CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 13 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sC02E897A { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sD37EA1D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; 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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0A217A5 { 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 } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDBF374D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB711C2B8 { width:34.45pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s71220C2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9A6E8000 { width:6.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s1B1D10B4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7B868B6A { width:9.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6B38CF35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA6765C01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8508A14D { width:8.94pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sD95767A9 { width:33.22pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s436D3C2F { width:146.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s72832412 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sD8909BE6 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } SECOND SECTION CASE OF R.E. AND OTHERS v. ICELAND (Applications nos. 59809/19 and 3 others – see appended list)   JUDGMENT   Art 3 and Art 8 (procedural) • Positive obligations • Alleged failure to adequately protect the applicants, including minors, and conduct an effective investigation into their complaints of sexual assault • Substantive and procedural domestic legal framework capable, in principle, of providing effective protection against sexual violence • Adequate and sufficient legal characterisation of allegations • Application of special procedural guarantees for minor victims in line with the Convention standards • Effective investigations Art 14 (+ Art 3 and Art 8) • Discrimination • Alleged gender-based discrimination in handling of sexual violence cases • Various legislative and policy measures adopted to combat sexual violence • Insufficient prima facie evidence of structural bias or disproportionate effect capable of shifting the burden of proof to the State   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 13 January 2026   FINAL   13/04/2026   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of R.E. and Others v. Iceland, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Saadet Yüksel,   Jovan Ilievski,   Péter Paczolay,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Hugh Mercer , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the four applications (nos. 59809/19, 8034/20, 14407/20 and 17008/20) against the Republic of Iceland lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by four Icelandic nationals (“the applicants”) on the dates indicated in the appendix; the decision to give notice to the Icelandic Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the alleged failure to carry out an effective investigation into sexual assaults and to protect the applicants against gender-based discrimination, to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the decision not to disclose the applicants’ names and to identify the two applicants who were minors at the material time only by letters of the alphabet; the parties’ observations; the comments submitted by the AIRE Centre which was granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the alleged failure of the Icelandic authorities to conduct effective investigations into the applicants’ complaints of sexual violence, as well as allegations of gender-based discrimination in the handling of such cases. The applicants complained of a violation of Articles   3 and 8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article   14. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were represented before the Court by Sigrún Ingibjörg Gísladóttir, a lawyer practising in Reykjavík. 3.     The Government were represented by their successive Agents and Co ‑ Agents, Einar Karl Hallvarðsson, Guðrún Sesselja Arnardóttir and Fanney Rós Þorsteinsdóttir. I.         APPLICATION No. 59809/19 LODGED BY R.E. A.    Alleged sexual assault 4.     On 5   December 2017 R.E. lodged a complaint with the Reykjavík Metropolitan Police (“RMP”) against her co-worker K. concerning an alleged rape that had occurred on 20 October 2017. 5.     According to R.E.’s statement, she had been at an office party where free alcoholic drinks were available. She remembered little of the evening but knew she had gone with co-workers to a nightclub. Two of her friends who worked at the club had told her that K. had been buying her drinks and that she had been very intoxicated. 6.     R.E. stated that she next remembered sitting on K.’s bed, fully clothed. After a few seconds everything went black. Her next memory was waking up lying on her side in bed with vomit having leaked from her mouth, while K. was having intercourse with her from behind. She could not move or say anything and fell asleep again. 7.     The morning after, R.E. and K. proceeded to have consensual sexual intercourse but when getting dressed she noticed that her tights were torn and the zipper on her trousers was broken. After leaving K.’s home, she had gone to her academy where she told a friend about going home with someone without remembering it and showed her the broken zipper. 8.     R.E. messaged K. asking for explanations as she remembered almost nothing. His response stated that nothing wrong had happened. In November 2017, after encountering K. at work, R.E. messaged him again, stating she remembered more details. During their subsequent phone conversation, K. had initially said he did not remember anything but later described kissing and foreplay before R.E. started vomiting. B.    