5.  The applicant was born on 10 December 1989 and lives in Bilicenii Vechi. At the time of the events complained of, she was fourteen years and eight months old. 6.  On the evening of 21 August 2004 V.R. invited the applicant and one of her friends to accompany him out for the evening. V.R. was twenty-three years old at the time and lived in the same neighbourhood as the applicant’s grandmother, whom the applicant visited often. The applicant and V.R. had known each other for many years and had met before on different occasions. 7.  Towards the end of the evening the applicant and V.R. went by car to a bar/nightclub in a neighbouring village. At the bar, the applicant and V.R. were joined by V.V., V.D. and another girl, A.S. The applicant sat together with V.R. and his friends. V.R. bought a bottle of vodka and encouraged the applicant to drink with them. Initially, the applicant refused to drink but then she yielded to peer pressure and consumed approximately 100 ml of vodka. According to the applicant, V.R. had threatened her with violence and with not driving her back home if she did not drink. When later questioned, V.R. disputed that he had made such threats. After they had finished the drinks, they all left the bar and V.R. drove everyone home. When they approached V.D.’s house, V.D. and A.S. asked V.R. to wait for them, promising to be back in half an hour. 8.  V.R. and the applicant were left alone in the car. V.R. parked the car near V.D.’s house and asked the applicant to move to the backseat with him. The applicant later explained in a statement she gave to a prosecutor that when she had stood up she had felt dizzy and had had to support herself by leaning against the car. V.R. disputed that and submitted that the applicant had not appeared to be intoxicated. The applicant further submitted that while sitting on the backseat, V.R. had attempted to kiss her on the lips, but she had moved away, telling him that she was not willing to have sex and that she was afraid of what her parents would think. V.R. had assured the applicant that no one would find out, while getting closer and pressing his body against her, thereby pinning her down. He had used one of his hands to hold the applicant’s arms while removing her clothes with the other hand. In her statement to the prosecutor the applicant indicated:
“... I did not want to have sexual intercourse with V.R. but because I had drunk vodka I felt weak, I could not move or physically resist him. V.R. took off my jeans, pants, t-shirt and bra, [and] penetrated me... I felt pain... I had not had sexual intercourse before and until that moment with V.R. I was a virgin... because it was dark in the car I did not see that I was covered in blood...” 9.  V.R. disputed the above description of the events when questioned by the prosecutor and submitted that the applicant had immediately accepted his proposal that she have sex with him and had removed her clothes by herself. He also submitted that she had confessed to him to having previously had sex with his brother and that he had not been aware of her age. 10.  The applicant stated that after the rape took place, V.R. had threatened to kill her should she tell anyone that he had had sex with her. The applicant recalled that the act had lasted for approximately 10 minutes. The applicant had then put on her clothes and shortly afterwards V.D. and A.S. had returned to the car. V.R. had driven the applicant home and had repeated his threat. V.R. disputed the allegation that he had made threats. 11.  Later that day (22 August 2004) the applicant told her mother that she had been raped by V.R. On the same day the applicant’s mother went to V.R.’s house. He admitted having had sex with the applicant and promised to marry her after she graduated from school. However, two days later the applicant’s mother learned that V.R. was responsible for making another girl pregnant and that he was about to marry her. The applicant’s mother therefore made a complaint on the applicant’s behalf at the Singerei District Police Station on 25 August 2004, alleging rape. On 26 August 2004, the Singerei District Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation into the crime of rape of a minor. The criminal offence is set out in Article 171 paragraph 2 subparagraph (b) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova. 12.  The case was assigned to V.C., a prosecutor at the Singerei District Prosecutor’s Office. He ordered a medical forensic examination of the applicant. The examination was conducted on the same day and concluded that there had been a “rupture of the hymen, which could have been caused in the circumstances described by a straight, blunt object, possibly an erect penis”. No traces of blood or semen were found due to the applicant’s delayed examination. 13.  On 26 August 2004 the prosecutor questioned the applicant and her mother and on 1 September 2004 V.R. was questioned. 14.  On 1 September 2004, as a result of the applicant’s complaint and the findings of the forensic medical expert, V.R. was charged with the crime of rape of a minor. On 14 September 2004 the prosecutor ordered an additional forensic medical examination of the applicant. The additional forensic report issued on 17 September 2004 reached similar conclusions to those of the previous forensic examination, but, in addition, it found no bruises or injuries present on the applicant’s body. 15.  In the meantime, on 1 September 2004, V.V. was questioned as a witness. He stated that on the evening of 21 August 2004 he had gone together with V.R., the applicant, V.D. and a girl named A.S. to a bar/nightclub in a nearby village. V.V. confirmed that the applicant had drunk alcohol and danced. After they had finished the first bottle of vodka, another one had been ordered. He did not know whether the applicant had also drunk from that bottle and had not seen whether she had been unsteady on her feet upon leaving the bar. After leaving the bar, V.R. had driven him home and had then left together with the applicant, V.D. and A.S. V.V. had not known where they were headed. 16.  On 26 October 2004 a confrontation between the applicant and V.R. was carried out. The parties maintained their positions. In particular, the applicant insisted that the sexual intercourse had been non-consensual, while V.R. insisted on the contrary. They also disputed whether V.R. had threatened the applicant and whether V.R. had been aware of the applicant’s age. 17.  On 26 November 2004 the prosecutor in charge of the case requested a prolongation of the time allowed for the investigation of the case from his superior. He enumerated the actions carried out so far and indicated that it was necessary to prolong the time allowed for the investigation until 31 January 2005 in order to question several more witnesses. It appears that the request was approved on the same date by A.B., a senior prosecutor within the same prosecutor’s office. 18.  On 1 December 2004 another prosecutor within the same prosecutor’s office, C.C., cleared V.R. of the charge of rape of a minor. The Prosecutor stated in his decision that:
“... taking into account the findings of the forensic medical expert and the statements of the suspect, as well as the statements of the witnesses and of the victim, I conclude that V.R.’s actions did not constitute the elements of the crime set out by Article 171 paragraph 2 subparagraph (b) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova. Therefore I clear V.R. of all charges against him”. 19.  In the same decision, C.C. ordered the continuation of the criminal investigation without giving any further details. 20.  Between 3 and 6 December 2004 the investigation of the case continued and the same prosecutor questioned several more witnesses, including the applicant’s cousins, her classmates and neighbours. 21.  On 19 January 2005 A.B. annulled the decision of 1 December 2004 as illegal. In his decision he stated that “the decision of 1 December 2004 was not based on a thorough examination of all the circumstances of the case, specifically of the fact that at the time of the sexual intercourse the victim, who was a minor, was intoxicated and could not control her actions”. Moreover, the prosecutor stated that after the adoption of the decision new facts had been discovered which confirmed V.R.’s guilt. The case was assigned to prosecutor V.C. 22.  On 25 January 2005 V.R. was again charged with the crime of rape of a minor. The criminal investigation ended on 31 January 2005 and the file was sent to the Singerei District Court. 23.  Having heard the witnesses and looked through the evidence before it, the court delivered its judgment on 10 February 2006. The court rejected V.R’s claim that he had not known the applicant’s age on the basis of the evidence given regarding his knowledge of her age. However, the court also rejected the applicant’s claim that she had been so intoxicated as to have been unable to control her actions, reasoning that according to one of the witnesses she had not consumed more than 50 ml of vodka and that she had described the incident in detail. The court concluded that the sexual intercourse had been mutually consensual on the basis of the fact that there had been no signs of physical violence on the applicant’s body, as confirmed by the forensic expert reports. The court therefore amended the criminal charges against V.R. on its own motion, finding him criminally liable for sexual intercourse with a person under the age of sixteen committed under the influence of alcohol, in contravention of Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova. The charge of rape against V.R. was dismissed by the court. V.R. was given a suspended sentence of three years’ imprisonment. 24.  Both the applicant (through her mother as legal guardian) and the prosecutor separately appealed against the judgment of the Singerei District Court. V.R. did not appeal. 25.  The applicant argued that the first-instance court had failed to take into account her vulnerability, due to intoxication with alcohol and her young age, and had only looked into the issue of consent from the perspective of corroborative evidence of resistance. 26.  The prosecutor lodged his appeal on 1 March 2006, making similar arguments to those in the applicant’s appeal. 27.  On 11 April 2007 the Bălţi Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal, arguing that the applicant’s right to appeal was limited by Articles 276 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Moldova (“the CCP”). The court explained that according to those articles the victim of a crime could lodge an appeal only if criminal proceedings had been initiated upon his/her prior complaint (la plâgerea prealabilă). As the offence of rape was not one of the offences which could only be prosecuted upon the victim’s complaint, the applicant was not included in the category of people having the right to appeal a court’s judgment.
The Court of Appeal also dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal, annulled the judgment of the Singerei District Court and ordered the termination of the criminal prosecution against V.R. The court considered in the first place that the annulment of the decision of 1 December 2004 on 19 January 2005 had been unlawful because “only a hierarchically superior prosecutor, i.e. the Prosecutor General and his inferiors” had the right to do that. Moreover, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal, there had been no legal grounds to annul the decision of 1 December 2004 because: (a) there had been no elements of rape in V.R.’s actions; and (b) according to Article 63 (2)(3) of the CCP a person can only be considered a suspect for the purpose of that article for three months. The court finally ruled that because the decision of 1 December 2004 had been declared valid, any further prosecution of V.R. would be in breach of the principle of ne bis in idem and thus contrary to Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. 28.  Since the applicant had been refused the right of appeal against the first-instance court’s decision in her case, her lawyer wrote to the General Prosecutor’s Office requesting that an appeal on points of law be lodged before the Supreme Court of Justice. The General Prosecutor’s Office failed to lodge such an appeal. In their letter of 16 August 2007 replying to the applicant’s lawyer, the General Prosecutor’s Office admitted that the prosecutor had missed the two-month deadline set by Article 422 of the CCP to appeal against the decision of the Bălţi Court of Appeal. As a result, all proceedings in respect of V.R. were terminated and the final decision in the case concerning the applicant’s allegation of rape became prosecutor C.C.’s decision of 1 December 2004. 29.  The applicant sought psychological help after the conclusion of the proceedings before the Bălţi Court of Appeal. During July – August 2007 she was seen by a psychiatrist from Memoria, a local non-governmental organisation working in this field. An excerpt from the applicant’s medical file issued on 18 August 2007 describes her as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the sexual assault, the failure of the courts to render an effective conviction and the humiliation to which she had been publicly subjected due to the domestic proceedings in her case.