CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 3 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2A983CA3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s24E6874 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEBD403DC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1CABE11 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-size:12pt } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA7186A9D { width:36.9pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s7B051ABA { width:164.45pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } FIRST SECTION CASE OF N.T. v. CYPRUS (Application no. 28150/22)   JUDGMENT Art 3 and Art 8 • Positive obligations • Authorities’ response to applicant’s rape allegations in breach of the State’s procedural positive obligations to apply the relevant criminal provisions in practice through effective investigation and prosecution • Authorities’ failure in their central task of assessing the issue of non-consent • Secondary victimisation through guilt-inducing, moralising and sexist stereotypes • Failure to engage in a context-sensitive assessment • Unreasoned refusal of access to the case-file limiting the applicant’s effective participation in the process • Failure to respect the applicant’s rights as a victim and treat her with dignity Art 14 (+ Art 3 and Art 8) • Discrimination • Language used by the prosecutors and the Deputy Attorney-General in assessing the case conveyed prejudices and sexist stereotypes liable to discourage women’s confidence, as victims of gender-based violence, in the justice system • Methods used to assess the authenticity of the applicant’s consent deprived her of appropriate protection and exposed her to secondary victimisation   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 3 July 2025   FINAL   03/10/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of N.T. v. Cyprus, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ivana Jelić , President ,   Erik Wennerström,   Alena Poláčková,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Raffaele Sabato,   Frédéric Krenc,   Anna Adamska-Gallant , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   28150/22) 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 Cypriot national, Ms N.T. (“the applicant”), on 3 June 2022; the decision to give notice to the Cypriot Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article 3, Article 8 alone and Article   14 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the decision not to disclose the applicant’s name; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by the AIRE Centre and Step Up Stop Slavery, who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 10 June 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns a complaint of 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. It further concerns the applicant’s allegation that she suffered gender-based discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1992 and lives in Larnaca. She was represented by Ms L. Cariolou, a lawyer practising in Nicosia. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr G. L. Savvides, Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.         APPLICANT’S ALLEGATION OF RAPE 5 .     On 10 April 2021 the applicant reported to the police that she had been raped by A.T. on 1 January 2011. She submitted a statement to a female police officer. 6.     At the time of the alleged incident, the applicant was 18 years old and A.T. was 20. 7 .     The applicant stated to the police that she had known A.T. since 2007 from school and was attracted to him. She had confided this to a friend, C.S. In 2009, after meeting at a club, A.T. kissed her with her consent and did not pursue further sexual acts when he noticed her discomfort. After that, they saw each other in their hometown but did not speak. 8 .     On 1 January 2011, at about 1 a.m., she went out to a club with her friend C.S. They later met A.T. and his friend G.H. and the four went to eat. A.T. then stopped outside a warehouse which he had keys to and insisted they go inside. C.S. refused, and the applicant initially resisted but entered to use the bathroom. G.H. and C.S. stayed outside. Inside, A.T. led her upstairs to the bathroom, where he grabbed her and tried to undress her. She resisted, but he forced her onto some boxes. Too scared to shout, she remained silent. C.S. later came upstairs, but A.T. made the applicant ask her to leave, which she did out of fear. A.T. then raped her orally and vaginally. She initially froze but later tried to repel him from forcing oral sex by moving her head and she later tried to stop him from forcing vaginal penetration by scratching and biting him. He did not stop and asked her to stop scratching him. He continued forcing himself inside her and started biting her neck with force. He asked her if she liked it and whether he should continue. She initially did not reply but eventually said, “Please stop, why are you tormenting me? You can have sex with anyone you want” ( σε παρακαλώ σταμάτα, γιατί με ταλαιπωρείς; Μπορείς να κάνεις σεξ με όποια θέλεις ). The assault lasted about half an hour before A.T. dressed and left her naked on the floor. As she got dressed, C.S. came back upstairs, but the applicant did not speak about the incident. She later stated she had felt humiliated and used. She left the warehouse with C.S., who stayed with her overnight. The applicant had nightmares. She got up and saw in the bathroom mirror that she had bruises and bite marks on her neck. She woke C.S., asking if she had been dreaming. C.S. saw the marks but did not inquire further. Nothing else was said between them. 9 .     