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

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .sF9FB9744 { width:162.44pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION CASE OF X v. CYPRUS (Application no. 40733/22)   JUDGMENT   Art 3 (procedural) and Art 8 • Investigative and prosecutorial authorities’ response to rape allegations fell short of the State’s positive obligation to apply relevant criminal provisions in practice through effective investigation and prosecution • Significant shortcomings • Re-victimisation • Applicant’s credibility assessed through prejudicial gender stereotypes and victim-blaming attitudes • Risk of creating a background of impunity discouraging trust of victims of gender-based violence in the criminal justice system despite existence of a satisfactory legislative framework • Art   34 • Applicant’s acquittal by the Supreme Court for false reporting/public mischief acknowledging various failures in the initial stages of her rape allegation not depriving her of victim status   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 X v. Cyprus, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ivana Jelić , President ,   Erik Wennerström,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Frédéric Krenc,   Alain Chablais,   Artūrs Kučs,   Anna Adamska-Gallant , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   40733/22) against the Republic of Cyprus lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a British national, Ms X (“the applicant”), on 17 August 2022; the decision to give notice to the Cypriot Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision of the Government of the United Kingdom not to avail themselves of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention); 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 Advice on Individual Rights in Europe Centre (AIRE Centre), which 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 case concerns complaints about the failure of the domestic authorities to effectively discharge their positive obligations under Articles   3 and 8 of the Convention to investigate and prosecute the applicant’s allegations of rape. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 2000 and lives in England. She was represented by Mr M. Polak, a lawyer practising in London. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr G. L. Savvides, the Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. THE APPLICANT’S STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE 5.     In the context of the investigation of her complaints of rape, the applicant gave four statements to the police (see paragraphs 23, 52 and   53 below). The contents of the first three statements are summarised below. The contents of the last statement are not given because the Supreme Court held that the statement had not been made under the necessary safeguards (see paragraph 68 below). Background facts as described by the applicant in her statements 6.     The applicant stated that she had visited Ayia Napa in Cyprus on 10   July   2019. She stayed at P.N.R., an apartment complex (‘the Hotel’) hosting young people, and shared a room with two friends, R.C.P. and C.L. 7 .     On 13 July 2019 she met a man named S.Y., who was from Israel, in the lounge of the Hotel. He was also staying at the Hotel. They flirted and exchanged messages. 8.     In all three statements to the police the applicant stated that she had had consensual sex with S.Y. on two occasions prior to the alleged rape. The exact dates of the previous two occasions were not clear from the applicant’s statements. 9 .     As regards the first occasion, she said in her second and third statements that while she and S.Y. had been in the room having consensual sex, his friends had walked into the room and even though they had been asked to leave they kept coming back. In her second statement she stated that two or three of them had tried to make video-recordings of her and S.Y. and to “grab [her] from behind”. In her third statement she added that one of S.Y.’s friends had tried to film her while she had been getting dressed. 10 .     As regards the second occasion, the applicant said in her second statement that she had met S.Y. in his room after he had texted her. She said in her third statement that the night before that, S.Y. had been messaging her through his Instagram account but she had not replied. He had then messaged her through his friends’ Instagram accounts, but she had still not replied. On that day, one of S.Y.’s friends told her that S.Y. no longer loved her as she had not replied to his texts. She had gone out with her friends and when she returned S.Y. had invited her to go to his room, which she did. In all three statements she said as regards the second occasion that while she and S.Y. were having sex in his room, two or three of his friends broke into the room, that another person had been hiding in the room and that someone had climbed up the outside of the building to the window. In her second statement, the applicant said that some of S.Y.’s friends had also been making video recordings of her: they had started hitting and mocking her. She felt uncomfortable and left. She also added in her second statement that S.Y.’s friends had not had intercourse with her before although while she was engaging in sexual activities with S.Y. one of his friends had tried to have intercourse with her, but she could not remember whether he had done so, or who the person was, as she had been drunk and had not realised exactly what was going on. The day of the alleged rape as described by the applicant in her statements to the police The applicant’s first statement to the police (17 July 2019, 7.30 am to 9.40 am) 11 .     