5.  The applicant was born in 1992. 6.  On 9 July 2009 the applicant’s father introduced the applicant ‒ who was seventeen years old at the time ‒ to Mr R., an official of the Derbent town administration. The latter promised to hire the applicant as his personal assistant. 7.  On 10 July 2009 the applicant went to Mr R.’s office, assuming that she was to be employed there. She was assigned minor tasks such as making tea and cleaning up the office. On several occasions between 10 and 17 July 2012 the applicant was forced to have sexual intercourse with Mr R. in his office. Mr R. employed physical violence and put psychological pressure on the applicant as he threatened to use his influence and connections in the town administration to harm her family. 8.  On 17 July 2009 Mr R. and Mr A. locked the door to Mr R.’s office at the end of the working day and raped the applicant. Afterwards both men cleaned their genitalia with a piece of pink cloth. Mr R. also used a green baby shirt for this purpose. Later Mr R. took the applicant outside, put her in a car and drove out of town. At some point he stopped the car and forcibly had intercourse with the applicant. Mr R. then drove the applicant to her family home and told her to remain silent about the events, threatening to kill her or her family should she complain to anyone. 9.  After that day, the applicant stopped going to Mr R.’s office. 10.  It later transpired that Mr R. had never had any intention of employing the applicant and that she had not been formally hired as his personal assistant. 11.  On 21 July 2009 the applicant told her father that she had been forced to have sexual intercourse with Mr R. and Mr A. He contacted a local unit of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Prosecutor’s Office (“the investigative committee”), asking that an investigation into the rape be opened. 12.  On 24 July 2009 the applicant made a statement to an investigator from the Derbent investigative committee, Mr M.K., describing the events of 10‑17 July 2009 in detail. 13.  On the same date Mr M.K. and other officials from the Derbent investigative committee inspected Mr R.’s office. They found the pieces of green and pink cloth which, according to the applicant, had been used by Mr R. and Mr A. on 17 July 2009 after the intercourse had taken place, and collected them as evidence. 14.  Between 24 July and 6 August 2009 a forensic expert, a gynaecologist and a proctologist examined the applicant. The forensic report drawn up afterwards stated that the applicant’s hymen was intact and that there were no signs of anal intercourse. 15.  On 2 August 2009 Mr M.K. rejected the request to open an investigation into the rape. He noted, among other things, that Mr R. and Mr A., when questioned, had stated that they had not had sexual intercourse with the applicant. Mr R. had also claimed that the applicant had stolen 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB) from his desk and had therefore had an interest in slandering him. The investigator also mentioned the medical examinations of the applicant, Mr R. and Mr A. carried out on 23 and 24 June 2009, which had recorded no visible signs of blood or sperm on either Mr R.’s or Mr A.’s genitalia and had shown the applicant’s hymen to be intact. The investigator further pointed out that the pieces of cloth found in Mr R.’s office had not been examined by any experts and that in the absence of an expert examination report it was impossible to open a criminal investigation; however, the time-limit for the pre‑investigation inquiry was about to expire. 16.  On 10 August 2009 the head of the Derbent investigative committee, Mr D.A., quashed the decision of his subordinate, Mr M.K., of 2 August 2009 on the grounds that no results of forensic tests on the pieces of cloth were as yet available and issued an instruction ordering a medical examination of the applicant to be carried out by another forensic bureau. 17.  On an unspecified date a forensic expert tested the pieces of cloth and found no spermatozoa or traces of blood in the stains found on them. 18.  On 10 and 11 August 2009 forensic experts examined the applicant and Mr R. They found that the applicant’s hymen was intact and concluded, considering the size of Mr R.’s penis, that vaginal intercourse between the applicant and Mr R. could not have taken place. 19.  By a decision dated 10 August 2009 Mr M.K. again refused to institute an investigation into the rape. The text mostly reproduced verbatim the text of 2 August 2009. Furthermore, the decision of 10 August referred to the forensic medical examinations of the applicant and Mr R. of 11 August 2009 and the report on the forensic biological testing of the pieces of cloth carried out on 20 August 2009. 20.  On 1 September 2009 the applicant was examined by a gynaecologist who concluded that her hymen had been broken. 21.  On 14 November 2009 Mr D.A. quashed the decision by Mr M.K. dated 10 August 2009 not to open an investigation into the rape. 22.  On 16 November 2009 Mr M.K. again issued a decision not to open a criminal investigation into the rape. 23.  On 29 April 2010 the Derbent town court (“the town court”) examined the applicant’s complaint concerning the decision of 10 August 2009 but terminated the proceedings on the grounds that Mr D.A. had quashed it on 14 November 2009 without notifying the applicant accordingly. 24.  On 11 May 2010 the applicant’s lawyer challenged the decision of 16 November 2009 before a court. 25.  On 2 June 2010 the town court declared unlawful the decision of 16 November 2009 by Mr M.K. not to open an investigation into the rape and ordered Mr D.A. to ensure that the errors be rectified. The town court’s reasoning included the following observations:
“... Mr D.A. admitted that he had been powerless and unable to change the bad practices that had evolved in his unit over the years because investigators under his command did not listen to his instructions and orders or simply ignored them ...