The applicant stated that upon her return abroad for her studies she told a male friend (D.N.) that A.T. had raped her. 10.     She stated that because of the rape, she was emotionally unstable, could not sleep and sometimes vomited in her sleep. 11 .     In 2016 she visited a psychologist (S.P.) and spoke about the rape without revealing A.T.’s identity. 12 .     She saw a second psychologist (D.D.) and continued seeing her at the time she gave her statement. She also confided in her about the rape. 13 .     Lastly, she stated that she had decided to report the rape following a conversation on Facebook with S.N., a friend who had informed her that A.T. had raped another classmate in a club bathroom. S.N. had said the girl, whose name was not revealed, did not wish to inform the police. This information had given her the strength to stop A.T.’s actions.       POLICE INVESTIGATION AND THE INDICTMENT of the suspect 14 .     The police opened an investigation file immediately after the applicant had submitted her complaint. 15 .     On 11 April 2021 the applicant sent to the police screenshots of the conversation she had had with S.N. who had informed her on Facebook that another girl had confided in him that A.T. had raped her when she was a student. 16 .     On 14 April 2021 they took a statement from D.N. (see paragraph   9 above), who confirmed that the applicant had told him of the rape in 2010 during their studies. He stated that he had known A.T. from school and that he had not been surprised by his behaviour, as A.T. had shown delinquent behaviour at school. 17 .     On the same day the police interviewed C.S. She stated that she had been good friends with the applicant since school. She knew that the applicant had been attracted to A.T. She confirmed that, on 1   January 2011 after a night out, A.T. led them to a warehouse into which C.S. refused to enter. She stated that the applicant went inside, as she needed to use the bathroom. G.H. and C.S. stayed outside but A.T. then told them to go into the warehouse. A.T. went up the stairs to the mezzanine floor. After some time, C.S. went up the stairs looking for the applicant. She saw A.T. holding the applicant with his two hands on her shoulders while she was sitting on some boxes. Both were clothed. A.T. told the applicant to tell C.S. to go back downstairs, which the applicant did. C.S. stated that she then tried to leave the warehouse, but the door had been locked by A.T., so she sat waiting downstairs with G.H. She heard some speaking and noises but did not suspect anything bad. About twenty or thirty minutes later, she saw A.T. wearing his shirt. A.T. then went downstairs, unlocked the door and left with G.H. C.S. then went upstairs to find the applicant, who was dressed but was acting strangely. They then returned home together. At some point, the applicant woke her up asking her if what had happened was true. C.S. stated that she did not remember replying, as she had been sleepy. She got up and she stated that she remembered vividly seeing the applicant’s neck full of bruises. She further stated that she remembered that the applicant’s fingernail was broken. The applicant was upset and restless but did not confide in her. After the applicant had returned to her studies, C.S. invited her to visit multiple times but she had not done so and had lost her will to do anything else. C.S. also stated that in 2010 during Easter holidays she and the applicant were out eating and there they saw A.T. with his friends. A.T. asked C.S. if he could speak with her and led her to an alley near the restaurant. He pushed her against the wall and tried to kiss her. She was scared and pushed him back. He then grabbed her head violently and pulled her down to his genitals, asking her to give him oral sex. She resisted and at that point people passed by and she ran back to the restaurant to find the applicant. She had not informed anyone about that incident before, not even the applicant, as she had been really scared, ashamed and did not wish to hurt the applicant, knowing that she had feelings for A.T. That had also been the reason why she had resisted going inside the warehouse in the first place. 18.     On 16 April 2021 the police took a statement from S.P., a psychologist who had treated the applicant as a patient and to whom the applicant had confided that she had been raped without revealing the assailant’s name (see paragraph 11 above) . S.P. stated that the applicant had visited him approximately three or four years prior and had had ten sessions with him. He had not kept records of their meetings. 19.     On the same day, the police took a statement from S.N. about the conversation he had had with the applicant on Facebook messenger (see paragraph   13 above). S.N. stated that in February 2021 he posted on his Facebook page that he knew of a candidate in the parliamentarian elections who had been involved in a sexual assault case. Following his post, the applicant contacted him, enquiring if that candidate was A.T., to which he replied yes. 20.     