Regarding the alleged rape, the applicant stated that on 17 July 2019 at around 12.30 a.m. she had been socialising outside while quite drunk. At some point while she was in the hotel patio, S.Y. had approached her and asked her to follow him and they went to his room. After having a conversation, they got into bed. He had pulled most of her clothes off, but she still had her bodysuit on. She stated that she had been lying on the bed, and he had been aggressive, different from previously, forcing her to do “everything and anything he wanted”. He had forced himself into her as she had been crying and shouting at him, and she had scraped him with her fingernails, but he would not stop, and had ignored her. At one point he was on top of her face and had forced himself in her mouth. At that time, he had shouted to his friends to come in. 12 .     She stated that she had not been able to see exactly how many persons had entered the room as S.Y. had been forcing himself in her mouth and forcing her down, but she remembered that there were a lot of people. S.Y. had grabbed her head and pushed it down as she had been trying to look up. He had reached over, and both his hands had been behind him pinning her knees down beside him as she had been trying to push his hands away with her legs. The men argued between them as to who would go first. Only one person had penetrated her at a time for a short while either vaginally or anally before ejaculating, some in a condom and some in her mouth, as S.Y. had been holding her head by her hair forcing her and moving her to suit the men. Some of the men threw their condom outside the window, and others on the floor. S.Y. had shouted at them to pass him a condom after approximately fifteen minutes. A man named Y.I.A. had then passed him a condom and S.Y. had asked her to put the condom on him. At that point she had managed to get up, crying. She had rushed to get her shorts and ran off without her shoes. Her shorts had not been buttoned up. They had thrown her shoes at her down the stairs. 13.     In her statement to the investigating authorities, the applicant also said that when she was running outside, she slipped on a puddle and fell to the floor. At that point six men, two of them being S.Y. and E.I.B., had caught up with her. S.Y. hugged her and she ran towards the basement crying and shouting for help because she was terrified. She had found J.G.D. – a British man – and her friend R.C.P., who had come out of her room because of all the noise. Those two, along with A. – another British man who had also come out of his room because of the noise – had taken her to the hotel doctor. 14.     The applicant reiterated that she could not recall how many persons exactly had entered the room: she had counted twelve but could not remember exactly how many of them had penetrated her, but she thought it was around twelve, and two or three of them had ejaculated on her face. She clarified that most of them had had a condom on and that she remembered two people making a video-recording. She remembered that E.I.B. had had sex with her. She gave the police a description of him. However, she stated that she could not describe any of the others as they had been numerous, but she would be able to recognise them if she were able to see them face to face. 15 .     She believed S.Y. had probably changed the way he behaved towards her because earlier that day he had asked her to go to his room, but she had said no because she was going out with friends. The applicant’s second statement to the police (17 July 2019, 5.20   p.m. to 5.50 p.m.) 16 .     The applicant stated, inter alia, that originally, she had wanted to have sex with S.Y. but that when he became violent she had asked him to stop, but he would not. She had not wanted to have sex with the others, but they had had sex with her without her consent. The applicant’s third statement to the police (27 July 2019, 7.15   p.m. to 11.00 p.m.) 17 .     The applicant added that on the night of 16 July 2019 she had been out with two male friends (R. and N.). S.Y. had seen her and had started shouting because she had been speaking with one of them. She had felt embarrassed and told him that she would meet him later at the Hotel. They went to a club with her friends but could not get in because the club opened at 2 a.m. and they were too early. They had returned to the Hotel, where she saw S.Y. waiting for her with his friends in the pool area. She went to S.Y.’s room, but she could not remember where everyone else went. S.Y. had pushed her on the bed and with some difficulty managed to remove her shorts. She had left her bodysuit on. He had placed his knees on her shoulders and forced himself in her mouth. She could not shout and tried to push him away. He had then started shouting in his own language and all his friends had come into the room. She had been trying to shout but she could not because he was continuing to force himself into her mouth. She had crossed her legs but S.Y. had reached his hands behind him and opened them while the men were fighting between them as to who would penetrate her first. She stated that there had been about twelve persons in the room, but she could not remember how many had penetrated her. She repeated that some of them had been using condoms and some had not. After a while S.Y. had lifted his knees from her shoulders and asked his friends to pass him a condom. As he had been trying to put a condom on, she had managed to run away. 18.     