5.  The applicants, C.N. and V., are French nationals who were born in 1978 and 1984 respectively in Burundi. They are sisters. 6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7.  C. N. (“the first applicant”) arrived in France in 1994, at the age of sixteen. V. (“the second applicant”) and their three younger sisters arrived in France in 1995. The second applicant was ten years old at the time. Their arrival was arranged by their aunt, N., wife of Mr M., a national of Burundi. 8.  The applicants left their country of origin, Burundi, following the civil war in 1993, during which their parents were purportedly killed. On a trip to Burundi, Mrs M. organised a family council. According to a record of the meeting dated 25 February 1995, it was decided to give guardianship and custody of the applicants and their younger sisters to Mr and Mrs M. The family considered that the couple, who lived in France, were the only members of the family “capable of taking care of [the applicants] and giving them a proper education and upbringing”. 9.  Mr M., a former government minister of Burundi, was a UNESCO staff member and, as such, enjoyed diplomatic immunity. The spouses owned a four-bedroom detached house in Ville d’Avray in the Hauts de Seine département. They had seven children, one of whom was disabled. 10.  When they arrived in France the applicants were housed in what they described as a poorly heated unconverted cellar in the basement of the house. The Government pointed out that it was not a cellar as such, but a basement room with a door opening into the garden and a window. The room contained a boiler, a washing machine and two beds. At the beginning of their stay the applicants shared the room with their three younger sisters. 11.  At the same time, Mr and Mrs M. contacted an evangelical church with a view to placing the applicants’ three younger sisters with foster families, except in the school holidays. They were in fact taken in by two families in 1995 and 1996. In June 1996 two of the three sisters went to spend a few weeks with Mr and Mrs M.; the foster family, who had parental authority over them, had to take legal action to get them back in April 1997. 12.  The applicants said that as soon as they arrived they had been made to do all the housework and domestic chores necessary for the upkeep of the house and the M. family of nine. They alleged that they had been used as “housemaids”. The first, older applicant said that she had to look after the family’s disabled son and do the gardening. They were not paid for their work or given any days off. 13.  The applicants affirmed that they had had no access to a bathroom and only an unhygienic makeshift toilet at their disposal. The Government submitted that they were not denied access to the bathroom, but that it was limited to certain times of day. The applicants added that they were not allowed to eat with the family. They were given only pasta, rice and potatoes to eat, and occasionally leftovers from the family’s meat dishes. They had no leisure activities. 14.  The second applicant was a pupil in the Ville d’Avray primary school from May 1995, then in the special general and vocational learning department of a Versailles secondary school from the start of the 1997 school year. As a non-French speaker she had had integration difficulties which she said increased her isolation. Her aunt nevertheless objected to her seeing the school psychologist as suggested by the teaching staff. Nor was the second applicant given any additional help in learning to read French, allegedly because this would have meant paying for her to have school meals. In spite of these difficulties she did well at school. When she got home from school she would have to do her homework then help her sister with the domestic chores. 15.  The first applicant was never sent to school or given any vocational training. She spent all day doing housework and looking after her disabled cousin. The Government pointed out that the applicant had admitted in the course of the subsequent criminal proceedings that she had in fact refused to go to school. 16. On 19 December 1995 the Hauts de Seine welfare department submitted a report on children in danger to the Nantes public prosecutor according to which there was a risk that the children were being exploited “to do household chores among other things”. Following an investigation by the police child protection services, it was decided not to take any further action. 17.  The first applicant turned eighteen on 23 March 1996. She contended that Mr and Mrs M. did nothing to legalise her situation vis-à-vis the authorities. According to the Government, her situation was not illegal because she was included in her aunt’s diplomatic passport. 18.  From September 1997 the aunt refused to pay the second applicant’s bus fare to school. The applicant explained that when her uncle bought her a bus pass behind his wife’s back, her aunt got very angry and threatened to hit her. When she had no bus pass the second applicant had either to walk to school, which was a forty-five minute walk from where she lived, or to take the bus without a ticket. The applicant said that her aunt also refused to pay for her to have school meals. 19.  