CASE OF M.G.C. v. ROMANIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
5. The applicant was born in 1997 and lives in Deva. 6. At the time of the events, the eleven-year-old applicant was living with her family in a small village and often used to go to play with two girls from a neighbouring family at their house. The girls, F.C.B. and M.S.B., were about the same age as the applicant. The neighbours’ family (the B. family) had ten children and were also accommodating a relative of theirs, J.V., a fifty-two-year-old man who was unemployed and lived in the family’s vacant cattle stable. 7. According to the statement made by the applicant later to the police, in August 2008 and then again in December 2008, J.V. had dragged her by force while she was playing with her girlfriends at the neighbours’ house, had taken her to an empty room in the house or into the barn and had raped her while holding her down and keeping his hand over her mouth in order to prevent her from screaming. The applicant also stated to the police that between August 2008 and February 2009 she had been raped in similar circumstances by four of the neighbours’ sons and their friend G.I. 8. On 10 March 2009 the applicant’s mother noticed that the applicant did not get her monthly period and had a talk with her. She told her mother that she had been sexually abused by J.V. and the other boys. She said that she had been ashamed to talk about what happened and also afraid to tell her parents sooner because J.V. had threatened that he would beat her if she told anyone. 9. As a result of the sexual abuse, the applicant became pregnant and, with her parents’ approval, she later underwent a surgical termination of the pregnancy. 10. On 10 March 2009 the applicant’s parents lodged a complaint against the alleged perpetrators with the local police and an investigation was started against J.V. and the four brothers F.B., A.B., G.B. and P.B. No proceedings were opened with respect to G.I., who was under fourteen and hence not criminally liable. 11. On the same day the five suspects were called into the police station for questioning. F.B. declared that on 22 December 2008, when the applicant was visiting her friends, he had asked her to have sex with him and she had accepted. P.B. declared that it had been J.V. who insistently told him to have sex with the applicant. 12. On 11 March 2009 a forensic report found that no traces of violence had been detected on the applicant’s body. 13. During the investigation J.V. declared that the applicant had provoked him to have sex with her as she was always scantily dressed. He further stated that it was she who had come to him and had asked him to have sex with her the first time, in August or September 2008. He alleged that the applicant had told him that she had had sex before with the boys from the B. family. 14. The applicant declared before the police that she had been forced by J.V. to have sex with him on several occasions, alleging that he had threatened that he would beat her if she told anyone. The other boys had also forced her to have sex with them, telling her that it was J.V. who had told them what to do. 15. On 22 April 2009 the Deva Police sent the file to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Hunedoara County Court in order to pursue the investigation into rape. The judiciary police officer making the request held that, even if the perpetrators’ statements were to be accepted as truthful, the victim’s age (eleven at the time of the first sexual act) precluded the existence of legally valid consent as she could not have freely expressed her will. 16. On 7 July 2009, at the request of the Hunedoara County Police, the Hunedoara County Forensic Institute issued a forensic psychiatric report on the applicant. The report held that the applicant was suffering from post-traumatic stress and stated that: “Concerning the specific circumstances in which the criminal acts were committed, the minor speaks with shame about what happened. She has a vivid memory of the events. ... She says that she did not tell anyone about the incidents sooner because she feared for her safety and the safety of her family members.” The report concluded that the applicant had difficulties in foreseeing the consequences of her actions and had insufficient discernment due to her age. 17. F.B. declared before the prosecutor that he had had sex with the applicant once on 22 December 2008. A.B. declared that he had had sex with the applicant in the autumn of 2008. G.B. declared that he had had sex with the applicant once in April and then again in October 2008. P.B. stated that he had had sex with the applicant on one occasion in the autumn of 2008. The applicant had asked him to have sex with her, and when he had refused - because he had never done this before - it was she who got undressed and climbed onto him. He further mentioned that he had used a condom that he had in his pocket. They all declared that it was the applicant who had taken the initiative each time and that it had happened because she displayed a provocative attitude, being scantily dressed most of the time. Each brother stated that the applicant had told him that she had had sex before, either with one of the other brothers or with J.V. 18. When questioned during the investigation, F.C.B. and M.S.B. declared that the applicant had told them she had had an intimate relationship with J.V. and that they had never seen him taking the applicant by force while they were playing. They also stated that the applicant often came to their house scantily dressed and that their brothers C.B. and A.B. had told them that the applicant had provoked them and “jumped onto them”. 19. On 10 December 2009 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Hunedoara County Court issued an indictment decision with respect to J.V. for the crime of sexual intercourse with a minor on repeated occasions. F.B., A.B., G.B. and P.B. were given administrative fines for the same crime. From the statements of the perpetrators and the two sisters, the prosecutor held as proved the fact that the applicant had gone to the neighbours’ house scantily dressed and had had a sexual relationship with J.V. The prosecutor therefore concluded that from the documents in the file it was not proved beyond doubt that the applicant had not given her consent to the sexual acts. 20. The applicant’s complaint against the prosecutor’s decision concerning the four brothers and G.I. was rejected by the superior prosecutor and subsequently by the courts. 