She reiterated that as she had been running and trying to put her shorts on, some of S.Y.’s friends had run after her and managed to catch up with her as she was approaching the basement when she fell. S.Y. had also gone to the basement. J.G.D. and A. came out while she was shouting and told S.Y. and his friends to leave as some of them were continuing to ask her to return to the room. She stated that the incident had probably lasted for over an hour. 19.     The applicant stated that the next thing she could remember was being at the hotel clinic. The police had arrived and transferred her to the police station. She had informed J.G.D., A. and R.C.P. of the rape but she could not recall whether she had told the doctor. 20.     She stated that she could only remember the names of two of S.Y.’s friends who had been in the room – Y.I.A. and E.I.B. – and she had been able to describe them. 21 .     Lastly, the applicant stated that she knew that on the second occasion (see paragraph 10 above) Y.A. had made a video-recording while she was in S.Y.’s room. She stated that she did not know whether anyone had recorded her on the day of the rape. POLICE INVESTIGATION Complaint to the police and the opening of the investigation 22 .     In the early hours of 17 July 2019, the Hotel’s in-house doctor called the police informing them of an allegation of rape. The police subsequently picked up the applicant from the doctor’s office and took her to the police station. 23 .     Τhe applicant informed the Criminal Investigation Department of Famagusta (‘Famagusta CID’) at 6.00 a.m. on the same day about her alleged rape. At 7.10 a.m. the applicant gave the clothes and underwear she had been wearing on the day of the alleged rape to a female police officer. At 7.30 a.m. the applicant gave her first written statement to the same female police officer. This interview lasted until 9.40 a.m. (see paragraphs   11-15 above). Between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. the applicant was at the Famagusta General Hospital, where she underwent a medical examination by a male forensic pathologist, Dr So.So., who was also the Director of the State Forensic Pathology Service, in the presence of the above-mentioned female police officer. Between 2.30 p.m. and 2.51 p.m. Dr So.So. obtained a hygiene pad with traces of blood on it from the applicant, and took swabs from her face, vagina, and rectum, with her consent, in order to collect DNA samples. At 3.45 p.m. a nurse took urine and blood samples from the applicant. These were sent for toxicology testing and later revealed traces of cocaine in the applicant’s urine. At 3.53 p.m. the same female police officer took two swabs from the applicant’s cheek. Between 5.20 p.m. and 5.50 p.m. the applicant gave a second statement to the same female police officer at the police station (see paragraph 16 above). 24 .     In the meantime, at 1.40 p.m. the same day, the Chief Investigator had applied to the Famagusta District Court for arrest warrants for twelve suspects (S.Y., I.D., O.A., G.L., G.N., O.B.D., O.B., O.D.D., Y.I.A., E.I.B., Y.G. and T.Z.) and for a search warrant for room 723, where the alleged rape had taken place. In his statement to the court, the Chief Investigator stated that members of the Famagusta CID had visited the Hotel where they had located S.Y. and interrogated him orally. Although S.Y. had at first told them that he had not had contact with any British girl ( sic ), he later said that he and a friend of his had intercourse with a British girl, but they had been alone when doing so. He had subsequently changed his statement saying that the act had taken place in the presence of many other young men from his home country, and he had either named them or pointed their hotel rooms out to the police. S.Y. had further mentioned that, as the applicant had said, some of the men had recorded the incident on their mobile phones. 25.     At 1.53 p.m. the same day, the court issued a search warrant for room   723. The court also issued arrest warrants for all twelve suspects. 26.     Between 2.10 p.m. and 3.10 p.m. of the same day the police arrested the twelve suspects. 27 .     Following the suspects’ arrests, the police took possession of the mobile phones of eleven of the twelve suspects with their consent. Subsequently, the police obtained DNA samples from all suspects. 28 .     