted that the applicant had been taken to the farm, where L.P. and I.P. had exploited her, taking advantage of her vulnerability (her intellectual disability, extreme poverty and lack of family). The applicant had repeatedly stated that she had been humiliated, insulted, beaten, threatened and forced to leave the farm, a place to which she had returned because she had had nowhere else to go. She had worked hard at the farm, without any payment or social security. 28.     During the criminal investigation, the prosecutor also heard the defendants and six witnesses. Both defendants denied having taken the applicant to their farm for labour exploitation. 29 .     The witness V.N., the local social worker, stated that she had known that I.P. and L.P. had taken the applicant, who had a mental disorder ( bolnavă mintal ), from the asylum. The applicant had done various chores at the farm. The applicant’s official residence had been with L.P. and I.P., but their guardianship had not been formalised. The witness did not know how long the applicant had been at the farm, but she knew that the applicant was registered as a person with disabilities and was entitled to a disability pension, which she cashed in person. The witness would often meet the applicant at the local shop, where the applicant would buy things for herself. Each time the witness would ask the applicant how she was, and each time the applicant would reply that everything was going well. The applicant would be surrounded by her dogs. The witness described the applicant as calm and obedient, but she had heard from L.P. that the applicant would drink alcohol and behave aggressively. On 24 October 2018 the association in charge of the hotline had told her about the applicant’s complaint of rape and sexual assault. When the witness had interviewed the applicant, she had confirmed the statements made to the hotline. The witness had been present at the applicant’s initial interview with the police, where she had stated that on the one hand, I.P. had sexually abused her, but on the other hand, she had taken pleasure in those sexual relations. The witness was unable to assess the applicant’s credibility, but did not exclude the possibility that the applicant was untruthful “because, as a person with disabilities, she enjoyed drawing attention to herself”. 30 .     The witness G.B. stated that he had been working at the farm for the past seven years and until recently he had received payment for this, but since then he had been paid in cigarettes, food, clothes and free housing. As he had nowhere else to go, he preferred to stay at the farm and work for free. He had never been beaten or threatened by L.P. and I.P. Three to four years previously, the masters had brought the applicant from the asylum to work with him at the farm. She would mostly clean the farmhouse and the farm, cook food and take out the cow manure. The previous winter the applicant had told him that I.P. had been humiliating her by forcing her to have vaginal and oral sexual intercourse. When he had asked her why she had not told I.P. that she did not want to have sexual intercourse, she had told him that I.P. had threatened to kill her dog, to which she was particularly attached. Once he himself had witnessed the applicant having sex with I.P. in the warehouse. She had been trying to get out from underneath I.P., but had not succeeded and had not shouted out either. He had known that the applicant had been warned not to shout out so that L.P. would not find out. He had then taken his mobile phone and filmed a few moments, but later he had dropped his phone in water and lost all the recorded material. The applicant had often complained of being fed up with her life because I.P. would harass her and insist on having sexual intercourse with her every time he saw her. She had also told him that she wanted to leave the farm, but I.P. had threatened to find her with the assistance of the police and beat her. Recently, the applicant had told him that she could not endure oral sex any longer because I.P. would stick his penis all the way down her throat. On 24 October 2018 the applicant had told him that an acquaintance from the asylum had given her a phone number from the Ministry and that she had called the number and talked to a woman about everything. The witness also personally resented I.P. because he had humiliated the applicant, who had been like a wife to him. However, he could not change anything or say anything to I.P. because he feared for his work. Although the applicant had come from an asylum they had got on well. She could think clearly and he did not think she was untruthful. Moreover, he himself had witnessed how I.P. had had sex with the applicant. She had also talked about this to M.V. (another witness, see paragraph 31). G.B. confirmed that the applicant had not been paid for her work. Subsequently, G.B. was interviewed again and he changed his initial statements, stating that he had never witnessed the applicant being raped by I.P. or filmed this, and that it was the applicant who had asked him to lie to the police just to blackmail L.P. and I.P. into buying her a house in the village. He stated that he had no complaints about I.P. and L.P. because they had behaved well and had paid him for all his work. He also said that the applicant had been paid for her work, “although she had been brought to the farm to be [his] wife”. She had not worked at the farm other than to cook for him and clean the farmhouse. He confirmed that the applicant had told him that she was having sexual relations with I.P., but he disputed the truthfulness of her statements. On 18 March 2013 the prosecutor cross-examined the applicant and G.B. The applicant maintained her previous statements and stated that G.B. had changed his original statements under pressure from I.P. and L.P. 31 .     The witness M.V. confirmed that in September 2018 the applicant had complained to him that she was having sexual intercourse with I.P. against her will and that he had threatened to kill her dog. He also confirmed that the applicant had cleaned at the farm, but he was unaware of the legal arrangements relating to the work. 32 .     