In July 1998 the second applicant, after going several months without urgent dental treatment, had had to go to a dentist near the school at her own initiative. She had never received the orthopaedic treatment the dentist prescribed. As to the first applicant, she alleged that she had been hospitalised three times under her cousin’s name after being beaten by one of the of the boys in the family. 20.  The applicants further alleged that they had been physically and verbally harassed on a daily basis by their aunt, who regularly threatened to send them back to Burundi to punish them and made disparaging remarks about their late parents. The second applicant claimed that once, when she was sick in bed, her aunt had threatened to hit her with a broomstick to make her clean the kitchen. 21.  On 4 January 1999 the association “Enfance et Partage” drew the attention of the Nanterre public prosecutor’s office to the applicants’ situation, stating that the conditions they lived in – in the insalubrious, unheated basement of the M. family’s house – were contrary to human dignity, that the first applicant was used as a “housemaid” and had to look after the family’s disabled eldest son, that their aunt refused to buy the second applicant a travel card or pay for her to have school meals, and that both girls complained of ill-treatment and physical aggression by their aunt. The applicants ran away from the house the next day and were taken into the association’s care. 22.  On 7 January 1999 the Nanterre public prosecutor’s office applied to the Director General of UNESCO to have Mr M.’s diplomatic immunity lifted. 23.  On 27 January 1999 that request was granted, exceptionally, as part of an investigation into allegations of ill-treatment. The immunity of Mr M.’s wife was also lifted. 24.  On 29 January 1999 a preliminary investigation was opened on the instructions of the Nanterre public prosecutor’s office. 25.  On 2 February 1999 the police interviewed the two applicants, who confirmed the terms of the report by “Enfance et Partage”. They did, however, explain that their uncle had tried to temper his wife’s behaviour. The second applicant said that when their situation was first reported in 1995 she had not dared to tell the police the truth for fear of reprisals from her aunt. 26.  That same day the association “Enfance et Partage” gave the police photos taken by the applicants in November 1998 of the basement they lived in. The photos confirmed the deplorable conditions of hygiene and insalubrity they lived in. 27.  On 3 February 1999 Mr M. was interviewed by the police. He said he had done nothing wrong and that he had helped the applicants by bringing them to France. He told them that his wife, Mrs M., had left for Burundi on 15 January 1999. He also complained about an article in the press on 28 January 1999 making accusations against him and his wife. 28.  The police established that, contrary to what Mr M. had told them, his wife had gone back to Burundi on 2 February 1999, a few days after the article appeared in the press. 29.  Mr M. denied the investigators access to his house, alleging that his lawyer was not available. He added that renovation work was being done on the house. 30.  On 16 February 1999 a judicial investigation was opened against Mr and Mrs M. for degrading treatment (Articles 225-14 and 225-15 of the Criminal Code) and against Mrs M. for wilful violence on a child under fifteen years of age, by a person in a position of authority, not entailing unfitness for work for more than eight days. An arrest warrant was issued against Mrs M. and Mr M. was placed under judicial supervision. 31.  The applicants joined the proceedings as civil parties. 32.  On 22 April and 3 May 1999 the applicants were heard by the investigating judge. They confirmed their previous statements and added that their situation at the home of Mr and Mrs M. had gradually deteriorated. The second applicant told the judge that at the time of the first report and investigation in 1995-1996 she had said nothing to the police because “things were not [yet] all that bad” with her aunt (a fact confirmed by the first applicant at a later hearing on 30 June 2000). The applicants emphasised the leading role played by their aunt, who had no qualms about hitting them and waking them up in the middle of the night if there was the slightest problem. The first applicant said she had even had to sleep outside the house one night. The applicants confirmed that their uncle had tried to smooth things over, but he was frequently away from home. When present he would often try to reason with his wife, and had even paid their bus fares or bought them clothes without his wife knowing. 33.  On 29 April 1999 Mr M. was charged with infringement of human dignity under Articles 225-14 and 225-15 of the Criminal Code. 34.  On 30 June 1999 the results of the medico-psychological examination of the two applicants ordered by the investigating judge were submitted. They revealed that the applicants showed no signs of serious psychological disorders or psychiatric decompensation, but that the psychological impact of what they had experienced was characterised by mental suffering, combined, in the case of the first applicant, with feelings of fear and a sense of abandonment, as the threat of being sent back to Burundi was synonymous in her mind with a threat of death and the abandonment of her younger sisters. As to the second applicant, the report stated that being sent back to Burundi was felt to be “even worse” than living with Mr and Mrs M. 35.  