Police investigation 9.     After R.E. reported the incident to the police on 5   December 2017, officers assisted her in finding legal counsel. She filed formal charges on 11   December 2017 and was questioned the same day. Her counsel later provided the police with copies of her exchanges with K. 10.     The case was investigated under Article   194 of the General Penal Code (“the GPC”), the provision defining and penalising rape. It was classified as priority level 2 to be dealt with quickly (see paragraph 69 below on prioritisation of police work at the material time). The police considered more urgent investigative action unnecessary because her account did not warrant it and considerable time (seven weeks) had elapsed since the alleged offence. 11.     K. was questioned on 26   October 2018. He denied having committed a sexual offence, stating that the sexual intercourse had been consensual. He acknowledged that both he and R.E. had been very intoxicated but maintained that she had been conscious and responsive during their encounter. 12.     Between 27 and 29   October 2018, the police questioned six witnesses: S.H. (a friend R.E. met after the incident), B.E. (a co-worker), L.K. (R.E.’s female relative), S.B. and H.A. (her superiors at work), and S.A. (K.’s mother, who was present in their home at the time of the incident). None were direct witnesses to the incident, but they testified about events before and after and their exchanges with both R.E. and K. about the allegation of sexual assault. 13.     The investigation plan noted seven additional potential witnesses identified by R.E. and K. The police did not question these individuals, concluding that their testimony would not contribute anything material beyond the existing witness statements. These potential witnesses included H.S., a bartender at the nightclub, whom R.E. had identified as having observed her level of intoxication and seen K. buying drinks for her on the night in question. C.    Decisions by domestic authorities 14 .     On 28   January 2019 the RMP discontinued the investigation. The police concluded that, while the sexual intercourse was undisputed, the parties disagreed on whether it was consensual. The decision and the additional reasoning subsequently provided at the request of the State Prosecutor cited K.’s firm denial of non-consensual activity; R.E.’s own limited recollection of events; the absence of direct witnesses to the incident; the lack of additional evidence, including from the Emergency Reception Unit for Victims of Sexual Abuse (“the Emergency Reception Unit”); the consensual intercourse occurring the following morning, and the assessment that it was not justified to continue the investigation. 15 .     R.E. appealed this decision to the State Prosecutor, submitting additional evidence in the form of a statement from Stígamót , a victims’ support centre, issued on 14   November 2017, which indicated that she had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in relation to more than one sexual assault and that symptoms had been present for more than three months. She also contended that the police had failed to question witness H.S. She emphasised that she had been incapable of giving consent due to her level of intoxication, and suggested that additional certificates be obtained from her psychologist and Stígamót . 16.     By decision of 22   May 2019, the State Prosecutor upheld the RMP’s decision to discontinue the investigation. The State Prosecutor reviewed the evidence gathered, including the witness statements and psychological report, and noted that in the absence of direct witnesses, the case essentially turned on the conflicting accounts of R.E. and K. regarding consent. The State Prosecutor concluded that further investigation would neither shed additional light on the incident nor alter the evidentiary status of the case. II.       Application No . 8034/20 lodged by X A.    Alleged sexual assault 17.     X, aged seventeen years at the time of the incident, alleged that she was raped by a twenty-five-year-old co-worker, F. According to her statement to the police, on 15   July 2017, they went shopping for food together and then cooked a meal at F.’s home, where his brother was also present. Later, X and F. went to her home together. She allowed F. to sleep on a sofa overnight, as he claimed he was not in a condition to drive. 18.       X stated that she woke up early in the morning in her bed to find F. naked on top of her, attempting to or penetrating her from behind. She described being in a state of shock (“frozen”) but managed to move. F. then grabbed her arm and ordered her to get on top of him. She had been in pain and reached for a lubricant before sexual intercourse took place. F. had subsequently turned her around and had intercourse from behind. X alleged that, during this encounter, F. pulled her hair and spanked her, causing her to cry out in pain. Afterwards, she had tried to get away, but F. had held her tightly. They had both fallen asleep, but when they woke up, he had continued to spank her and pull her hair. The physical mistreatment had also included him scratching her. 19.       The day after the incident, X attended the Emergency Reception Unit, where a medical examination was conducted and biological samples were taken. The medical report noted that she was calm and gave a clear statement, but also that she was crouching and showing signs of fear. The examination revealed minor bruises on her left hip, a potential bruise above her right knee, and soreness on both buttocks, though no injuries to the buttocks or genitals were recorded. The report of the receiving nurse recorded numerous additional signs of emotional distress and X’s account of events, which included mention of additional sexual acts that had occurred after the incident described to the police. B.    