The witness C.T. confirmed that she had been working at the farm when the applicant had been brought there. They had had a number of arguments and had even fought “because of some lies”. The witness had left the farm three months after the applicant’s arrival there. She had not witnessed any violence in respect of the applicant. The applicant would clean and cook for G.B. and would sometimes have some sort of crisis, shouting and hitting her head, but she would be calmed by L.P. The witness was unaware of any sexual relations between the applicant and I.P., but doubted that I.P. “would have taken her seriously” ( și-ar fi pus mintea cu aceasta ) because she was “a sick person and [could] invent a few [stories]”. The applicant would occasionally leave the farm and, with difficulty, the masters would find her in the woods or in bars. They would buy her everything she wanted – a phone, a television. 33 .     The witness M.M. confirmed that he had seen the applicant cleaning the farm and the farmhouse with G.B. He stated that the applicant and G.B. had been paid for their work at the farm, but he was unaware how much. He knew that the applicant was intellectually disabled. 34.     The witness G.I., the director of the asylum, stated that before being deinstitutionalised, the applicant had been invited to the home of L.P. and I.P. on several occasions so that she could get used to them. Later, L.P. and I.P. had made a formal request to take the applicant into their family because she did not suffer from a severe disability like the other residents. He was unaware of how the applicant had become acquainted with L.P. and I.P. When the file for her deinstitutionalisation had been complete, the applicant had been “expelled” from the asylum and integrated into the family of L.P. and I.P. 35 .     On 20 August 2019 the prosecutor initiated another criminal case in relation to charges of human trafficking involving rape (Article 165 § 2 (g) of the Criminal Code). The same day the case was joined to the one initiated in 2018 (see paragraph 19 above). On 17 May 2019 another criminal case was initiated in relation to charges of human trafficking involving two or more perpetrators (Article 165 § 2 (d) of the Criminal Code), to be joined to the initial criminal case on 16 December 2019. 36 .     On 17 September 2019 the prosecutor formally charged I.P. and L.P. with human trafficking involving two or more perpetrators (Article   165 §   2   (d)). In particular, it was alleged that together they had taken the applicant to the farm and forced her, by threats and physical violence, to care for the livestock without pay. The prosecutor acknowledged that the applicant was highly vulnerable owing to her intellectual disability. On 20 December 2019 the prosecutor formally charged I.P. with human trafficking (Article   165 §   2   (d)), adding to the report allegations of sexual relations which were classified as non-commercial sexual exploitation and thereby essentially dropping the rape and sexual abuse charges. On the same day, the prosecutor formally charged L.P. with the same charges of human trafficking as before. In December 2019 the case file was ready to be sent for trial. Complaint concerning the legal classification of facts 37 .     On 24 December 2019 the applicant and her lawyer were informed about the content of the criminal file before it was sent for trial. The applicant’s lawyer agreed with the charges on human trafficking. However, she found that the dropping, in essence, of the charges of rape and sexual abuse was unjustified in the light of the applicant’s clear statements, and sought the continuation of the investigation into these charges. 38.     On 26 December 2019 the prosecutor examined that request and rejected it, noting that the charges brought against L.P. and I.P. under Article   165 § 2 (d) of the Criminal Code referred to the factual elements of sexual relations, and there had been no need to examine those relations under separate provisions of the Criminal Code. 39 .     The applicant appealed against the prosecutor’s decision, arguing that there had been a failure to provide any reasons for essentially dropping the charges of rape and sexual abuse. She noted that the initial complaint had focused mainly on these factual elements, and that the prosecutor had incorrectly reclassified the complaints of rape and sexual abuse as “non-commercial sexual exploitation”. The reclassification failed to take into account the rape and sexual abuse perpetrated against her by means of physical and/or psychological control exerted owing to her vulnerability and inability to defend herself. A reclassification would have been acceptable under Article 165 § 2 (g) of the Criminal Code, which referred to the use of rape in the context of human trafficking. There had also been no investigation into the complaints of sexual harassment. 40.     On 29 January 2020 a hierarchically superior prosecutor rejected the applicant’s appeal, finding that the classification under Article 165 § 2 (d) of the Criminal Code had been correct and that there was no need for separate charges of rape, sexual abuse and harassment. 41.     On 4 February 2020 the applicant appealed against that decision to the investigating judge, relying on the same reasons which she had relied on previously (see paragraph 39 above). 42 .     In the meantime the case was sent for trial, and on 18 May 2020 the Soroca investigating judge declined jurisdiction in favour of the court dealing with the merits of the criminal case. The court relied on procedural rules providing that all complaints and requests made after the sending of a case for trial were within the competence of the court dealing with the merits of the case. The judge’s decision to decline jurisdiction could be appealed against only if the merits of the case were also appealed against. Psychological reports 43 .     