On 30 June and 14 September 1999 the investigating judge noted that Mrs M. had twice failed to appear. She explained that she had been in Burundi. She was not heard until 15 June 2000. 36.  Investigations carried out at the home of Mr and Mrs M. at the judge’s request revealed that the basement of the house had been completely refurbished after the applicants left. 37.  On 5 February 2001 the investigating judge at the Nanterre tribunal de grande instance ordered Mrs M.’s committal for trial before the criminal court on charges of wilful violence on a child under fifteen years of age, by a person in a position of authority, not entailing unfitness for work for more than eight days (an offence punishable under Article 222-13 of the Criminal Code) in respect of the second applicant, and on charges of subjecting a person who is vulnerable or in a position of dependence to working conditions (in respect of the first applicant) or living conditions (in respect of both applicants) incompatible with human dignity (offences punishable under Articles 225-14 and 225-15 of the Criminal Code). In the same order, the investigating judge requested the termination of the proceedings against Mr M. concerning the charges of offences against human dignity. 38.  On 7 February 2001 the applicants appealed against the decision to terminate that part of the proceedings. 39.  On 18 December 2002 the Investigation Division of the Versailles Court of Appeal ordered further inquiries to determine the exact scope and measure of the lifting of Mr M.’s immunity by the Director General of UNESCO, and whether it applied to the preliminary investigation alone or to the proceedings as a whole. 40.  On 30 April 2003 the Investigation Division of the Versailles Court of Appeal set aside the order of 5 February 2001 terminating part of the proceedings and ordered Mr M.’s committal for trial by the criminal court for having subjected the applicants, and also their three younger sisters, to treatment contrary to human dignity. As to the scope of the lifting of Mr M.’s immunity, the court found that no immunity applied, for the following reasons:
“The explicit terms of the letter addressed to the court on 20 January 2003 by the Protocol Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Minister, who has authority to interpret and measure the scope of the immunity granted to diplomats, dispel all uncertainty about the situation of Mr [M.];
the latter ceased to be a UNESCO staff member on 30 November 2001;
as the deeds in question were not committed in the course of his duties, he no longer enjoys diplomatic immunity;
there is accordingly no obstacle to his prosecution;” 41.  Mr M. appealed against that ruling. 42.  On 12 April 2005 the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation confirmed that Mr M. did not enjoy diplomatic immunity, but set aside the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 30 April 2003 in so far as it had ordered Mr. M.’s committal for trial for offences committed against the applicants’ three sisters, as this was outside the remit of the investigating judge. 43.  On 22 January 2007 the Nanterre Criminal Court rejected the objections as to admissibility raised by Mr and Mrs M. based on their diplomatic immunity. It adjourned the case to a hearing on 17 September 2007 to rule on the merits. 44.  In a judgment of 17 September 2007 the Nanterre Criminal Court found Mr and Mrs M. guilty as charged. Mr M. was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment, suspended, and fined 10,000 euros (EUR). Mrs M. was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment, suspended, and fined EUR 10,000. The couple were jointly ordered to pay the first applicant EUR 24,000 in damages, and the second applicant one symbolic euro, as she had requested. The relevant passages of the judgment read as follows:
“... It appears from the information available that [the applicants], who found themselves in a situation of total dependence at the time, who were orphans and minors and whose papers had been taken away, were housed by their uncle and aunt in deplorable conditions of hygiene in an unheated, insalubrious basement; the photos adduced by counsel for the civil parties ... show the state of the place they lived in from 1995 to 1999; they had no access to the bathroom and had to fetch a pail of water from the kitchen to wash themselves, and the elder sister [the first applicant] was used as a housemaid by the couple [Mr and Mrs M.] with no day off and no pay.
It is further established that they did not pay for [the second applicant’s] school meals or travel card, obliging her to walk several kilometres to school along a road through woods.
It is also established that the accused refused to give them the medical treatment they needed, even though [Mr M.] had registered them with the UNESCO social security scheme.
Although some of the girls’ statements indicate that the role played by [Mr M.] was a rather passive one, probably to avoid having to stand up to his wife’s strong character, he could not have been unaware of the difference in the way his nieces and his own children were treated.
His frequent absences from home could not have made him unaware of the situation. In addition, he refused to let the police take photos of the basement, and then took pains to have it very comfortably refurbished when released from police custody.
