CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7A0484C8 { width:280.5pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8913EA0E { width:283.5pt; display:inline-block } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s48B1C878 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.25pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s72F8249F { font-family:Arial; display:none } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sC1405C97 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s9F0D231E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s706500A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s2B9FE6BC { width:7.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3DD4DE37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:3pt } .s55DE8066 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:6pt }   5 February 2010       SECOND SECTION Application no. 40020/03 by M. and Others against Italy and Bulgaria lodged on 11 December 2003   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS 1.     The applicants, L.M., S.M., I.I., and K.L., are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1985, 1959, 1958 and 1977 respectively, and live in the village of Novo Selo in the Vidin region (Bulgaria). They are represented before the Court by Mr S. Marinov, a lawyer practising in Vidin. 2.     The applicants are of Roma ethnic origin. At the time of the events (May-June 2003), the first applicant was still a minor. The second and the third applicants are her father and mother, and the fourth applicant is the first applicant’s sister ‑ in ‑ law.   1.     The applicants’ version of the events   3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 4.     The first, second and third applicants arrived in Milan on 12 May 2003 and were apparently offered work by X., a Roma man of Serb nationality, residing in Italy, who accommodated them in a house in the village of Ghislarengo, in the province of Vercelli, where he lived with his family. They remained there several days, during which time they were not offered work. After a while, X. declared to the second applicant that Y., his nephew, wanted to marry her daughter (the first applicant). As the second and the third applicants refused, X. threatened them with a loaded gun. Then, the second and the third applicants were beaten, threatened with death and forced to leave the first applicant in Italy and go back to Bulgaria. Although the applicants denied this, it seems from their first submissions that the second and the third applicants had been offered money to leave their daughter behind. On 18 May 2003, the second and third applicants went back to Bulgaria. 5.     The applicants submit that during the following month spent at the house in Ghislarengo, the first applicant was kept under constant surveillance and was forced to steal, was beaten, threatened with death and repeatedly raped. Apparently, she had to be treated in hospital, but the applicants submit that they are not aware of the name and location of this hospital. 6.     On 24 May 2003 the third applicant went back to Italy, accompanied by the first applicant’s sister ‑ in ‑ law (the fourth applicant), and lodged a complaint with the Italian police in Turin, reporting that the first applicant had been kidnapped, injured and threatened. They were settled in a monastery near Turin. Then, the police accompanied them with an interpreter to identify the house in Ghislarengo. 7.     Apparently frustrated with the police’s slowness in responding to the complaint, the second applicant lodged written complaints with many other institutions. A letter of 31 May 2003, addressed to the Italian Prime Minister, the Italian Ministers of Foreign and Internal Affairs, the Italian ambassador in Bulgaria, the Prefect of Turin, the Bulgarian Prime Minister, the Bulgarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Bulgarian ambassador to Italy, is included in the file. 8.     On 11 June 2003 the police raided the house in Ghislarengo, found the first applicant there and made a number of arrests. At about 2 p.m. that day, she was taken to a police station in Vercelli and questioned, in the presence of an interpreter, by two female and two male police officers. The   applicants allege that she was treated roughly and threatened that she would be accused of perjury and libel if she did not tell the truth. She was then forced to declare that she did not wish her alleged kidnappers to be prosecuted, to answer “yes” to all other questions, and to sign certain documents in Italian, which she did not understand and which were neither translated into Bulgarian nor given to her. They also allege that the interpreter did not do her job properly. 9.     Later on that day, the third applicant was questioned by the police in Vercelli in the presence of an interpreter. The third applicant alleges that she was also threatened that she would be accused of perjury and libel if she did not tell the truth, and that the interpreter had not done her job properly. She   claims that, as she refused to sign the record, the police treated her badly. 10.     At about 10 p.m. the first applicant was questioned again. The   applicants allege that no interpreter or lawyer was present and that she is unaware of what was recorded. The first applicant was then taken to a cell and left there for four or five hours. On 12 June 2003 at about 4 a.m., she was transferred to a shelter for homeless persons, where she remained until 12.30 p.m. 11.     On the same day, the first, third and fourth applicants were brought by the police to the railway station in Vercelli and travelled back to Bulgaria.     