Police investigation 20 .     On 8   September 2017 X, who was still a minor at the time, formally pressed charges against F. through her mother, who acted as her legal guardian, with the RMP. A legal rights protector was appointed and was present when she gave her statement. The Child Protection Services were also notified, but given that she was close to the age of majority and was already assisted by a legal rights protector, they did not attend. The underwear that the applicant brought was impounded. 21 .     The case file contained reports from the Emergency Reception Unit. A separate forensic report of 5   October 2017 concluded that while no semen could be detected in the biological samples retrieved, X’s underwear contained semen which could be used for DNA analysis. Another forensic report of 3   November 2017 concluded that no signs of alcohol or drug use were found in the biological samples. 22 .     On 3   March 2018 the investigators called for a certificate from the psychologist X had been referred to by the Emergency Reception Unit. The certificate of 23   April 2018 stated that X had demonstrated multiple symptoms consistent with PTSD following the incident. However, a formal diagnosis had not been made as she had stopped attending sessions in October 2017. The certificate also mentioned that X had experienced previous trauma, including childhood sexual abuse. 23.     On 21   March 2018 F. was interviewed and provided a different account of events. He claimed that they had slept in X’s bed and that when they woke up in the morning they had engaged in consensual sexual activity. He stated that X had indicated that she wanted to have sexual relations with him, and that she had participated actively in the sexual activity, including by retrieving the lubricant. 24.     Between 21 March and 18   August 2018 the RMP questioned eight witnesses, including X’s former boyfriend, friends and family, F.’s brother, and co-workers of both X and F. None were direct witnesses to the incident but testified about events before and after, as well as conversations they had with either X or F. about the incident and the allegation of sexual violence. X’s friends, whom she had spoken to before going to the Emergency Reception Unit, testified that she recounted having told her boyfriend that she had been unfaithful to him and that she had expressed regret in not having indicated clearly to F. that she had not consented to the sexual activity. 25.     The results of the investigation were sent the District Prosecutor’s office on 13   September 2018. C.    Decisions by domestic authorities 26.     Following the RMP’s investigation, on 7   May 2019 the District Prosecutor discontinued the case, concluding that the evidence gathered was insufficient to support a prosecution. The District Prosecutor highlighted several key factors. Firstly, X and F. were the only persons present during the incident and had fundamentally conflicting accounts. The results of the medical examination did not provide sufficient support for X’s account of the physical consequences. Based on witness testimony, there was reasonable doubt as to whether F. should have realised that the sexual activities had occurred without consent. Given the standard of proof required in criminal cases, the available evidence was not considered sufficient or likely to result in a conviction. 27.     X appealed this decision to the State Prosecutor in May 2019, challenging the District Prosecutor’s assessment of the evidence. 28.     On 22   August 2019 the State Prosecutor upheld the District Prosecutor’s decision. The State Prosecutor acknowledged that sexual intercourse had taken place and that X claimed it had commenced while she was asleep. Nevertheless, the available documentation, including witness testimony, the Emergency Reception Unit reports, and the psychological certificate, did not provide sufficient support for X’s testimony to overcome F.’s denial and meet the burden of proof required for prosecution. III.     Application No . 14407/20 lodged by Y A.    Alleged sexual assault 29.     In March 2019 Y gave statements to the police alleging sexual assault by T., committed in July 2018. Both Y and T. were born in 2001 and were minors at the time of the incident. 30.     Y stated that in July 2018 they had been camping in South Iceland. She had become heavily intoxicated that evening and remembered little of what had happened after midnight. Her friends told her that she and T. had been kissing, but she did not remember this herself. Her friend W1 had also described having seen Y so intoxicated that T. had held her up and helped her get into her tent. She had a faint memory of having lain down in the tent but remembered nothing more, except waking up briefly with two people other than T. in the tent. She had woken up alone the morning after, fully dressed. Upon returning home, she had noticed her underpants were not on correctly. 31.     At the end of January or beginning of February 2019, Y learned that T. had told friends they had “slept together”. After hearing a description, allegedly from T., that the sexual activity had consisted of oral sex, she broke down and subsequently told her mother about the incident. B.    Police investigation 32 .     In February 2019, Y sought assistance from Bjarkarhlíð , a centre for victims of violence. The Child Protection Services were notified. On 6   March 2019 she formally pressed charges against T. through her mother, who acted as her legal guardian, with the RMP. On 6 and 28   March 2019, she gave her statements to the police in the presence of her legal rights protector and a representative from the Child Protection Services. The Child Protection Services referred Y to the Children’s House for diagnosis and treatment, where she attended fifteen sessions and was diagnosed with PTSD. 33.     