That being so, the actus reus and mens rea of the offence against human dignity in respect of the two accused are made out and they must be convicted.” 45.  Mr and Mrs M. appealed against that judgment on 24 and 25 September 2007. 46.  On 29 June 2009 the Versailles Court of Appeal set aside the judgment on the charge of subjecting several vulnerable people, including at least one minor, to indecent living and working conditions, acquitted the defendants of that charge and dismissed the applicants’ claims for compensation for the damage suffered in respect of that charge. However, it upheld the guilty finding against Mrs M. on the charge of aggravated wilful violence against the second applicant. She was fined EUR 1,500 and ordered to pay one euro in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 47.  The relevant passages of the judgment read as follows:
“The charge of subjecting several vulnerable people, including at least one minor, to indecent living and working conditions:
It is not disputed that [Mrs M.] went to fetch her nieces at a time when a civil war was raging in Burundi that left 250,000 people dead and orphaned about 50,000 children; ... the elements of the proceedings show that [Mr and Mrs M.] paid their nieces’ fare from Burundi to France; this shows that their concern was to protect these members of their family by placing the children out of harm’s way; ...
Under Article 225-14 of the Criminal Code in force at the material time, offences against human dignity were characterised by the fact of abusing a person’s vulnerability or situation of dependence to subject them to working or living conditions incompatible with human dignity, and were punishable by two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 francs (FRF); the legislation now in force punishes such offences more severely and gives them a broader definition; ... the new, harsher law cannot be applied retroactively;
In the instant case, while the living and domestic working conditions were poor, uncomfortable and blameworthy, they cannot be qualified as degrading in the context and the circumstances of family solidarity with no intention of economic gain or of exploiting another’s work; the living and working conditions the defendants gave their nieces were not intended to debase them as human beings or to violate their fundamental rights, but obeyed a duty to help them; ...
[Mr and Mrs M.] cannot be blamed for not having asked their own children, who shared their rooms, ... to give up their comfort; and they cannot reasonably be blamed for giving more to their own children than to their nieces; ...
The case materials show that the boiler which heated the house was in the basement where the complainants lived and the temperature recorded in their room during the investigation was in excess of 20oC;
As stated by the defendants’ daughter ... and confirmed by [the second applicant], the aunt had not formally denied them access to the bathroom, but simply wanted to rationalise its use because of the large number of people who had to use it; ...
... even though more could have been done to secure [the first applicant’s] integration, [Mrs M.] did call the welfare services for help; the fact that [the first applicant], who did not speak French and did not want to go to school, was required to play an active part in the housework as the eldest sister, even without pay, did not amount to working conditions incompatible with human dignity, or slave labour, or violation of any fundamental personal rights, but rather to repayment for her having been permanently taken into the home and care of an already large family; there is no evidence in the case file that [Mr and Mrs M.] stood to make any financial gain by taking their nieces into their home and care, for they were an extra financial burden for them, taken on out of moral obligation;
According to the testimony, the living and working conditions were compatible with [the applicants’] human dignity; and it has not been established that the defendants took advantage of the vulnerability of their orphaned nieces or the fact that they were dependent on them;
Therefore, as the mens rea of the charge of subjecting several vulnerable people, including at least one minor, to indecent living and working conditions has not been made out, the constituent elements of the offence have not been established and the judgment in respect of this charge must be set aside ...
The charges against [Mrs M.] of wilful violence with two aggravating circumstances on [the second applicant], a child under 15 years of age, by a person in a position of authority:
[The second applicant] told the police that her aunt hit her when she asked for a travel card or when her uncle bought her one ...; she also alleged that she was slapped when she accidentally dropped a plate; on one occasion her aunt allegedly threatened to hit her with a broom and on another occasion she violently scratched her hand; ...
There is no doubt that [the second applicant] was under fifteen years of age between January 1995 and 10 December 1998, and that she was an orphan under the authority of her aunt, who had taken her in; the investigation established that [Mrs M.] shouted at [the second applicant], scolded her and threatened to send her back to Africa;
The facts are established ...; the charge is made out in all its elements ... ; the judgment convicting [Mrs M.] of aggravated violence must be upheld ...” 48.  The applicants appealed against that judgment on 3 July 2009. Mrs M. also appealed. The Principal Public Prosecutor did not appeal. 49.  On 23 June 2010 the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation rejected the appeals lodged by the applicants and Mrs M. The relevant passage from the judgment reads as follows:
“The terms of the impugned judgment place the Court of Cassation in a position to affirm that the Court of Appeal, for reasons which are neither insufficient nor contradictory and which address the essential grounds raised in the pleadings submitted to it, stated the reasons for its decision that, in the light of the evidence before it, the charge of subjecting vulnerable or dependent people, including at least one minor, to living or working conditions incompatible with human dignity had not been made out against the accused, and had thus justified its decision dismissing the claims of the civil parties. ...”