They submitted to the Court that the facts were then investigated by the Italian authorities, but that no criminal proceedings were instituted in Italy against the first applicant’s kidnappers, or at least that they have not been informed, nor have they been able to obtain information about any ongoing criminal investigation. They also complained that the Italian authorities did not seek to question the second applicant in order to establish the facts, by means of cooperation with Bulgarian authorities. 12.     It appears from the file that, after June 2003, the applicants sent several letters and several letters emails, most of which were in Bulgarian, to the Italian authorities (such as the Italian Prime Minister, the Italian Ministers of Justice and Foreign Affairs Internal Affairs and the Minister of , the General Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeal of Turin, the Turin prefect the mayor of Ghislarengo and the Italian diplomatic authorities in Bulgaria), with a request to provide them with information about the police raid of 11 June 2003 and to start criminal proceedings against the first applicant’s alleged kidnappers. They also complained that they had suffered threats, humiliation and ill-treatment at the hands of the police. They asked those authorities to forward their complaints to the Public Prosecutor in Vercelli and to the police department of the same town. 13.     At the same time, the applicants also wrote to the Prime Minister of Bulgaria, the head of the consular relations division of the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Bulgarian Consulate in Rome, requesting them to protect their rights and assist them in obtaining information from the Italian authorities. The Bulgarian Consulate in Rome provided the applicants with some certain information. 14.     The applicants did not provide the Court with any document regarding their questioning and the subsequent criminal proceedings against them. Their lawyer claimed that, considering the circumstances, including the alleged refusal of the Italian Embassy in Bulgaria, it was impossible to submit any document. Apart from copies of the letters sent to the Italian institutions, they only submitted two medical reports, dated 22 and 24   June   2003, establishing that the first applicant had a bruise on the head, a small wound on the right elbow and a broken rib, and was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. She had lost her virginity and was suffering from a vaginal infection. One of the medical reports concluded that these injuries could have been inflicted in the way the first applicant had reported.   2.     The Government’s version of the events   15.     On 21 April 2009 and 30 July 2009 at the Court’s request, the Italian Government submitted a number of documents, among which was the transcription of the first complaint lodged by the third applicant on 24   May   2003 with the Turin police, and the minutes of the interviews with the first applicant, the third applicant and some of the alleged kidnappers, which took place on 11 June 2003. 16.     It appears from these documents that the transcription of the third applicant’s first complaint against the alleged kidnappers (lodged with the Italian police in Turin on 24 May 2003), as well as the applicants’ complaints sent by their representative to different Italian institutions the following days, were transmitted to the Italian police in Vercelli (26   May   and 6 June 2003 respectively) and to the Public Prosecutor of the same town (4 and 13 June 2003 respectively), who started criminal proceedings against unknown persons for kidnapping (1735/03 RGNR). 17.     From 27 May 2003 onwards, the police of Vercelli and Turin jointly took a number of investigative actions which led to a raid on the house in Ghislarengo on 11 June 2003. 18.     On 7, 11, 12 and 13 June 2003, the Ministry of Internal Affairs was informed by fax of developments in the case. On 11 June 2003 at about 2.30 p.m., immediately after the raid, the first applicant was questioned by the Public Prosecutor of Vercelli, who was assisted by the police. She made allegations that showed a number of discrepancies, compared with the complaint already submitted by her mother, and which led the authorities to conclude that no kidnapping, but an agreement about a marriage, had in reality taken place between the two families. This conclusion was confirmed by some photographs given to the police after the raid by X., apparently showing a wedding party at which the second applicant received a sum of money from X. When showed the photographs, the first applicant denied that her father had taken money as part of the agreement about the marriage. 19.     At 8.30 p.m. the third applicant was questioned by the Public Prosecutor in Vercelli. She stated again that her daughter had not married Y. of her own free will, and claimed that the photographs were nothing but a fake, taken on purpose by the alleged kidnappers, who had threatened them with a gun, in order to deprive their version of the facts of its credibility. The Vercelli police also questioned X., Z. and Y, who stated that Y. had entered into a consensual marriage with the first applicant. 20.     As a result of these interviews and on the basis of the photographs, the Public Prosecutor of Vercelli decided to turn the proceedings against unknown persons for kidnapping (1735/03 RGNR) into proceedings against the first and third applicants for perjury and libel (1283/03 RGNR). Later that evening the first and the third applicants were informed by the Vercelli and Turin police about the charges and invited to appoint a representative. They were then provided with a court-appointed lawyer. At about 11.30 p.m. the first applicant was transferred to a shelter for homeless people. On   12 June 2003 she was released into the custody of her mother. The   applicants’ complaints sent to many Italian institutions during the following months were received by the Police Department in Vercelli, translated into Italian and forwarded to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.   