On 20 April 2021 the police called A.T. for an interview in his lawyer’s presence, informing him of the rape complaint. A.T. refused to answer any of the questions posed by the police. 21 .     On 22 April 2021 the police interviewed G.H. – a friend of A.T. who had been present at the warehouse on 1 January 2011. He stated that he had known the applicant and her friend, C.S., from school. He stated that on 1   January 2011 he was out at a club with A.T. They stayed at the club until after 4 a.m. The applicant contacted them asking them to meet. When they left the club, they met with the applicant and her friend as agreed. They walked around the area and arrived outside the warehouse of A.T.’s father with the purpose of spending time together. Once they went inside the warehouse, he and C.S. stayed on the ground floor while A.T. and the applicant went upstairs, which was approximately 3 metres above them. He stated that, because of the layout of the warehouse he should have been able to hear noises, but he did not. Nor did he hear any screams or intense or strange movements. He stated that they stayed at the warehouse for about forty-five minutes, which meant that it would have been impossible for such an act to take place without them realising it. After that time the applicant and A.T. left the upper floor together and the applicant did not seem upset with A.T. They all left the warehouse together. 22 .     On the same day the police went to the street where the applicant had told them that the warehouse was located and took several pictures of the street and the surrounding buildings. In speaking to the community councillor ( κοινοτάρχης ), the police were informed that there used to be warehouses on that street which had been demolished nine years prior. 23.     On 28 April 2021 the investigator prepared a summary report of the applicant’s complaint and the police’s investigative steps. 24.     On 29 April 2021 the police forwarded that report, along with the investigation file, to the Law Office of the Republic with a recommendation that there was sufficient evidence to initiate criminal prosecution against A.T. 25 .     On 7 May 2021 the police filed an indictment for the offence of rape against A.T. with the Larnaca District Court (case no. 3428/21). 26 .     On 10 May 2021 the applicant submitted a supplementary statement to the police (“the first supplementary statement”). She stated that she had been informed by people who also knew A.T. that he had in his possession text conversations exchanged between them, proving that her claim was false. For that reason, the applicant traced their conversations on Facebook Messenger, printed them and delivered them to the police. The applicant mentioned one text in particular that she had sent to A.T. on 1   December 2011 sending him greetings for his name day and telling him she loved him, despite his having shown his worst self to her, to which A.T. had not replied. The applicant clarified in her statement that she believed that her being raped had been her own fault on account of the image A.T. had had of her. At the time she had been an outgoing person and had gone to clubs. A.T. had known that she had liked him and so had others around them. She assumed, therefore, that she had given him the wrong message that her consent was implied. She believed that she bore complete responsibility for what had happened, found excuses for his behaviour and wished to protect him from going to jail. She further stated that she could not reconcile how a person she liked could have raped her. She understood years later, after internally processing the event, that the reason she had developed this attitude towards him had been to justify her cowardice in reporting him in 2011. She had buried her feelings and decided to continue with her life as if nothing had happened. In the summer of 2012, she had met A.T. outside the offices of a political party, which was holding internal elections for the executive committee of the youth party. A.T. had approached her, informed her that he was a candidate for election and asked her if she wished to vote for him. At that point she had felt that there was finally a balance and that they could have normal social contact. She had later texted him to congratulate him on his election, as she had had the inclination to protect and care for him. In 2014-15 she had reached a psychological block and started seeing a psychologist in 2014. Her last conversation with A.T. had been on 6 October 2013. She had also seen him in June   2014 at a friend’s funeral. 27.     On 18 May 2021 the Larnaca District Court referred the criminal case against A.T. to the Assize Court (since cases where the sentence provided by law for the offence in question exceeds five years imprisonment, are brought before the Assize Court). 28 .     On 10 June 2021 the Attorney General’s Office (Prosecutor A.A.) filed a new indictment with the Assize Court, charging A.T. for the offence of, inter alia , rape pursuant to sections 144 and 145 of the Criminal Code. On the same day A.T. entered a not guilty plea and was released on bail. The Assize Court dismissed a request by the prosecutor to order A.T to deliver his passport as a condition for his provisional release. 