Between 9.10 p.m. and 10 p.m. the same day, the police searched room 723, where the alleged rape had taken place, accompanied by Dr   So.So., a translator and S.Y. There they found and took away five used condoms and thirteen open condom wrappers. The used condoms had been found in various places in the room. Two condoms were found on top of the air conditioning unit, and one was found under the bed near the window. The police had shown the condoms to S.Y. who had replied that he had used two condoms and his friend had used one. The police also took away four bedsheets and took photographs of the room. 29.     On 19 July 2019 the Famagusta CID asked the Director of the District Welfare Office of Famagusta to refer the applicant to a specialist psychologist of the Mental Health Services to provide her with psychological support that same day. 30 .     On the same day, Interpol Nicosia sent an urgent message to Interpol Manchester asking whether the applicant had been involved in similar cases in the past. This was done after an email had been sent to the police by a male Israeli national, telling them that the applicant had been involved in a case of false reporting of rape in the past and urging them to check whether she had intended all along to make a report against the suspects with the sole aim of claiming compensation. Interpol Manchester replied in the negative. 31 .     In addition, again on the same day, the police sent the evidence they had obtained on 17   July 2019 (see paragraphs 23 and 28 above) to the Institute of Neurology and Genetics, and the State Government Laboratory and Technological Development Department for scientific examination. As regards the suspects’ mobile phones, the police instructed the forensic lab to find and extract video-recordings made and photographs taken using the cameras of those phones between 12 and 17 July 2019, including any photographs or video-recordings which had been deleted. The police further instructed the lab to examine whether photographs or video-recordings taken during the specified dates had been transferred via mobile applications to other persons. 32 .     On 25 July 2019 the Institute of Neurology and Genetics prepared a confidential preliminary report informing the police of the progress of the examinations of the applicant’s clothes and underwear, some of the condoms and the bed sheets. It said that the genetic material of an unknown male had been found on the trousers and underwear worn by the applicant on the date of the alleged rape. Genetic material from the applicant, S.Y., I.D. and Y.I.A. had been found on some of the condoms. E.I.B.’s DNA had been found on a bedsheet. No genetic material from the remaining eight of the twelve suspects had been traced on any of the evidence tested. 33.     Five of the suspects were released that day without being charged because of a lack of evidence incriminating them or indicating that they were involved in the case. Seven suspects (S.Y., O.A., I.D., Y.I.A., E.I.B., O.B. and G.N.) remained in custody. 34 .     On 26 July 2019 Dr So.So. prepared a report outlining his findings from the applicant’s and the suspects’ medical examinations of 17 July 2019. As regards the applicant, the forensic pathologist noted multiple recent bruises to the anterior region of her right shin, two traumatic bruises to the lateral upper third of her left shin; traumatic bruising to the left gluteal area; three traumatic bruises in the right hip region and a traumatic bruise to the lateral upper third of her right thigh. He observed that there had been no injuries to the vagina or outer genital area or to the anal or perianal area. He noted that blood had been found inside the applicant’s vagina without injuries to the vaginal wall that had, according to the report, been caused “most possibly due to menstruation secondary to stress”. As regards S.Y., the doctor had observed abrasions on his chest and shoulder blades. The doctor had also observed bruises and scratches on E.I.B. which had allegedly been caused by other foreign men during a fight. The doctor had also found bruises on Y.G. 35 .     On 27 July 2019 police officer A.N. prepared a report describing, inter alia , the content of the video-recordings retrieved from some of the suspects’ phones following their forensic examination. According to the report, one video-recording had been made on 17 July 2019 and several other video ‑ recordings had been made on the days immediately prior to the alleged rape. The video-recording of 17 July 2019 had shown the applicant engaging in sexual activities with S.Y. only, while some young men were entering the room and were being told to leave by S.Y. and the applicant. Other video ‑ recordings made prior to the date of the alleged rape had shown the applicant engaging in sexual activities with S.Y. while young people outside the bedroom had been trying to watch them through the door. In one such video-recording, while the applicant had been having sex with S.Y., two other men, O.B. and I.D., were seen to hit her on the buttocks. Officer   A.N. reported that in another video-recording the applicant could be seen getting dressed in front of some people in the same room. Statements taken by the police 36 .     