2.1     The criminal proceedings against the first applicant   21.     On 11 July 2003, the Public Prosecutor attached to the Juvenile Court of Piedmont and Valle d’Aosta started criminal proceedings (1838/03 RGNR) against the first applicant for perjury and libel. 22.     On 6 November 2003, at the applicants’ request, the Bulgarian consul in Italy asked the Public Prosecutor to provide him with information on the state of the proceedings against the first and the third applicant. The   Public Prosecutor answered on 7 November 2003. An exchange of correspondence followed between the two authorities about the state of the proceedings. 23.     On 28 November 2003 the first applicant was invited for questioning before the Public Prosecutor, but she was in Bulgaria and did not appear. 24.     On 15 December 2005 the Juvenile Court acquitted the first applicant on the ground that the offences committed were occasional and not serious, and therefore “socially irrelevant”.   2.2.     The criminal proceedings against the third applicant   25.     On 26 June 2003 the Public Prosecutor of Turin started criminal proceedings (18501/03 RGNR) against the third applicant for perjury and libel. 26.     On 22 July 2003 the Public Prosecutor of Turin ended the investigation against the third applicant and sent the case to the Turin Criminal Court. 27.     On 8 February 2006 the Turin Criminal Court acquitted the third applicant, on the ground that it was impossible, on the basis of the contradictory statements made by the applicants and of the photographs, to establish the facts clearly. Therefore, there was no evidence that the third applicant had committed the offences of perjury and libel. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants raised different complaints under several articles of the Convention and under many other international treaties. 2.     They complain that the first applicant suffered ill-treatment, sexual abuse and forced labour as did (to a lesser extent) the second and third applicants at the hands of the Roma family in Ghislarengo, and that the Italian authorities (especially the Public Prosecutor in Vercelli) failed to investigate the events adequately. 3.     They also complain that the first and third applicants were ill-treated by Italian police officers during their questioning. 4.     They complain that the first and the third applicants were not provided with lawyers and/or interpreters during their interviews, were not informed in what capacity they were being questioned, and were forced to sign documents of whose content they were unaware. 5.     They complain that their treatment by the Italian authorities was based on the fact that they were of Roma ethnic origin and Bulgarian nationality. 6.     Finally, they complain that the Bulgarian authorities (notably the Bulgarian consular authorities in Italy) did not provide them with the required assistance in their dealings with the Italian authorities, but simply served as a channel of communication.   QUESTIONS     A. Questions common to the Parties   1)      Was an effective   and speedy investigation carried out into the first applicant’s allegation of forced labour in Mr X.’s household, contrary to Article 4 of the Convention? In particular what steps were taken to ensure that the first applicant was not   in effect   the victim of   human trafficking or was not subjected to any sexual or other form of exploitation (see   Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia , no. 25965/04)?   2)      In connection with the   procedural guarantees flowing from Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention, did the various authorities enable the applicants to participate effectively in the investigations of their complaints?   3)      In respect of the possible elements of human trafficking, are the Governments of Italy and Bulgaria parties to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (the "Trafficking Convention")? In the context of their obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention, to what extent were the   requirements of the Trafficking Convention, or other relevant international instruments,   observed in the handling of the present case by the Italian and Bulgarian authorities?   4)      Has there been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention , in conjunction with Article 3,   as regards the applicants’ Roma origin in the handling of the present case by the Italian   and Bulgarian authorities?   5)      Both the Italian and Bulgarian Governments are invited to submit copies of all relevant documents pertaining to the investigations in the present case (in addition to what has already been submitted by the Italian Government to date).     B. Questions to the Italian Government   1)      In the context of   the State’s positive and procedural obligations under Article 3   of the Convention to guarantee the effective protection of the individual, did the Italian authorities   speedily and adequately investigate the first applicant’s allegations regarding the alleged ill-treatment (to some extent confirmed by the medical reports dated 22 and 24 June 2003)   which she experienced in the household of Mr X?   2)      Why did the Italian police wait two weeks before intervening to release the first applicant (not yet 18 years of age)   from the control of the X family?