CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 2019

.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 16 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 47444/14 A.C. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 10 June 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the effectiveness of the investigation into the applicant’s rape and her alleged re-victimisation during that investigation. It raises an issue under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the facts of the case disclose a violation of Article 3 and/or 8 of the Convention? In particular, has there been an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaint about rape and was the applicant subjected to re-victimisation during the investigation and trial, notably as a result having to repeatedly face her alleged rapist and undergoing repeated psychiatric tests (see Y. v. Slovenia , no. 41107/10, § 103, ECHR 2015 (extracts))?   2.     Has there been a breach of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 in the present case as a result of the manner of dealing with the applicant’s complaint about rape? In particular, has the applicant benefitted from special measures of protection as a minor and a rape victim (see, M.C.   v. Bulgaria , no. 39272/98, §§ 148-187, ECHR 2003 ‑ XII, and Opuz v.   Turkey , no. 33401/02, §§ 183-202, ECHR 2009)?