... this court discovered from the content of the lawyer’s complaint that on 16 November 2009 another decision not to open an investigation against Mr R. and Mr A. identical to the previous one had been taken ... For unknown reasons, in the course of the court hearing of 29 April 2009 the head of the investigative body, Mr D.A., had hidden from the court the fact that, in addition to his own “secret” decision to quash the unlawful procedural act, another decision had been adopted two days later by the investigator Mr M.K., again refusing to open an investigation for identical reasons.
It has been established that between 14 and 16 November 2009 no investigative steps were in fact taken, even though the head of the investigative body had ordered an additional check to be carried out ...
... It is clear that in his decision of 10 August 2009 the investigator unlawfully cited as justification for his actions various medical reports, biological tests and other results obtained only later ‑ between 11 and 20 August 2010. This is in itself absurd ‒ being objectively impossible ‒ and demonstrates that the decision was falsified ...
The court also notes that the investigative body at the same time deemed the actions of the victim, Ms S.M., to be tantamount to bringing false charges against Mr R. and Mr A. even though the suspects’ actions had not yet been given a legal classification ...
Therefore, given the circumstances of the case, the court has concluded that unprofessional and clearly unlawful actions on the part of the investigative body, including the decision currently under scrutiny, have undoubtedly caused significant damage to Ms S.M.’s constitutional rights and freedoms and have gravely impaired her access to justice ...” 26.  On the same day the town court delivered a special decision (частное определение) in respect of the investigators’ actions concerning the applicant’s rape allegations. It decided to inform the head of the Dagestan investigative committee of a number of “grave breaches of criminal procedural law” committed by the Derbent investigative committee and to order him to report back on measures taken with a view to ameliorating the situation within a period of thirty days. 27.  On 23 August 2010 the town court declared unlawful the refusal of 16 November 2009 to open an investigation into the rape, indicating a range of shortcomings in the inquiry that preceded it. The decision became final on 3 September 2010. 28.  On 12 May 2011 the town court rejected the applicant’s request that the Derbent investigative committee be ordered to open an investigation into the rape for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 29.  The refusal to investigate the rape of 16 November 2009 was quashed on 7 October 2011 by Mr A.O., an official of the Derbent investigative committee, on the grounds that the town court had declared it unlawful on 23 August 2010. Mr A.O. also issued an instruction ordering an additional inquiry to be carried out. 30.  On 8 October 2011 Mr M.I. of the Derbent investigative committee also refused to investigate the rape. The applicant challenged the refusal before a court. 31.  On 10 January 2012 the town court declared Mr M.I.’s decision of 8 October 2011 unlawful on the grounds that the investigators had not properly evaluated the medical reports confirming that the applicant’s hymen had been broken. 32.  On 24 August 2012 the deputy head of the Derbent investigative committee quashed the decision of 8 October 2011. 33.  On 3 September 2012 Mr M.G. of the Derbent investigative committee refused to open a criminal case. The refusal decision was quashed by his immediate superior on 19 September 2012. On 6 October 2012 Mr M.G. delivered a new refusal to investigate. It was quashed by the deputy head of the Derbent investigative committee on 30 November 2012. 34.  On 10 December 2012 Mr M.G. of the Derbent investigative committee again refused to institute a criminal investigation. 35.  On 17 June 2014 the deputy head of the Dagestan investigative committee quashed the decision of 10 December 2012. 36.  It appears that a criminal investigation into the alleged rape has not been instituted to date. 37.  