On 26   March 2019 T. was questioned. He denied the accusations but stated that he had met the applicant that evening. They had cuddled and kissed in a car on the campsite and gone to Y’s tent, where she had started undressing. He described consensual intimate activity in the tent, which included finger contact and possibly finger penetration. Y’s friend, W2, had arrived and asked who was in the tent. T. had helped Y get dressed, after which W2 and W3 had joined them in the tent. Later that night, he had spoken to another friend who asked if they had “slept together”. He had decided to brag and replied in the affirmative. The friend in question had repeated the story to others and T. had not dared to admit that he had lied, except later to a few people. He described both himself and Y as having been intoxicated and thought that their state of intoxication had been similar. 34.     Between March and April 2019 the police questioned Y’s mother and four witnesses who were present at the campsite. The witness W4 stated she had seen Y very drunk but able to walk independently. The witness W2 testified to seeing into the tent where T. was sitting atop the fully clothed Y. She had not seen Y move or heard her talk, but T. had turned around and spoken to W3, who was also there. She did not remember whether they had entered the tent but stated that she had not considered the scene suspicious. When she and W3 had returned to sleep in the tent about an hour later, Y had not been there. The witness W3 remembered spending the night in the tent with W2 and Y. The witness W1, who was sober, described seeing T. holding Y upright as she could hardly stand and taking her towards the tent. 35.     The case file included a social media exchange between T. and Y, in which he asked, “do you remember me from last night or were you too drunk haha”. 36.     During the investigation, Y’s mother informed the police that her daughter had undergone two gynaecological examinations after the incident, during which she had stiffened up so that the examinations could not be completed. 37.     The results of the investigation were sent the District Prosecutor’s office on 3   December 2018. C.    Decisions of domestic authorities 38.     On 19   June 2019 the RMP discontinued the investigation, concluding that whilst sexual relations in the form of T. having touched Y’s genitals were not disputed, there was insufficient evidence to prove any additional sexual activity or that T. should have realised that Y was in such a condition that she could not resist the act. The decision was based on several factors: the absence of direct witnesses to the alleged sexual offence; the conflicting accounts of Y’s state of intoxication; Y’s limited recollection of the incident due to intoxication; and the assessment that further investigation was not likely to cast additional light on the incident. 39.     Y appealed this decision to the State Prosecutor on 11   July 2019. The appeal was accompanied by submissions outlining objections to the assessment of evidence and the failure to obtain material from the Children’s House where Y had been diagnosed with PTSD, as well as documentation from gynaecological examinations. 40.     On 19   September 2019 the State Prosecutor upheld the decision to discontinue investigation. The State Prosecutor referred to the reasoning of the RMP on the nature of the sexual relations in question, noting also that T. had explained why he had told friends that additional sexual activity had taken place. Documentation on gynaecological examinations carried out eight to nine months after the incident would not change the evidentiary position of the case on this issue. As regards Y’s condition and the question of whether T. could have realised that consent had not been given, the State Prosecutor found that, while witness testimony supported the conclusion that she had been more heavily intoxicated than him, it did not confirm Y’s account that she had been sleeping or unconscious when the incident took place. While the message sent by T. the following day indicated that he realised that Y had been heavily intoxicated, it was not considered sufficient to support the conclusion that he intentionally exploited her condition. The State Prosecutor concluded that additional investigative measures, such as obtaining documentation on the psychological effects of the incident on Y, would not resolve the core evidentiary difficulties or strengthen the case sufficiently to support prosecution. IV.    Application No . 17008/20 LODGED by S.O. A.    Alleged sexual assault 41.     On 17   May 2018 S.O. filed a complaint and gave a statement to the police in East Iceland in the presence of a legal representative concerning alleged sexual assaults by R. and A. She stated that, on the evening of 22   June 2012, she had been partying when the two men sat down with her and her friend. A. had shown interest in her, eventually inviting her to his hotel room. 42.       S.O. had joined A. in his hotel room where they engaged in consensual sexual activity. She had initially been an active and willing participant, but her experience changed radically when R. suddenly entered the room and started to undress. Some communication took place between the two men, but she did not recall what was said. 43.       According to her statement, after R.’s arrival, she no longer consented to any sexual activity. She also stated that A.’s behaviour became more aggressive. Both men then engaged in non-consensual sexual acts with her. She described having “frozen” and “zoned out” at this point, stopping touching, laughing and smiling, and becoming completely passive. 