29 .     On 16 June 2021 Prosecutor A.A. sent a letter to the Police Headquarters Department for Combating Crime, in which he asked the department to obtain a second supplementary statement from the applicant, given that she had informed him that an incident related to the rape complaint had not been recorded in her initial statement. 30.     On 25 June 2021 the applicant submitted a second supplementary statement to the police. In it, the applicant stated that a year prior to her rape, that is, on 1 January 2010, she had had consensual sexual intercourse with A.T. in the same warehouse in which he had raped her on 1   January 2011. C.S. and G.H. had also been on the ground floor of the warehouse, having consensual sexual intercourse while she was having consensual sex with A.T. on the mezzanine floor. After that, A.T. and G.H. had driven them home. The applicant stated that what she had experienced on 1 January 2010 was completely different to the act of 1   January 2011, which had not taken place with her consent. The applicant also stated that she had informed the police in her first statement that she had had consensual sexual intercourse with A.T. in January 2010 but both she and the police officer interviewing her deemed it unrelated to the facts of her complaint, as that had taken place with her consent. Following reflection, she had had doubts as to whether that was correct, and she had therefore informed the public prosecutor of the incident.     ATTORNEY GENERAL’S DECISION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROSECUTION 31 .     On 2 September 2021 the prosecutor (Mr. A.A.) sent a note to the Attorney General, suggesting that there were serious questions arising from the available testimony, which, in conjunction with the developments of the case, warranted its re-evaluation. The prosecutor considered in this regard the applicant’s first supplementary statement revealing her sympathetic feelings for A.T. and her consideration that she may have led him to believe that consent on her part should be taken for granted, as she liked him, and he and others had been aware this. In that statement she had also revealed feelings of bitterness, although she had made no mention of the texts in her original statement. The prosecutor suggested that this should be evaluated, along with the fact that in her original statement she had stated that the suspect had told her to stop scratching him and had asked her whether she liked it and whether he should continue, to which she had not replied at first, and when asked again, she had replied, “Please stop, why are you tormenting me? You can have sex with anyone you want”. The prosecutor argued that the combination of those issues raised a question as to whether the possibility that A.T. had considered that the applicant had given her consent at the relevant time could be ruled out. The prosecutor also informed the Attorney General of the fact that the applicant had indeed mentioned orally to the police that she had had consensual sexual intercourse with A.T. in 2010 but, according to the police officer who had taken her statement, the applicant had requested that that event not be recorded in her statement. The prosecutor concluded that what had been stated in the applicant’s second supplementary statement was contradictory to certain references in her first statement. Specifically, the prosecutor considered that in her first statement the applicant had made it seem as if she had not known the place where the rape had taken place in 2011. In addition, she had mentioned that following the 2009 event during which A.T. had transferred her to an isolated area, she had seen A.T. in various places in Larnaca but they had not spoken. 32.     On 14 September 2021 the prosecutor in charge of the Criminal Law Department of the Law Office replied in a handwritten note that the case appeared to be creating difficulties and ordered the arrangement of a meeting with the applicant to test her credibility and take a decision as to whether the case should proceed in court. 33 .     On the same day another prosecutor (Mrs M.P.) working at the Law Office also prepared a note to the Deputy Attorney General and the prosecutor in charge of the Criminal Law Department of the Law Office. M.P. outlined certain inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements, such as the fact that she had stated that she had not spoken to the applicant between 2009 and 2011, how she had considered that she herself had been at fault for her rape, that the two had been exchanging texts until 2013, that the applicant had been calling him “love” and that she had been the one initiating those conversations. According to M.P., the applicant had evidently not told the entire truth in her first statement, and she may have tried to hide facts that she considered might harm her complaint. M.P. noted that the inconsistencies in the statements could only be explained by the applicant. M.P. further noted that there was testimony supporting the applicant’s statements, such as that of her friend C.S., her psychologist and S.N. 34 .     