In the meantime, between 17 and 27 July 2019 the police had also collected written statements from over thirty persons, including the applicant, her friend and roommate (R.C.P.), another British person (J.G.D.), the hotel doctor (Dr Se.Se.), the twelve suspects, four persons who were friends of the suspects and also came from Israel, the two hotel owners, a receptionist, a cleaner, a housekeeper, as well as a pub owner (P.K.) and a pub employee (M.E.W.) who had come into contact with the applicant a few days prior to the alleged rape. Suspects’ statements 37.     Seven out of the twelve suspects stated, with the assistance of an interpreter, that they had been present at the scene of the alleged rape in room 723, albeit at different times and without admitting involvement in the incident; they said they had merely entered or gone in and out of the room. They denied that a group rape had taken place. G.L., T.Z., O.B.D., O.D.D. and Y.G., denied having been present or having had any involvement in the alleged incident. 38 .     S.Y. stated, inter alia, that he had had sex with the applicant on three different occasions. On the first occasion they had been alone in his bedroom (room no. 723) but his friends had been going in and out of the room. On the second occasion, his friends O.A. and I.D. had been in the room. While he had been having sex with the applicant, she had been performing oral sex on O.A. and I.D. had been watching. S.Y. had previously asked the applicant if his friends could join them and she had chosen O.A. and I.D. At a later stage in his statement, he stated that on that second occasion the applicant had also given oral sex to I.D. S.Y. said that on the third occasion, on 17 July 2019 at 2.30 a.m., he and O.A. had had sex with the applicant in his room. During that time, Y.I.A., I.D., O.B. and G.N. had been persistently opening the bedroom door and watching them. The applicant kept asking them to close the door and they did so. After that, during sex, he had asked the applicant whether she would allow Y.I.A. and I.D. to participate but she had refused. He stated that as a result I.D. had asked her to leave, and she did. A while later she had returned to get her shoes and S.Y. had gone to get dressed. After some time Y.I.A. informed him that the applicant had fallen over. S.Y. had seen her after a while crying and she hugged him for one or two minutes but had stopped when a British man he did not know appeared. O.B. had also informed him a day prior to his statement to the police that on 17 July 2019 he had made a video-recording on his phone. As regards the scratches on his back and chest, he stated that those had been made by the applicant during the three times they had engaged in consensual sex. 39.     O.A. stated that on one occasion the applicant had had sex with S.Y. while she had been performing oral sex on him and I.D. On that occasion I.D. made a video-recording. O.A. stated, inter alia, that he had seen the applicant on 17 July 2019 in S.Y.’s room and she had asked him and S.Y. to have sex. O.A. stated that on that night he had engaged in consensual sex with the applicant while some of their friends were opening the bedroom door and watching, but they had not entered the room. At some point I.D. had gone into the room and had asked the applicant in a normal tone to leave. 40 .     I.D. said in his statement to the police that he had engaged in oral sex with the applicant on previous occasions but had denied ever having sex with the applicant in the form of vaginal or anal penetration. I.D. further stated that on the night of the alleged rape, G.N., Y.I.A. and O.A. had been outside the bedroom door waiting and he had heard one of them asking S.Y. if he could enter the bedroom but S.Y. had refused. However, I.D. had immediately opened the door and asked O.A., who was already in the bedroom, to leave. The applicant had allegedly insulted him and as a result he had told her to leave the flat. He added that prior to the events on the night of 17 July 2019 the applicant had drunk half a bottle of vodka, and that she had also offered vodka to O.A. 41 .     O.B. stated that he had engaged in sex with the applicant on 12 July 2019, after she had chosen him from among some of the other suspects. He had had a condom on, which he had thrown out of the window. He denied that he had had any sexual contact with her on 17 July 2019, the date of the alleged rape. He stated that on that night he had merely made a video ‑ recording of S.Y. and the applicant engaging in sex. Concerning 17   July 2019, he also stated that: “About 01.40am [Y.I.A. and G.N.] went to where the boxing machine is, and they were waiting for [X] to come there because I think that they thought they might have a chance of having sex with her.” 42 .     Two other suspects, namely Y.I.A. and G.N., stated that they had been hoping that they would be able to have sex with the applicant on 17 July 2019 because, according to Y.I.A. “[S.Y.] said to us that he was going to arrange for us to fuck [X]”, but the applicant had refused. G.N. also stated that he and Y.I.A. “thought and expected” he would have sex with the applicant on that day. He stated that the applicant had never told them that she wanted to have sex with them, but they assumed she would from her behaviour, and he gave examples of the applicant boasting about having sex with others on previous dates. According to these two suspects’ accounts, on the day of the alleged rape I.D. had been hiding in the bedroom although the applicant had wanted him to leave; sometime later I.D. had re-entered the room and shouted to the applicant to leave. 