44.       When asked if she had verbally communicated her lack of consent, S.O. stated that she had not said anything but maintained that it should have been evident from an obvious change in her behaviour. Likewise, R. should have had no reason to assume that she wanted to have sex with him. 45.       S.O. stated that she had received a text message from A. the day after the incident, asking her not to tell anyone what had happened because “they were on a bummer”. 46.     In March 2017 S.O. contacted both men via Facebook messages, seeking to make them aware of what they had done to her. Both men replied to her messages. S.O. submitted screenshots of these exchanges to the police. B.    Police investigation 47.       On 25 and 26   July 2018, respectively, the East Iceland police informed R. and A. that S.O. had filed complaints against them. 48.       As neither of the men resided in eastern Iceland, on 26   July 2018 the East Iceland police requested the RMP to take a statement from A. The RMP questioned him on 2   August 2018. The East Iceland police received the interview record on 16   August 2018. On that day, it sent a request to the Northeast police to interview R. That interview took place on 25   October 2018. 49.       During questioning, A. denied any wrongdoing. His account of events matched S.O.’s up to the point of their consensual sexual activity in the hotel room. According to A., when R. entered the room, he offered to sleep in the car, but A. asked S.O. whether R. could join them. A. claimed S.O. answered affirmatively and willingly participated in sexual activity involving all three of them. A. claimed that towards the end of the encounter, he went to the balcony to smoke and heard laughter from S.O. and R. Upon returning, he observed S.O. engaging willingly with R. He stated that S.O. then dressed and left without indicating any distress. A. confirmed sending a text message to S.O. the following day requesting discretion about the events, explaining this was because he felt “very guilty” about committing adultery. Regarding S.O.’s condition, A. stated that she was intoxicated, but not to an extreme degree, and maintained that she had shown no signs of objection or discomfort. 50.       R. similarly denied any wrongdoing. His account of events aligned with that of A. in key aspects. He stated that S.O. appeared to consent to his joining the sexual encounter. Like A., he described S.O. as a willing participant throughout. R. stated that all parties were intoxicated but not severely impaired. He claimed that after the sexual activity, while A. went outside to smoke, he and S.O. remained in bed talking and laughing together. S.O. soon left, and R. said he kissed her goodbye on the cheek, maintaining that there were no negative feelings during the encounter. R. confirmed that, the day after the incident, a text message had been sent to S.O. from A.’s telephone, requesting discretion about the night’s events. He explained that this was because A. was cohabiting with another woman, and R. had recently separated from his wife but hoped to reconcile with her. 51.       Between June and July 2018, the investigators collected nine witness statements. A friend who had been with S.O. on the night of the incident did not learn of the alleged assault until 2016 and recalled little from that evening. Two female witnesses reported inappropriate behaviour from A. towards them on the evening in question. S.O.’s boyfriend described her distress upon disclosing the incident to him in 2016. He recounted confronting R. in 2017, during which R. apologised, stating he “had not intended to violate her”, which he interpreted as an admission of guilt. Two other witnesses confirmed this encounter; however, one of them had not heard the actual conversation, and the other, who had overheard part of the exchange, recalled that R. had admitted to sleeping with S.O. but had not admitted to violating her. Friends and family of S.O. testified that she had disclosed experiencing sexual violence and described a noticeable deterioration in her mental health. 52.       The investigation also reviewed screenshots of social media exchanges between S.O. and both men from 2017. R. expressed regret and apologised, stating that he had believed everyone was consenting at the time and that it had not been his intention to injure her, adding that he had not realised how she had experienced the events. A. expressed sorrow about her experience of the night in question but stated that his own experience was different from what she had described. 53.     The investigators procured documentation on S.O.’s mental health after the incident. Reports from psychological treatment, the Stígamót centre, and a primary healthcare centre documented serious depression, anxiety, and symptoms of PTSD. C.    Decisions by domestic authorities 54.     On 3   June 2019 the District Prosecutor discontinued the case. In the notification to S.O., the District Prosecutor acknowledged that her statement was credible and that witness testimony and medical certificates supported her account of psychological consequences resulting from the alleged offences. However, regarding the events on the evening in question, the prosecutor noted that it was “word against word”. In the absence of any witnesses to the alleged offences and with no additional evidence supporting S.O.’s account, and given that the case had only come to the attention of the police almost six years after the incident, the prosecutor concluded that, considering the evidentiary requirements in criminal cases of this nature and the burden of proof resting with the prosecution, the case was not likely to lead to a conviction in court. 55 .     