On an unspecified date, which the applicant submitted was 15   October 2021, she attended a meeting with the prosecutors, A.A. and M.P., and the female police officer who had taken her initial statement. 35 .     On 15 October 2021 the applicant was treated at the emergency services of Larnaca General Hospital for, according to the clinical report, anxiety disorder. 36 .     On 1 December 2021 the Deputy Attorney General decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against A.T. He prepared a report after having heard prosecutors M.P. and A.A., who had met with the applicant. He noted that the applicant’s credibility remained in question. Her replies to questions posed at the meeting had not been based on substance, she had interpreted legal issues and matters rather than giving facts and she had stated that she was not sure whether she would have wanted to have sex with A.T. had he not been violent with her. He further noted that there were many inconsistencies between her statement and those of other witnesses. There were also inconsistencies between her statement and evidence such as her online conversations with A.T., which were only revealed later and raised serious questions. She had also mentioned that her friends no longer spoke to her, as everyone knew that she liked A.T. He noted in addition that the applicant’s admission that she liked A.T. was of particular importance as regards the issue of credibility, as it might have somehow impacted her behaviour by sending him the wrong signal that consent on her behalf was self-evident ( ότι η συναίνεση ήταν κάτι αυτονόητο από μέρους της ). He further noted that irrespective of her credibility it was important to examine whether A.T. could have subjectively, even if wrongly, believed that the complainant had consented. If that were the case, the conditions of the offence of rape were not met. Under the same approach, the applicant herself had opened that defence in her first supplementary statement when she had not only stated that her consent was self-evident ( ήταν κάτι το αυτονόητο ) but that when the incident had occurred, she had blamed herself that the defendant had had such an image of her because of her own behaviour. He further noted that the applicant had believed that she had only herself to blame for what had happened to her. The Deputy Attorney General stated that these factors had been unknown to the Law Office when the applicant’s case was first assessed and prosecution was initiated. As a result, he decided to discontinue the criminal prosecution, considering that the above-mentioned decision satisfied the public interest including, inter alia , safeguarding the rights of the defendant. He added that his decision was also based on the low chance of success of the case before the court and that lack of success in several criminal prosecutions could have a deterrent effect on victims from reporting such offences in the future. In conclusion, he noted that the time factor had not played any part in his decision, as it could not in such cases be considered to be a negative element. 37.     On the same day, the Deputy Attorney General signed a nolle ‑ prosequi , suspending A.T.’s prosecution. 38 .     On 2 December 2021 A.T. made a public post on the web entitled “Time for justice”, explaining that the public prosecutor had withdrawn the criminal case against him. His post was reproduced on a local online news website. It appears that on the same day the criminal proceedings before the court were terminated. 39.     On 3 December 2021 the public prosecutor informed the applicant over the phone of the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings. 40.     On 27 December 2021 the applicant requested a copy of the Attorney General’s decision to discontinue the prosecution of the case and to be informed of the reasons for that decision. She further requested that the decision terminating the proceedings against A.T. be reviewed. 41.     By a letter of 4 January 2022, the Deputy Attorney General replied that the above-mentioned decision had been communicated to her by the public prosecutor in the latter’s office. The prosecutor in charge of the case had explained to the applicant that the prosecution had been discontinued following a review of the evidence and, specifically, the statements given by the applicant after the case had been lodged with the court, which included new allegations and exhibits which had not been part of the case file when the decision to prosecute had been made. This had led to the reassessment of the decision to prosecute A.T. 42.     By a letter of 4 February 2022, the applicant replied that even though she had briefly discussed the reasons for the decision with the public prosecutor over the phone, she still wanted to be informed of the reasons for the decision to discontinue the prosecution following the review of her supplementary statements and evidence. The applicant further requested a copy of the case file in criminal proceedings no. 3428/21, copies of her statements to the police, any other documents or material related to her complaint of 10 April 2021 and minutes of the meetings between her, attorneys from the Law Office and the police which had taken place for the reassessment of her complaint. 43 .     