43 .     Two suspects, namely E.I.B. and O.B.D., stated that at about midnight or 1 a.m. of 17 July 2019 when they were on their way out to a club they had seen S.Y., Y.I.A., G.N., O.A. and I.D. and asked them to come with them to the club. E.I.B. and O.B.D. told the police that the four men had refused to go out with them saying that they would stay in the room. E.I.B. specifically stated, among other things, the following: “[S.Y.] told me that he is not [going out] because the girl that was in our flat on Friday 12/7/2019 is coming again and they were going to fuck her ass and fuck her big style. I heard them saying all of them that they wanted to fuck her and they were laughing and talking to each other discussing what they were going to do with her. They were saying that they were going to fuck her ass, fuck her big style and they will tear up her ass. They were laughing all the time saying these things. ... After the police took us to the police station we were sitting all together in a room, I hear [I.D.] and [O.A.] whispering to each other that [X] probably reported us.” O.B.D. also stated, among other things, the following: “The night of 16/07/2019 me and [E.I.B.] were in our flat drinking and listening to music. At about midnight, am not sure, we left our flat to go to Ayia Napa square ... As we went downstairs of our building I saw that [S.Y., Y.I.A., G.N., O.A. and I.D.] were there and [E.I.B.] asked them if they are coming at [the club] with us but they said that they were going to stay in our flat because the English girl [X] was coming there later and they were going to fuck her all of them. They were bragging about it and laughing saying that they were going to do orgies with her. They were saying these things in a very bad and aggressive way and they look like they were ready all of them to fuck her that night. ... At the police station where we were after the Hotel all of the boys were talking about our case. [O.A.] said that he fucked the English girl [X] and she reported us and [S.Y.] said that the police will see all the videos and they will understand that it wasn’t rape and that she enjoyed it. Also he said that he did a mistake that he deleted some of the videos from his phone. Also someone said that I.D. also is on some video and I.D. started crying about this. Y.I.A. said that he didn’t do anything and everybody should say that they didn’t do anything. Also I want to add that S.Y. show me a video on his phone with him having sex with [X] and [E.I.B.] is doing a video selfie but he wasn’t having sex. I have no idea if [E.I.B.] had sex with any girl in our room 732.” Other statements 44 .     The applicant’s friend, R.C.P., stated that on the night of the alleged rape the applicant, she and C.L. had gone out and had returned to the Hotel at around 1   a.m. At some point following their return to the Hotel, S.Y. had shouted at the applicant in the presence of his friends because he had been annoyed with her for talking with some other men at the Hotel. Eventually the applicant had gone to S.Y.’s room. After some time R.C.P. had gone to her room and at some point she had heard men talking to the applicant, who had sounded concerned, so she had left her room to check. According to R.C.P.:   “[X] was screaming, crying and generally she was hysterical. She collapsed on the ground and she kept saying that they were coming up to her. She was terrified and really scared. We been to our room and she was lay [ sic ] on my bed and grabbing my hand. I ask her if she was raped by [S.Y.] and she said yes but not just him. ... After that, I went to the clinic in the hotel to ask for help ... [X] said to the doctor that while she was having sex with [S.Y.] he went on top of her face and put his peanuts [ sic ] in her mouth and then shout his friends in. So his friends came and [S.Y.] was holding his leg open by force and all of them, about 11-12 had sex with her without consent. Some of them finished on her face and then she managed to go because the boys were distracted to get another condom. So that’s when she run out and came down to the basement where I met her. One day [X] said that while she was having sex with [S.Y.] about three of his friends wanted to join them but she refused and [S.Y.] told them to go away.” 45.     A British man, J.G.D., who was also staying at the Hotel, stated that in the early hours of 17 July 2019 he had returned to the Hotel after work and in the basement he had seen a fully dressed blonde woman being hugged by a man, and that there had been two other males standing behind him. He said that the woman had been crying and that when he asked what was wrong the men ran away. He had then asked the woman what had happened, and she had gone up to him crying and said that earlier on she had gone to the room with the man who had been hugging her since she had known him from previous days as they had been sleeping together. She had then told him that on that night she had gone to the man’s room, to see him and to relax, and they were alone, but after a while she heard a knock on the door and eleven guys entered the room and they all had sex with her. J.G.D. further stated that she had told him that some had been holding her by the hands and had raped her. J.G.D. stated that he could not smell whether she had been drunk. He and R.C.P. then took the woman to the hotel’s private clinic and then the police arrived. 