On 3   July 2019 S.O. appealed this decision to the State Prosecutor. In her appeal, S.O. noted that both men appeared to have aligned their responses in the social media exchanges with her, and that there were inconsistencies in their statements to the police. 56.     On 2   October 2019 the State Prosecutor upheld the District Prosecutor’s decision, noting that, while it was undisputed that sexual activity had occurred between S.O. and the suspects, their descriptions of the events differed significantly. The State Prosecutor concurred with the District Prosecutor’s assessment that the available evidence on file did not sufficiently corroborate S.O.’s testimony to make a conviction likely, given the suspects’ firm denials. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE I.         DOMESTIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK A.    Constitution of the Republic of Iceland 57.     Article   65 provides that everyone shall be equal before the law and enjoy human rights irrespective of, inter alia , sex. The second paragraph states that men and women shall enjoy equal rights in all respects. B.    General Penal Code No. 19/1940 ( Almenn hegningarlög ) 58.     Article   194, as amended by Act No. 61/2007 and in force until 13   April 2018, provided: “Any person who engages in sexual intercourse or other sexual relations with another person by means of violence, threats or other unlawful coercion shall be guilty of rape and shall be imprisoned for a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 16 years. ‘Violence’ here includes deprivation of freedom of action by means of confinement, drugs or other comparable means. It shall also be considered rape, subject to the same punishment as specified in the first paragraph, to exploit a person’s psychiatric disorder or other mental disability, or their inability, for any other reason, to resist the act or understand its significance, in order to engage in sexual intercourse or other sexual relations with them”. 59 .     The Explanatory Report to Act No. 61/2007 stated that the main characteristic of sexual offences is a violation of a person’s sexual autonomy and that the bill aimed to reduce emphasis on the means employed and stress that “the offences involve sexual relations without the victim’s consent”. As regards the proposed wording of Article   194, it stated that “the underlying idea is that the new provision on rape should apply to situations where sexual intercourse occurs without the victim’s consent, as the absence of consent is a fundamental condition”.   Act No. 61/2007 thus shifted the legislative focus from the method of commission to the violation of the victim’s sexual autonomy. 60 .     Article   194, as amended by Act no.   16/2018, currently provides: “Any person who engages in sexual intercourse or other sexual relations with another person without his or her consent shall be guilty of rape and shall be imprisoned for a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 16 years. Consent is considered to have been given if it is freely expressed. Consent is not considered to have been given if violence, threats or other unlawful coercion are employed. ‘Violence’ here includes deprivation of freedom of action by means of confinement, drugs or other comparable means. It shall also be considered rape, subject to the same punishment as specified in the first paragraph, to use deception or exploit a person’s misconception regarding the situation, or to exploit a person’s psychiatric disorder or other mental disability, or their inability, for any other reason, to resist the act or understand its significance, in order to engage in sexual intercourse or other sexual relations with them”. 61 .     The Explanatory Report to Act no.   16/2018 stated that consent for participation in sexual intercourse must be expressed in words or by other unambiguous expression. The victim is not required to protest or show resistance for a conclusion of lack of consent. While active participation in a particular activity can be interpreted as consent, complete inactivity cannot. The explanatory report further clarified that the amendments were not intended to change the previously applicable requirement of intent. The alleged perpetrator would therefore have to realise that consent had not been given. 62 .     Article   195 provides that, when determining punishment for violations of Article   194, the severity of the sentence shall be increased where specific aggravating factors are present. Such circumstances include cases where the victim is a child under the age of eighteen years, where the perpetrator employs extensive violence, and where the offence is committed in a manner causing particular pain or injury to the victim. C.    Criminal Procedure Act No. 88/2008 63 .     The Act contains detailed provisions on criminal investigations and prosecutions. These include the requirements that the police shall investigate, when necessary, based on knowledge or suspicion of crime regardless of whether a complaint has been received (Article   52), that investigations shall be carried out expeditiously (Article   53), and that the burden of proof regarding guilt lies with the prosecution (Article   108). It also provides that, after receiving the case, the prosecutor may instruct the police to undertake additional investigative measures (Article   57), and that an indictment shall not be issued unless the investigative material is considered sufficient or likely to secure a conviction (Article   145). 64 .     Article   41 provides that the police shall appoint a legal representative for victims in sexual offence cases upon request, and in all cases where the victim is under eighteen. In cases concerning domestic violence, the police shall also appoint a legal representative when it is considered necessary. Upon the initiation of court proceedings, the legal representative shall be appointed by the court. D.    