By a letter of 21 February 2022, the Deputy Attorney General replied that the reasons for discontinuing the prosecution had been explained by the public prosecutor. The Deputy Attorney General reiterated that the evidence had had to be reassessed because the applicant had given two supplementary statements in which she had made new allegations which the Attorney General’s office had not been aware of when the decision to prosecute the offender was taken. The applicant’s request for a copy of the case file was dismissed. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE         RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW    Criminal Code (CAP. 154) 44 .     Article 144 of the Criminal Code, as in force at the time of the alleged rape, provided: “Any person who engages in unlawful intercourse with a woman without her consent, or with her consent obtained by force or fear of bodily harm, or in case of a married woman by personating her husband, is guilty of a felony classified as rape.” 45.     Article 145 provided that a person who committed the offence of rape was subject to life imprisonment.    Law on the Establishment of Minimum Standards on the Rights, Support and Protection of Victims of Crime of 2016 (Law   51(I)/2016) 46 .     Law 51(I)/2016 transposed the Victims’ Rights Directive (2012/29/EU) into Cypriot law. The relevant provisions of the law read as follows: Section 4 - Obligations of authorities and NGOs “4. Every authority and / or non-governmental organisation involved shall, in applying the provisions of the present law – (a) in every encounter of the victim with the victims’ support services or the prosecutorial or judicial authorities acting in the context of criminal proceedings, treat the victim with dignity, respect [and] sensitivity and shall take a personalised approach without discrimination; (b) ensure the protection and promotion of the rights of victims, without discrimination [based] on any reason including sex ... ... (g) guarantee that a person who has been subjected to violence based on their sex receive special support and protection given the high risk of secondary and repeated victimisation, threats and revenge attacks connected with such violence; ...” Section 6 – Right to receive information from the first contact with an appropriate authority “6. (1) Every authority involved shall provide from their first contact with the victim, without unnecessary delay ... the following information: (a) the type of support they can obtain and from whom, including, where relevant, basic information about access to medical support, any specialist support, including psychological support, and alternative accommodation; (b) the procedures for making a complaint of a criminal offence and their role in connection with such procedures; ... (e) how and under what conditions they can access interpretation and translation services;” Section 19 – Right to protection of victims during criminal investigations “19. Without prejudice to the rights of the defendant and in accordance with the rules of judicial discretion, the prosecuting authorities shall ensure that during criminal investigations: (a) interviews with victims are conducted without unjustified delay after a complaint of a criminal offence has been made to the appropriate authority; (b) the number of interviews with victims is kept to a minimum and interviews are carried out only where strictly necessary for the purposes of the criminal investigation; (c) victims may be accompanied by their legal representative and a person of their choice, unless a decision for which reasons must be given has been made to the contrary; (d) medical examinations are kept to a minimum and are carried out only where strictly necessary for the purposes of the criminal proceedings.” Section 20 - Right to protection of privacy “20. (1) During the criminal proceedings, the appropriate authorities shall take appropriate measures to protect the privacy, including the personal details, of the victim given in the individual assessment provided for under section 21, and any images of victims and of their family members. (2) ... (3) The private life and identity of the victim shall be protected by every authority involved and the processing of personal data shall always be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Law on the Processing of Personal Data (Protection of the Person).” Section 24 – Training of State officers “24. The State shall provide the necessary funds to the services involved in criminal investigations for both the general and specialist training of their officers who may be involved in any procedures under the present law or who may come into contact with victims or potential victims in any way, with emphasis on the needs of particularly vulnerable victims, for the purpose of increasing their awareness of the needs of victims and to enable them to deal with victims in an impartial, respectful and professional manner; ...”       DOMESTIC CASE-LAW 47 .     