CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 avril 2017

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 26 April 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 17709/14 Aglaia BANDALAC against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 15 February 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s rape by a private individual and the manner in which the State discharged its positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention. In particular, after finding the perpetrator guilty of having raped the victim, the domestic courts imposed on him a suspended sentence of three years and obliged him to pay the victim non-pecuniary damage of some 170 euros. The applicant alleges a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as a result of the mildness of the penalty imposed on the perpetrator of the impugned attack.   QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, did the sentence passed on R.R. provide a sufficient redress for the applicant and have a deterrent effect so as to prevent the occurrence of similar crimes in the future (see Okkalı v.   Turkey , no.   52067/99, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII (extracts))?