CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 avril 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 9 May 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 32887/19 İ.G. against Turkey lodged on 29 May 2019 communicated on 22 April 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the procedural obligations of the State with respect to the ill-treatment inflicted on the principal applicant by private individuals. The principal applicant, who suffers from a mental disability, was raped by minors on two occasions in May 2002. On 29 January 2015 the criminal proceedings against the attackers were terminated on account of the expiry of the statute of limitations despite the fact that they were convicted of rape at the appeal stage. On 23 January 2019 the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article   3 under its procedural aspect, holding that the lengthy delay in the conduct of criminal proceedings had resulted in their discontinuation owing to the expiry of statute of limitations, creating a situation of impunity for the accused. With this finding, it awarded the principal applicant 25,000   Turkish   Liras (TRY), approximately 4,000 Euros   (EUR) in non-pecuniary damages and rejected the remainder of his compensation request. Relying on Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention the applicant complains that the criminal proceedings brought against his attackers had been ineffective as they resulted in their impunity and the remedy of individual application before the Constitutional Court did not provide an effective redress in respect of his Convention complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In view of the Constitutional Court’s judgment in his case, can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34, as regards the alleged breach of Article 3 (see, for example, Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 2) , no. 7481/06, 20 July 2010) having regard to the impunity of his attackers, and the alleged low compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court?   2.     If so, has there been a violation of that provision alone or in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention (see, among others, M.C. v.   Bulgaria , no.   39272/98, §§ 149, 151 and 153, ECHR 2003‑XII)?