46 .     The hotel doctor, Dr Se.Se., stated that at 3.33 a.m. on 17 July 2019 he had received a call for help. He had gone to the clinic where he had seen three young women and two young men from the United Kingdom. One of the women was in a panic, crying and had refused to let him go near her. A friend of hers had informed him that she had been raped. Because of the difficulty of the situation, he had suggested that the people accompanying the applicant should sit in the reception area of the hotel infirmary to give her time to relax and that they should give her some water while he called the police. One of her friends had mentioned that she had given the applicant sedatives. A little while later a police car had picked them up from the doctor’s office. 47.     A pub employee (M.E.W.) from the United Kingdom stated that some days before the alleged rape the applicant had informed her that she had had sex with five Israeli nationals, and had shown her bruises she had sustained on the side of her left leg close to her gluteal muscles as a result. 48.     The pub owner (P.K.) stated that he had seen his employee and the applicant having that discussion, but he had not heard the conversation between the two women. 49 .     The hotel receptionist stated that on 17 July 2019 S.Y. had gone to the hotel accompanied by the police and had pointed out other Israeli tourists who had been involved in a rape allegation. She further stated that room 723 had been abandoned “since the night” because when she had gone at 8.30 a.m. to the Hotel room to inform the room occupants that the police had been looking for them, they were not there, and their luggage was missing. 50.     The Hotel housekeeper stated that room 723 had remained closed from 17   July 2019 to 18 July 2019 during which time nobody had gone into the room. The applicant’s retraction statement and the end of the investigation 51.     The Famagusta CID considered that there were various contradictions in the applicant’s first two statements, and on 27 July 2019 they asked her to go to the police station to provide a third, supplementary statement and to clarify certain issues. 52 .     Between 7.15 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. on that day, the applicant gave a third, supplementary statement to a male police officer in the presence of a female police officer and a Social Welfare officer (see paragraphs   17-21 above). The applicant was allowed two fifteen-minute breaks. 53 .     At 1.15 a.m. on 28 July 2019, while the applicant was still at the police station, she signed a retraction statement saying that her account of the events of 17 July 2019 had been false, that she had not been raped and that she had consented to the events of that night. In the same statement she said that the reason she had lied had been that she had found out at a later stage that she had been filmed and had felt humiliated and offended. 54 .     The applicant was arrested at 1.35 a.m. of the same day for the commission of the offence of public mischief and was held in custody. A few hours later the District Court of Famagusta issued an arrest warrant against her as a suspect. 55 .     On the same day the Forensic Electronic Data Laboratory of the Police Headquarters Crime Combating Department prepared a preliminary report on, inter alia, the photographs and video-recordings obtained from the suspects’ mobile phones. 56 .     Later that day the Chief Investigator produced a summary report on the rape complaint which included a statement of facts and his own comments on the evidence collected. The Chief Investigator recited the fact that the doctors who had examined the applicant found no internal or external vaginal or anal injuries and that the suspects’ allegations that the applicant had sex with S.Y. and O.A. while I.D. was in the room and O.B. was making a video ‑ recording had been confirmed by the preliminary forensic report showing that DNA material belonging to S.Y., I.D. and O.A. had been found in room 723. He also said that the video-recordings found in some of the suspects’ phones had shown that the applicant had been visiting room 723 and had had consensual sex with some of the suspects. The report also stated that the applicant’s account of the events of 17 July 2019 could not be valid since a video-recording of the same date taken at 2.56 a.m. had shown the applicant having consensual sex with someone in that room and the images showed a situation very different from the applicant’s description. The Chief Investigator found that his interpretation of the evidence was reinforced by the testimony of the pub owner and the employee who had mentioned that the applicant had had consensual sexual contact with five Israeli nationals. He further stated that from the video-recordings it had appeared that the applicant had started visiting room 723 from the early hours on 13 July and had done so again on 16 and 17 July and that she had consensual sex with S.Y. there. Having compared the applicant’s statements