CASE OF RUMOR v. ITALY
No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Positive obligations)
András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano
6. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Colognola ai Colli, in the province of Verona. 7. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, can be summarised as follows. 8. The applicant’s relationship with J.C.N., a Kenyan national, began in 2003. They had two children, P. and A., who were born in August 2006 and March 2008 respectively. 9. The applicant submitted that her relationship with J.C.N. deteriorated rapidly. In 2008 they undertook relationship therapy, which was interrupted because J.C.N. was suffering from depression. He also took no interest in the business he had set up with the applicant in 2006. 10. According to the domestic court’s judgments, on 16 November 2008 J.C.N. hit the applicant several times and threatened her with a knife and a pair of scissors during a violent argument concerning the relationship that she had begun with a common friend. J.C.N. locked the applicant in the flat and took the keys in order to prevent her from leaving. Their children were asleep in the flat and one of them, awakened by the screaming, witnessed part of the aggression. 11. The carabinieri, called by the neighbours, intervened at the couple’s home. The applicant was taken to hospital in a state of shock. She was diagnosed with, inter alia, concussion, injuries to the head and several bruises all over her body. 12. J.C.N. was arrested and detained. He was charged with attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated violence and threatening behaviour. He subsequently asked the authorities in charge of the preliminary investigation to adopt the summary procedure (giudizio abbreviato) provided for in Articles 438 to 443 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”). 13. On 2 April 2009 J.C.N. was found guilty and sentenced to four years and eight months’ detention. 14. The applicant did not join the criminal proceedings as a civil party. 15. On 11 December 2009 the Verona Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to three years and four months’ detention. 16. By a decision issued on 7 October 2010 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal lodged by J.C.N. 17. On 6 October 2009 J.C.N. applied to the Venice Court of Appeal seeking to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest at a reception centre located in the municipality where the applicant was living (Colognola ai Colli). 18. On 3 November 2009 the Venice Court of Appeal dismissed J.C.N.’s application, referring, inter alia, to the proximity of the facility indicated (2 km) to the applicant’s home, the psychological condition of J.C.N. and the risk that he might try to contact the applicant. 19. On 1 June 2010 J.C.N. lodged another application for house arrest, indicating a reception centre (“Don Nicola”) located in Soave, a different municipality of the province of Verona, about 15 km from the applicant’s home. The centre was managed by a non-profit-making organisation called Sulle Orme. 20. The Venice Court of Appeal ordered an inspection of the facility indicated by J.C.N. in order to assess its suitability to host him. The inspection was carried out by the carabinieri, who highlighted that the facility in question had already hosted persons whose prison sentence had been replaced by house arrest, without any complications having arisen. They further stressed that they carried out regular surveillance of the persons hosted by the centre. They consequently concluded that the facility was suitable to host the applicant’s former partner. 21. On 18 June 2010 the Venice Court of Appeal granted J.C.N.’s request. 22. On 24 September 2010 the Venice Court of Appeal granted J.C.N. permission to work outside the reception centre during the grape-harvest season. 23. On 2 August 2011 J.C.N. finished serving his sentence and was released. He decided to continue residing at the reception centre. 24. On 24 April 2009 the applicant lodged an application with the Venice Juvenile Court seeking sole custody of her children and the forfeiture of her former partner’s parental rights. 25. On 15 May 2009 the applicant was granted sole custody of her children. In February 2010, after having heard both the applicant and her former partner, the Venice Juvenile Court ordered the forfeiture of J.C.N.’s parental rights and prohibited any form of contact between him and the children. The court stressed that J.C.N. could apply for the restoration of his parental rights once he had served his sentence and followed a path aimed at acquiring the parental skills he had been shown to be lacking. 26. In January 2012 J.C.N. applied to the Venice Juvenile Court seeking the restoration of his parental rights and the suspension of his financial obligation towards his children. No information was submitted to the Court about the outcome of the application. 27. The applicant claimed that following the violence suffered at the hands of her former partner, she lived in a state of constant anguish and fear of a recurrence of the violence against her and her children. She underwent psychological support therapy, as did her son P., who had witnessed the violence. 28. On an unspecified date the applicant turned for help to an association (Associazione scaligera vittime di reato – ASAV) that specialised in providing material, psychological and legal assistance to victims of crime. 29. The applicant visited her former partner five times during his imprisonment, which lasted from 18 November 2008 to 18 June 2010. 30. From the material submitted by the applicant, it appears that after J.C.N. was released he and the applicant resumed contact in the form of an exchange of emails.