CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 2024

.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 } .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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }   Published on 21 October 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 17193/24 D.G. against Georgia lodged on 4 June 2024 communicated on 2 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns various complaints raised under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention relating to the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and abuse in a closed-type boarding school run by the Georgian Orthodox Church in Ninotsminda (“Ninotsminda Boarding School”) in the period between 2011 and 2019. On various dates between 2016 and 2021 four separate sets of criminal proceedings were initiated into the allegations of child abuse including sexual violence in the Ninotsminda Boarding School. The applicant’s various complaints have been investigated as a part of a criminal case opened on 15 November 2019 under Article 137 of the Criminal Code (the criminal offence of rape) and another criminal case opened on 3 June 2021 under Article 263 (the criminal offence of violence). According to the case file, the applicant was refused victim status in the above proceedings and her various procedural requests concerning, among others, the requalification of the alleged criminal offence from Article 126 (violence) to 144 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment) was also dismissed. The applicant, who was minor at the material time, alleges under Article 3 of the Convention, that she was systematically subjected to various forms of inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, including corporal punishment, sleep and food deprivation, and verbal and psychological abuse, in the Ninotsminda Boarding School; that the State failed to put in place and apply an effective and adequate legal framework to protect her rights; and that the relevant authorities have failed to conduct an effective investigation into her allegations. She also alleges a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the conditions in which she was living and studying in the school.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention in the present case? In particular: (a) Was the applicant subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention?   (b) Was there a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention on account of her living and learning conditions in the Ninotsminda Boarding School?   (c) Can the respondent State be held responsible under Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention for the applicant’s treatment and living and learning conditions in the Ninotsminda Boarding School ( Costello-Roberts v.   the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247 ‑ C)?   (d) Did the respondent State in the present case comply with its positive obligations under Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did it put in place and apply an adequate legal framework to ensure the applicant’s effective protection in compliance with its obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention?   (e) In the latter respect, did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic mechanism for establishing any liability of the State as well as for obtaining compensation in that respect (see O’Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no.   35810/09, § 177, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?   (f) Has there been a violation of Article 3 and/or Article 8 on account of the alleged ineffective investigation into the applicant’s complaints?