and the contents of the video ‑ recordings, the Chief Investigator concluded that the applicant had wholly distorted the facts. This, according to the Chief Investigator, raised doubts as to the truth of her complaint. He noted that on 28 July 2019 the applicant had admitted that she had lied, and she was therefore arrested, while the remaining seven suspects were released without being charged. As regards the reason for lying, the applicant had said it was because she had been filmed. The Chief Investigator observed that another criminal file had been opened (‘Σ/174/2019’) for a breach of Law 125(I)/2018 (see paragraph   83 below), concerning the offence of the manipulation of personal data without the person’s consent. He lastly found that given the applicant’s admission of having falsified her earlier statement and the remaining evidence against her, such as video-recordings, the coroner’s findings and witness testimonies, the rape allegation had been made up. He suggested that the case be classified as ‘unsubstantiated’. 57 .     On 3 August 2019 the applicant’s lawyer informed the police that a video-recording of the applicant engaging in sex with S.Y. and being filmed by E.I.B. had been published on a website containing explicit sexual content. 58 .     On 6 August 2019 the Institute of Neurology and Genetics of Cyprus prepared a final report outlining the examination of the evidence collected. The report said that I.D. and O.A. “could not be excluded as the origin of mixed DNA material” which had been taken from the applicant’s underwear. The DNA of an unknown male had also been found on the applicant’s underwear. S.Y.’s DNA was found on the applicant’s bodysuit and possibly on her belt. DNA material from S.Y., I.D. and O.A. was found on the swab sample taken from the applicant’s face. Traces of the applicant’s blood was found on one of the condoms recovered from the hotel room. I.D.’s, S.Y.’s and O.A.’s DNA was also found on condoms found inside the room. E.I.B.’s DNA was found on the bedsheets taken by the police from inside the hotel room. 59 .     On 13 August 2019 the Forensic Electronic Data Laboratory of the Police Headquarters Crime Combating Department issued its final report on the photographs and video-recordings obtained from the suspects’ mobile phones (see paragraph 55 above). It had found video-recordings relevant to the case on the phones of G.N., O.B., S.Y., Y.I. and I.D. Some of the video ‑ recordings had been made by them on those phones and others had been shared to them through WhatsApp. 60.     On 5 September 2019 the police forwarded the applicant’s case file and the criminal file on the use of the applicant’s personal data without her consent to the Attorney General’s Office for a decision on how to proceed. The police informed the Attorney General that the applicant had already been indicted for the offence of public mischief. PROCEEDINGS FOR FALSE REPORTING First instance (case no. 2466/18) 61 .     In the meantime, on 29 July 2019 the applicant was charged for the offence of public mischief under section 115 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 78   below) before the District Court of Famagusta (Criminal Division). 62 .     By letter of 18 September 2019, the applicant asked the Attorney General to stay the prosecution explaining how her rights as a victim had been violated by the long and repeated interviews which had led to her retracting her earlier statement. 63 .     On 25 September 2019 the Attorney General refused to stay the prosecution of the applicant. 64 .     On 30 December 2019 the court found the applicant guilty of public mischief. The court considered, inter alia, that the only time the applicant had told the truth to the police had been during her retraction statement when she admitted that she had falsely accused the suspects of rape in retaliation to the fact that they had filmed her while she had been engaging in sexual acts. 65.     On 7 January 2020 the court sentenced the applicant to four months’ imprisonment, suspended for three years. Appeal (case no. 4/2020) 66.     On 16 January 2020 the applicant lodged a criminal appeal in the Supreme Court challenging her sentence. 67 .     On 31 January 2022 the Supreme Court overturned the applicant’s conviction and acquitted her by two votes to one. The majority held, inter alia, as follows. 68 .     The retraction had not been made under conditions with the necessary safeguards. The first instance court had erroneously admitted it in evidence and had been wrong to find that the retraction had been voluntary. The court highlighted, among other things, the fact that the applicant, who was nineteen at the time, had been called in to the Famagusta CID offices for clarifications of her statement as a complainant in the afternoon but in reality had ended up being interrogated as a suspect for six hours, without a lawyer and without having been informed of her right not to incriminate herself, until she retracted her earlier statement at 1.15 a.m. The applicant had not waived her right to a lawyer. 69 .     The court further pointed out that the criminal judge had made his assessments on an erroneous basis since he had proceeded from the premise that the applicant’s position was that the alleged r