On 30 July 2009 Mr R. lodged a complaint with the investigative committee asking them to initiate criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of her having brought false charges against him. 38.  On 16 November 2009 Mr M.K. filed with Mr D.A., his superior, a report regarding evidence of the commission of a crime, stating that the applicant’s complaint concerning the rape amounted to a criminal offence under Article 306 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (“bringing false charges”). On the same date Mr M.K. ‒ as acting head of the Derbent investigative committee ‒ decided to open an investigation against the applicant and took charge of the case. 39.  On 5 April 2010 the applicant signed an undertaking not to leave her place of residence pending the investigation against her. 40.  On 7 April 2010 the applicant was formally charged with the crime of bringing false charges. 41.  On 17 May 2010 the town court dismissed a complaint from the applicant’s lawyer challenging the decision of 16 November 2009 to open a criminal case against the applicant. 42.  It appears that on 20 August 2010 the proceedings relating to the bringing of false charges were suspended by an official of the investigative committee. 43.  On 18 July 2011 Mr M.M., an official from the Derbent investigative committee, quashed the decision of 20 August 2010 staying the proceedings. On 7 October 2011 the proceedings against the applicant were resumed. 44.  On 18 November 2011 the town court granted the applicant’s request to restore the time-limit for appealing against the decision of 17 May 2010. 45.  On 23 December 2011 Mr N.R., an investigator from the Derbent investigative committee, terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant for lack of evidence of the commission of a crime, reasoning, in so far as relevant:
“According to the statement by a proctologist Dr S., minor cuts and bruises typical for anal intercourse could heal in two or three days without a trace. Thus, considering the time that elapsed between the date of the intercourse with Ms S.M. and the date of [medical] examination (28 July 2009), it cannot be ruled out that those wounds had healed.
From the beginning of the proceedings Ms S.M. made detailed statements concerning the forcible sexual acts committed against her, reiterated them in her depositions and confirmed them during the face to face confrontation ...” 46.  On 27 December 2011 the Supreme Court of Dagestan examined the appeal against the decision of 17 May 2010, upholding the decision of 16 November 2009 instituting proceedings against the applicant, quashed it and remitted the evidential material for fresh examination. 47.  On 24 January 2012 the town court terminated the proceedings concerning the applicant’s complaint, challenging the decision of 16 November 2009 to open proceedings against her on the grounds that Mr N.R. had terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 48.  On 10 February 2012 Mr M.D., the deputy head of the Derbent investigative committee, quashed the decision of 23 December 2012 to terminate the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 49.  On 2 March 2012 Mr N.R. severed the proceedings relating to the theft of RUB 1,000 from Mr R.’s desk from the investigation into the bringing of false charges. 50.  On 5 March 2012 the town court quashed the decision of 10 February 2012. The prosecutor’s office appealed. 51.  On 13 March 2013 the police issued a refusal to open an investigation into the theft of RUB 1,000. 52.  On 17 March 2012 Mr N.R. of the Derbent investigative committee terminated the proceedings against the applicant concerning the bringing of false charges, noting that the criminal investigation into the rape had not disproved her account of events. 53.  On 17 April 2012 the Supreme Court of Dagestan terminated the appeal proceedings in relation to the decision of 5 March 2012 on the grounds that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had already been terminated by the Derbent investigative committee. 54.  On 28 April 2012 the town court awarded the applicant RUB 100,000 in compensation for non‑pecuniary damage for unlawful prosecution and RUB 20,000 in compensation for costs and expenses. The judgment became final and was enforced. The applicant submitted that the money was later embezzled by the lawyer whom she had retained.