Case-law of superior courts 65 .     In judgment no.   486/2016 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of two defendants for raping a complainant who was intoxicated to the point of diminished capacity. The court concluded that, owing to her high level of intoxication, the victim had been incapable of giving consent and that the defendants had exploited this. In this context, the court also observed a marked disparity in position and physical strength between the parties. The defendants were accordingly found guilty of rape by means of “unlawful coercion” under the first paragraph of Article   194 of the GPC. In judgments nos.   154/2016 and 252/2016 the Supreme Court confirmed convictions under the second paragraph of Article   194 in cases where, due to the intoxication and state of somnolence of the victims, the perpetrators were found to have had no reason to assume that consent had been given for the sexual acts in question. In judgment no.   12/2021 it upheld and increased custodial sentences under the first paragraph of Article   194, taking into account the complainant’s particular vulnerability in light of her young age, level of intoxication and isolation on account of the fact that the acts took place in the home of unfamiliar men. 66 .     The Court of Appeal has upheld convictions under the second paragraph of Article   194 where complainants were unable to resist or understand the significance of the act as they were sleeping or intoxicated and in a state of somnolence, considering that such incapacity negated the possibility of valid consent (see, for example, its judgments nos.   93/2018, 330/2019, 596/2019 and 61/2020). E.     State Prosecutor Instructions 67 .     State Prosecutor Instructions no.   4/2017 stipulate that cases involving physical and sexual violence shall be expedited. Special priority shall be given to cases of rape, violence against children and violence in close relationships, as well as cases in which the perpetrators are under eighteen years of age. 68 .     In 2018, a digital investigation plan was introduced in the police records system ( Löke ). Pursuant to the State Prosecutor Instructions no.   2/2018, an investigation plan shall, inter alia , be prepared for the investigation of rape offences, sexual offences against children and offences in close relationships. When such cases are recorded in Löke , a list of investigative measures to be undertaken is generated automatically. The objective is to improve the quality of investigations and the speed of proceedings, ensuring that all relevant information is available from the early stages of the case and that persons directing the investigation have access to all information at every stage. F.     Organisation of investigative work 69 .     Prior to April 2018, cases investigated by the sexual offences unit (or its predecessor structure) at the RMP were categorised according to three priority levels: priority 1 for cases requiring immediate action, priority 2 for cases to be dealt with quickly, and priority 3 for cases that could be delayed. Typically, one meeting was held between the head of the investigative department and a representative of the Prosecution Division to establish investigation plans and prioritise cases. 70.     From April 2018, the relevant investigative department of the RMP was enlarged and organised into three teams, each under the direction of a manager: Team 1 investigates rape; Team 2 investigates crimes against children and vulnerable persons; and Team 3 investigates other sexual offences and provides support to the other two teams. 71 .     Analytical meetings are held twice a week between the management of the investigative department and a representative of the Prosecution Division. At these meetings, all cases under investigation are reviewed, whether newly received or previously ongoing. Cases are assigned to teams, prioritised, electronic investigation plans are prepared, and specific tasks are allocated, including measures to secure evidence immediately. A digital record is entered in Löke noting that a case has been analysed, identifying the analyst and the team assigned. Analytical meetings also verify whether a suspect is involved in other similar cases in Löke , assess the risk of further offences, and, in cases involving a child, whether the suspect’s work gives them access to children. II.       UNITED NATIONS 72 .     The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), in force for Iceland since 18   July 1985, requires States parties to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women and ensure the equal right of men and women to enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. The CEDAW Committee has identified gender-based violence as a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men. 73.     For the CEDAW Committee’s Concluding Observations on the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Periodic Reports of Iceland, the Court refers to the text of the observations available on the CEDAW Committee’s website and relevant extracts from them cited in B.A. v.   Iceland , no.   17006/20, §§   37-38, 26   August 2025. III.     COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTIONS 74 .     For the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (“the Lanzarote Convention”), which entered into force for Iceland on 1 January 2013, and the related Explanatory Report, the Court refers to the Convention text available on the website of the Council of Europe Treaty Office and the specific provisions cited in X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no.   22457/16, §§ 127-29, 2   February 2021. 75 .     The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against W