While there is no explicit reference to the mens rea of the offence of rape in section 144 of Cap. 154, domestic case-law provides that what is required is knowledge of the absence of consent or indifference as to whether the victim was consenting (see the judgments in N.X. v. the Republic , criminal appeal no.   113/2010, (2012) 2 C.L.R. 2012, and The   Republic v. Costel Viorel Moca and Andrei Tarita , criminal case no.   14493/13, 6 May 2014). In case no.   14493/13, the Assize Court noted the following as regards the offence of rape: “As can be seen from [section 144], rape is [considered] committed when there is unlawful intercourse without the consent of the complainant or with her consent obtained by force or fear of bodily harm. The consent provided for in the law includes the element of free will. As a matter of principle, there is no difference between non-consent and apparent consent resulting from fear or violence being inflicted on the victim. Whether a complainant consented or not to the sexual act is always a matter of fact. It is not required that the complainant demonstrate or explicitly state to the accused her lack of consent, but the prosecution must present evidence, depending on the circumstances of each case, that demonstrates this lack of consent. It is also not required to prove any physical resistance on the part of the complainant. In order to prove the offense of rape, in addition to the existence of the sexual act and the lack of consent, the existence of mens rea must also be demonstrated. Rape occurs when the defendant has sexual intercourse with the complainant knowing that she has not consented to the act or is indifferent to whether there is consent or not. Indifference exists when the defendant realises that the complainant may not consent or is not concerned about that issue and proceeds with the sexual act. However, when it appears from all the evidence before the court that the defendant had reasonable grounds to actually believe ( να πιστεύει πραγματικά ) that the complainant had consented to the sexual act, then there can be no conviction.” 48 .     In accordance with domestic case-law, in sexual offenses, the criminal court looks for corroborating evidence, retaining, however, the discretion to convict even if it does not find such evidence after, however, warning itself of the risks of conviction without corroboration (see the judgments in D.A. v. The Republic , criminal appeal no. 57/2020, 6   October 2021; A.F.K. v. The Republic , criminal appeal no. 44/2018, 6   December 2019; S.S. v. The Republic , criminal appeals nos.   147/2016 and 148/2016, 20   November 2019; and E.A. v. Republic , criminal appeal no. 231/2018, 19   November 2019). 49 .     The Government provided the Court with two further examples of cases where defendants accused of sexual offences had been convicted for assaults which had taken place more than twenty-seven and forty years before ( G.P.B. v. The Police, criminal appeal no. 5/2020, 31 July 2021, and Larnaca Police Director v. X.M., criminal case no. 2857/21, 15   May 2023 respectively).     RELEVANT DOMESTIC PRACTICE 50 .     According to information provided by the Government, rape complaints and other offences of sexual abuse are investigated by the police on the basis of a special protocol that determines the way the police investigate such cases, including the way victims are treated by the police and the police’s cooperation with other governmental authorities and departments. This protocol is now incorporated in Police Directive no.   3/63 entitled “Investigation of cases of rape and sexual abuse” (Police Directive no.   22.2.21 as amended on 19   May 2022). 51 .     The special protocol determines the way rape and other related complaints are investigated by the police, including the requirement that statements must be taken by a police officer of the same sex as the victim and that the investigation must continue even if the victim does not give a statement. Moreover, detailed guidance is provided with regard to the taking of evidence, including, inter alia , the examination of the crime scene for evidence and the taking of photographs, forensic examination, taking statements from neighbours and any other potential witnesses and checking CCTV footage. It provides for informing the victim of their rights, bringing the case before the court without delay and cooperation with other governmental departments and offices.    RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE 52.     The relevant provisions of various European Union laws and Council of Europe materials on the rights of victims of crime and the protection of women against violence, including the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (the Istanbul Convention), which entered into force in respect of Cyprus on 1   March 2018, were recently outlined in X v. Greece (no.   38588/21, §§ 23-30 and 32 ‑ 33, 13   February 2024). 53 .     On 23 November 2022 the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO), an independent expert body responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Istanbul Convention by the parties to that convention, published its baseline evaluation report on Cyprus. The passages of the baseline evaluation report relevant to the present case read as follows: “III. Prevention ... D. Training of professionals (Article 15) 85. The standard set by the Convention in its Article 15 is that of systematic initial and in-service training of the relevant professionals who deal with victims or perpetrators of all acts of violence. The training that is required must cover the prevention and detection of such violence, equality between women and men, the needs and rights of victims and the prevention of secondary victimisation. ... 