CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 novembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 10 November 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 11467/15 S.N. against Russia lodged on 20 February 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms S.N., is a Russian national, who was born in 1995 and lives in the Republic of Dagestan. The President granted the applicant’s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). She is represented before the Court by the lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre and European Human Rights Advocacy Centre based in Moscow and London respectively. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Preliminary inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of rape On 26   June 2012 Mr N. reported to the inter-district investigative committee that, since 2010, his minor daughter, the applicant in the present case, had been repeatedly forced to have oral and anal sex with eleven men. The men filmed her performing oral sex on them and threatened to disclose this information to the public should the applicant refuse to comply with their demands. The investigator P. questioned the applicant who had provided a detailed account of the events, subjected the applicant to a gynaecological examination, conducted an inspection of the locations where the alleged rape had taken place and, at one of them collected wet towel wipes. The applicant explained that one of the rapists had wiped himself with a towel wipe. The wipes were sent for forensic examination. The investigator also questioned six of the men accused by the applicant of having raped her. They all denied her allegations. The investigator examined the mobile phones belonging to those men and found no video mentioned by the applicant. Having examined the material obtained in the course of inquiry, investigator P. discerned no evidence in support of the applicant’s allegations of rape and on 26   July 2012 refused to open a criminal case against the alleged perpetrators. On 2   August 2012 the head of the inter-district investigative committee quashed the decision of 26   July 2012 noting that the investigator had not questioned all the alleged perpetrators and had failed to obtain the results of the forensic examination. On 12   August 2012 investigator P. refused to open a criminal case. The relevant decision reiterated verbatim the wording of the decision of 26   July 2012. On 17   August 2012 the deputy-head of the investigative committee quashed the decision of 12   August 2012 noting that the investigator had failed to comply with the decision of 2   August 2012. On 27   August 2012 investigator P. refused to open a criminal case. He reproduced the text of his earlier decisions adding that the forensic examination of biological material obtained from one of the perpetrators had not been completed. The said decision was quashed by the deputy-head of the investigative committee on 4   October 2012. On 3   November 2012 investigator P. refused to open a criminal case. He based his findings on the material collected in the course of the first inquiry. In addition he relied on the statements made by three of the alleged perpetrators and the results of the forensic analysis, according to which, the sperm found on the towel wipes could belong to Naib. and Gad., two of the alleged perpetrators. 2.     Criminal investigation On 28   November 2012 the head of the investigative committee opened a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations of rape. On 15   January 2013 the applicant was granted a status of the victim of the crime and advised of her procedural rights. On 10   March 2013 M. Gad., Arsl., K. Gad., Naib., Daud., M. Mag., Amir, and Khair. were arrested and remanded in custody on the charges of rape. On 13 and 19   March 2013 they were released. On 6   December 2013 captain D. suspended the investigation. On 13   January 2014 the first deputy head of the republican investigative committee considered that the criminal investigation had been incomplete and perfunctory and quashed the decision of 6   December 2013 ordering further investigation. On 25   February 2014 captain D. discontinued the criminal investigation noting that there was no evidence, except for the applicant’s statements, implicating seven of the alleged perpetrators. On 16   May 2014 captain D. discontinued, on similar grounds, the criminal investigation against M. Gad. and Pash. On 20   June 2014 the Sovetskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 25   February 2014. On 20   August 2014 the Supreme Court upheld the said decision on appeal. On 28   January 2015 the deputy head of the second division of the republican investigative committee quashed the decision of 16   May 2015 and re-opened criminal investigation against M. Gad. and Pash. On the same date he discontinued the criminal investigation. On 29   January 2015 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 16   May 2014. On 1   April 2015 the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic upheld the decision of 29   January 2015 on appeal. On 1   September 2015 the District Court quashed the decision of 28   January 2015. On 30   September 2015 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 20   June and 20   August 2014. On 2   October 2010 the investigative committee re-opened the criminal case against M. Gad. and Pash. On the same date the investigative committee discontinued the criminal investigation. On 27   October 2015 the District Court accepted the applicant’s argument that the investigation had been incomplete and found the decision of 25   February 2014 to be unlawful. After the re-opening of the case, the investigator questioned Arls., K. Gad., Naib. and Daud. He also received a response from the mobile service provider that it was impossible to submit requested information concerning mobile communications for the period under investigation. On 30   January 2016 the criminal investigation was discontinued. The investigator relied on the statements made by the applicant, her parents, alleged perpetrators, and forensic evidence. The investigator’s findings have been summarised as follows: “... the allegations that [the applicant was raped] are confirmed only by [the applicant] and her parents ... who learnt about them from [the applicant]. The [applicant’s] allegations are contrary to the statements of many witnesses and forensic evidence. [The alleged perpetrators] denied the [applicant’s] accusations. They maintained their innocence in [the applicant’s] presence. The investigation has not produced any additional evidence that would support the [applicant’s] allegations. The [sexual] crimes are committed in the absence of witnesses and obtaining the proof of such crimes becomes problematic. It should be also taken into consideration ... that a significant time has passed since the crimes were committed.” COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that the State failed to properly investigate the rape.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the Russian authorities complied with their positive obligation under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation in response to the applicant’s complaint of rape (see M.C. v.   Bulgaria , no. 39272/98, §§ 148-53, ECHR 2003 ‑ XII, and Tyagunova v.   Russia , no. 19433/07, §§ 65-74, 31 July 2012)?   2.     The Government are requested to submit a copy of the complete investigation file.