21. On 20 April 2010 J.V. was found guilty by the Deva District Court of sexual intercourse with a minor and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The applicant was awarded 10,000 Romanian lei (ROL) by way of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage (approximately 2,000 euros (EUR)). 22. During the proceedings the applicant’s representative requested the perpetrator’s conviction for rape. She submitted to the file a copy of a judgment issued on 10 November 2009 by the Bacău Court of Appeal which held that a girl aged ten years and eight months could not understand what a sexual act meant sufficiently well to give her consent to it. 23. The applicant declared before the court that J.V. had forced her to have sex with him and had threatened to beat her if she told anyone. She was afraid of him because he could become violent when he was drunk. The other boys had also threatened to beat her and once A.B. had threatened her with a knife. 24. In reaching its decision, after also hearing statements from J.V. and the witnesses F.C.B. and M.S.B., the Deva District Court firstly observed that the forensic certificate stated that no signs of violence had been detected on the victim’s body. The court further noted that it was apparent from the statements of J.V. and the other perpetrators who had not been indicted by the prosecutor that the applicant had always taken the initiative for the sexual acts and she had been in the habit of provoking both J.V. and the other boys to have sex with her. As regards the content of the above-mentioned statements, the court considered “relevant” the fact that the applicant was scantily dressed and that even after she had allegedly been sexually abused she went on playing with her girlfriends. The court considered that: “If sexual intercourse had taken place by force or by taking advantage of the victim’s lack of capacity to defend herself or to express her will, it is certain that [she] would not have continued her previous practice [going to play with the neighbours’ daughters]”. 25. The applicant, represented by her lawyer, appealed against the judgment of the Deva District Court, requesting that J.V. be convicted of rape and that the amount of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage be increased to ROL 50,000. The applicant’s representative submitted that the decision of the first instance court had not been impartial since it had been based only on the statement of the accused, together with statements by the other perpetrators and two witnesses – all related to the accused. Furthermore, since the minimum age of consent to a sexual act was set by law at fifteen, the applicant ‒ who was only eleven at the time of the incidents ‒ could not have expressed valid consent and the sexual abuse committed against her could therefore only be classified as rape. In addition, the applicant’s representative complained that the forensic psychiatric report of 7 July 2009, which declared that the victim lacked capacity to express valid consent and was suffering from post-traumatic stress, had not been taken into consideration by the first instance court. 26. The Hunedoara County Court decided to allow the applicant’s appeal, holding that: “According to the provisions of Article 197 of the Criminal Code, the crime of rape is ‘Sexual intercourse of any kind with a person ... taking advantage of the [person’s] lack of capacity to defend herself or to express her will [original emphasis]...’. At the time when the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim, she was eleven years old. In Romanian law, there is an absolute presumption that any person below fourteen completely lacks capacity. Therefore, before the age of fourteen, the minor cannot express a valid consent, being in a position of inability to express [his/her] will in a valid manner...” 27. Taking these arguments into account, on 4 November 2010 the Hunedoara County Court convicted J.V. of rape and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The court applied a sentence below the minimum provided for by law for the crime of rape against a person under fifteen, finding mitigating circumstances due to the defendant’s good behaviour prior to the commission of the crime on trial. The court also held that it was not necessary to increase the amount of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage awarded by the first instance court. 28. The applicant’s representative submitted an appeal on points of law (recurs) against the judgment of 4 November 2010, requesting an increase in the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and that a more severe sentence be imposed on the defendant. J.V. also contested the judgment, requesting a conviction for the crime to which he had confessed, namely sexual intercourse with a minor. 29. On 21 March 2011 the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on points of law submitted by J.V. and upheld with final effect the judgment of the Deva District Court of 20 April 2010. The Alba Iulia Court of Appeal based its verdict on the statements given by J.V., F.C.B. and M.S.B. as well as the account of the events given by the other perpetrators. Based on these testimonies and the fact that the victim had not told her parents about the alleged abuse, the court drew the conclusion that the instances of sexual intercourse had always been initiated by the applicant and dismissed the theory that the victim might have lacked capacity to express her will. The findings of the forensic psychiatric report of 7 July 2009 were not mentioned or discussed in any way by the court. The court of appeal explained as follows: “The court considers that the crime of rape is committed by constraint - physical or moral - or by taking advantage of the victim’s lack of capacity to express his/her will, more specifically rape is a sexual intercourse committed without consent. On the other hand, the crime of sexual intercourse with a minor, as provided by Article 198 of the Criminal Code, means engaging in a sexual intercourse with a minor under 15, but with the minor’s consent. ... “The presumption of lack of capacity applies only to minors who are under fourteen and have committed a crime, but with respect to the crime provided by Article 198 of the Criminal Code, the minor [the applicant] is the victim and not the perpetrator.”