On 6 November 2018 a psychologist examined the applicant to assess her level of autonomy, in order to develop a plan for her social inclusion. The report concluded as follows: “Functional independence: limited to very limited, equivalent to that of a ten-year-old. This assessment is based on the following four-factor assessment: Motor skills correspond to her age, equivalent to [those of] a person aged thirty-six. She has the balance, coordination, force and resistance of a person her age. Communication skills and social interaction: very limited to negligible, equivalent to [those of] a five-year-old. Personal autonomy: very limited, comparable to [that of] a twelve-year old. She has difficulty preparing food, using the bathroom [and] taking care of herself. Skills in relation to living in the community: very limited, at the level of an eight-year-old. She has very limited or no skills in relation to managing time and money. Her inclusion in a vocational program will be difficult. She has minimum difficulties in managing her behaviour. In view of the findings above, [the applicant] needs occasional support in certain areas.” This report was submitted to the criminal case file by the applicant’s lawyer on 18 February 2019. 44 .     The applicant’s lawyer sought an independent psychological assessment of the applicant. A forensic psychologist interviewed the applicant using methods adapted for her intellectual disability. The report dated 4 January 2020 read as follows: “High score for intense negative emotions [when referring to the traumatising events]: fear, helplessness or dread, a feeling of being in danger again, fits of irritation or anger; Medium score for reliving and reflecting on the traumatic events; High score for avoidance and dissociation: shows [signs of] increased alertness [and] is extremely sensitive to the environment. Shows [signs of] increased sadness. Attempts to avoid anything related to the traumatic events; has a tendency to isolate and detach herself from others, feelings of numbness and emotional dullness, [and] a confused and limited view of the future; High score for hypervigilance. Has developed the conviction that the world is a dangerous place and that she always needs to be on [her] guard. ... Nightmares related to the traumatic events, in which she feels that or acts as if the traumatic events have reoccurred. Difficulty in managing emotions, [and] memories of the traumatic events cause sudden anger, anxiety or sadness; Low score for functional disorder, if symptoms are unrelated to medication, substance abuse or illness. On the basis of the replies obtained, ... [the applicant] lacks the ability to objectively analyse types of relationships, what is good or bad and what may cause discomfort. ... [She] refers to the past neutrally with certain unpleasant memories ... [she has] a sense of guilt and regret about leaving the asylum to go to the farm. ... [She] has a positive affective tone, [is] naïve with increased vulnerability, [and her] happiest memories are [those] related to the boarding school ... no pleasant moments have been referred to relating to her time at the farm, except her attachment to the dogs ... Her attachment to [L.P. and I.P.] is perceived to be a parent-daughter relationship, [and she] often says ‘I am your daughter”, ‘she is like a mother to me’, ‘... and I told him, you are my father ...’ Considering that [the applicant] grew up and spent most of her life in an institutional setup and did not have a family, [she] perceived [L.P. and I.P.] as her mother and father, as [her] family; this [perception] was referred to on several occasions during the assessment and in different contexts. [I.P.]’s attitude, labour exploitation and sexual abuse have had the biggest impact on [the applicant’s] emotional condition. [The applicant] suffered psychological and emotional trauma as a result of the exploitation, abuse [and] rape[s] which took place during her stay at the farm ... She scored high on the scale for authority and respect of hierarchy. She demonstrates naivety and gullibility in relation to persons who take care of her. I quote, ‘If older people tell me to do something, I do it; that is what I was taught at the [asylum]’. This behaviour is typical of people who grew up in an institutional setup, with functional rules for respecting hierarchy and complying with strict rules. ... [The applicant] is unable to identify and analyse the positive intentions behind a [particular type of] behaviour, real dangers to life and security, or circumstances which may [lead to] stress, control, blackmail or threats to life and safety ... Sexual abuse represents one of the most traumatising experiences for the victim, and the extent of the trauma is even greater when the perpetrator is the very person who was meant to protect the victim and has an affectionate bond with her. This situation leads to a loss of trust, disappointment, confusion and a feeling of insecurity in the victim. ... Recommendations: [The applicant] needs to be placed in a specialised shelter to prevent repeated abuse, neglect and exploitation, and long-term psychological support to address the consequences of post-traumatic stress disorder. ...” Court proceedings 45.     The first-instance court heard eight witnesses, two defendants and the applicant. 46 .     L.P. did not admit her guilt and stated that she had met the applicant after approaching an employee at the asylum about “finding a woman ( fată )” from the asylum for their employee G.B. because he had wanted a family. The applicant had been offered to them. The employee at the asylum had introduced the applicant to I.P. and L.P. after supposedly taking the applicant home for fifteen days. After that, L.P. herself had asked the asylum to allow the applicant to come to the farm for thirty days. During that time, the applicant had met G.B. After the initial thirty days, the applicant had not wanted to go back to the asylum. They had asked what needed to be done to get the applicant out of the asylum. They had followed the procedure, collected the necessary docume