88. When it comes to the training of prosecutors and judges, GREVIO is concerned about the lack of mandatory initial and in-service training, with a few sporadic training sessions being offered on a voluntary basis. As described in Chapter VI, a milestone decision by the Supreme Court overturning the conviction in a British woman’s rape trial, revealed a number of shortcomings with regard to the lack of sensitivity of judges and omissions made by the prosecution service leading to repeat victimisation of the victim. GREVIO’s attention has also been drawn to concerns that some judges and prosecutors have displayed sexist and misogynist attitudes towards women victims of domestic violence and sexual violence/rape, downplaying the violence. Moreover, they appeared to have an inadequate understanding of the paradigmatic shift in proving rape since the amendment of the law and the importance of temporary protection orders in breaking the circle of violence. ... 93. GREVIO strongly encourages the Cypriot authorities to take legislative and other measures to ensure systematic and mandatory initial and in-service training on all forms of violence against women for the relevant professionals who deal with victims or perpetrators, particularly prosecutors and judges, law-enforcement officers, social services staff, healthcare personnel, journalists and teachers, in line with the requirements of the Istanbul Convention. Particular attention should be paid to overcoming entrenched stereotypes and a patriarchal culture and to ensuring the continuity and sustainability of the funding of such training, so that it is not project based. 94. In addition, GREVIO urges the Cypriot authorities to ensure the training and relative protocols for law-enforcement officials who directly or indirectly receive reports and investigate cases of violence against women: a. underscore the obligation to record all reports of violence against women; b. address and debunk prejudices and patriarchal attitudes; c. address the concept of power and control and the need to adequately record patterns of abuse in the context of domestic violence; d. offer instruction on how and where to receive reports and interview victims in a manner that prevents secondary victimisation; e. ...; f. clarify how to comprehensively collect all relevant evidence in addition to the victim’s statement or, in cases of rape, in addition to the forensic evidence lifted from the victim; ... 95. With regard to prosecutors and judges, GREVIO urges the Cypriot authorities to provide them with robust training on violence against women, as well as guidelines or protocols that address: a. the debunking of prejudices and patriarchal attitudes; b. especially for prosecutors, the importance of ensuring the collection of additional evidence other than the victim’s or perpetrator’s statement; ... d. the dissuasive and revictimising effect that impunity for violence against women has on victims; e. the implications of the new provision on rape based on lack of consent, including the shift of the onus onto the perpetrator to ensure that all sexual acts are engaged in voluntarily; and the role of interim restraining orders and restraining orders in breaking the cycle of violence in cases of domestic violence and other forms of violence against women, as well as the importance and preventive role of perpetrator programmes. ... IV. Protection and support ... G. Support for victims of sexual violence (Article 25) 149. ... GREVIO notes with regret that no rape crisis or sexual violence referral centers capable of providing holistic and comprehensive support to victims of rape and sexual violence are currently in place in Cyprus. 150. ... [Only] four forensic experts, who are responsible for taking evidence in respect of all types of crimes, are available in the whole country. These experts are not specialised in the taking of evidence in cases of rape/sexual violence and are therefore accompanied by a gynaecologist. While they are on call on a 24/7 basis, the scarcity of experts often entails long periods for the victim, further exacerbating their trauma. Moreover, three out of four forensic experts are men. 151. ... 152. ... From the foregoing it follows that currently the provision of specialist support services to victims of rape/sexual violence is not comprehensive, nor provided on a one ‑ stop-shop basis. Currently a rape victim would in fact need to approach, consecutively, several institutions/entities, including the hospital, social welfare services, the telephone helplines and the Women’s House and retell her story multiple times before receiving some of the need support. ... 153. With a view to avoiding secondary victimisation and providing comprehensive support to victims of rape and sexual violence, GREVIO urges the Cypriot authorities to set up rape crisis or sexual violence referral centres in sufficient numbers in the country and provide medical and forensic examinations, trauma support and psychological counselling for victims. ... It also urges in the Cypriot authorities in particular to: a. ensure that forensic examinations are carried out in line with intentionally recognised standards and that measures are taken to ensure that forensic ev