CASE OF C.A.S. AND C.S. v. ROMANIA
Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award
Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mihai Poalelungi
6. The applicants, son and father, were born in 1990 and 1954 respectively and currently live in Iasi. 7. From January 1998 to April 1998, the first applicant, who was then a seven year-old boy, was allegedly subjected to repeated rape and violence by P.E. 8. In January 1998, the child was followed home from school by P.E. In front of the applicant’s family’s apartment, P.E. grabbed the key from his hand, opened the door and forcefully pushed the boy inside. He hit the child several times in the stomach. He pulled the applicant’s clothes off and tied his hands and legs and gagged him with strips of white cloth that he had taken out of his trouser pocket. Then P.E. dragged the boy into the kitchen, removed a piece of furniture from against the wall and placed it near the couch. He bent the child over the furniture and sexually abused him. He then removed the gag and forced the child into oral sex. P.E. hit the applicant again several times in the stomach, head and genitalia, untied him and told him to put his clothes on. He threatened the child with a knife and warned him that he would kill him if anyone found out what had happened. 9. The first applicant was too scared to scream during the assault. 10. The abuse continued during the following months, several times per week. At a certain point, P.E. made a copy of the applicant’s key so he could enter the apartment. Sometimes he would wait for the child inside, sometimes he came with a dog and once with other persons, including two minor children. Before leaving the apartment, P.E. sometimes stole food and small sums of money. 11. Eventually the applicant told his brother and father about what was happening to him. 12. After the events the first applicant changed school and in October 2005 the family finally moved from Bacău to Iaşi, following the advice of the school psychologist. 13. The Government did not contest the description of the facts by the first applicant. 14. On 27 April and 4 May 1998 on behalf of his son, the second applicant reported the sexual abuse and violence inflicted on the child to the Bacău Police. He accused P.E., S.P. and L.I.D. He reiterated his complaints on 18 and 28 May, 4, 8 and 9 June and on 19 July 1998. 15. The police started investigating the case. 16. On 18 May 1998, at the request of the investigators, the first applicant underwent a medical examination at the Bacău Clinic. The record noted: “... healing anal lesion and hypotonia of the anal sphincter. No signs of violence on the body ... The lesions necessitate 16-18 days of medical care and could have been caused by anal intercourse.” A medical certificate issued on 19 May 1998 at the request of the police, summarised the findings of the examination. 17. On 12, 15 and 29 June 1998 P.E. gave statements to the police. He claimed that he had not been in the area during that period, and that he did not know the applicants’ family. He had only been in the building once, on New Year’s Eve, for approximately ten minutes. He admitted that he used to take his sister’s dog out for a walk but he had not done so in a while; during the time in question he had been training a similar dog, in the afternoons, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. During a polygraph test, P.E. showed simulated behaviour when asked whether he had had sexual intercourse with the first applicant. S.P. and L.I.D. denied any participation in the abuse. 18. The first applicant was interviewed several times by the investigators. He gave details about the facts. His statements were recorded on 19 June 1998, 12 October 2001, 31 May 2002 and 25 March 2003. In some of the interviews he declared that he had told his brother and father about the abuse, but in others he stated that he had not mentioned anything to anyone. In his first statement he also told the police that the day after he had told his father about the abuse, his parents had allowed him to return on his own from school and he had remained alone in the apartment after school. 19. The second applicant gave statements to the investigators, relating the facts as his son had described them. 20. On 15 December 1999 the first applicant’s mother declared that she had suspected something was going on as her son’s voice on the phone had sometimes been trembling and as she had sometimes found the house untidy and litter in the bathroom, but that she had thought the children were responsible. Before the prosecutor she supplemented her statements and stated that during that time she had noticed that food and money had disappeared from the house. 21. The first applicant identified P.E. in a line up at the police headquarters. 22. Several other witnesses were interviewed by the police, including neighbours and acquaintances. R.M., the neighbour from upstairs, stated that she had no knowledge of what had happened in the applicants’ home. A few days later she changed her statements and declared that she had seen a man who fitted P.E.’s description entering the applicants’ apartment with a dog during the period in question. She explained that she had been afraid that if she talked about what she had seen, the neighbours would have thought she had been spying on them. During the investigations and court proceedings R.M. changed her statements, claiming both to have seen P.E. entering the victim’s apartment several times, between February and March, and to have seen him entering only once. 23. On 10 January 2000 the police confronted R.M. and P.E. They both maintained their previous statements. 24. B.V. informed the police that at the second applicant’s request, he had followed the applicant to school and home a few times in April 1998. He had noticed P.E. in the vicinity several times, and on 22 April 1998 had seen him forcing the first applicant into the apartment. R.I., R.M.’s adolescent son, stated that he had seen P.E. entering the victim’s home from January to April, sometimes with a dog. On 27 June 1998 the police organised a confrontation between R.I. and P.E. R.I. maintained that he had seen P.E. entering the apartment with the victim and then had heard the child scream. P.E. denied having seen R.I. or having abused the first applicant. 25. The investigators also searched the applicants’ and P.E.’s homes, but found no further evidence to support the accusations. They checked the record of calls made from the applicants’ telephone during the period under investigation. They also checked and confirmed that the upstairs neighbours could see, from the hallway, who entered the applicants’ apartment. 26. During the investigations the first applicant underwent several medical and psychiatric evaluations in the presence of his father. 27. On 1 February 2000 a new medical examination by the Bacău Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, ordered by the police, confirmed the findings of the expert examination of 18 May 1998. The doctors considered that it was impossible to tell whether the perpetrator had been an adult or a minor. They concluded that the lesions could only have been caused by repeated sexual abuse. 28. On 16 June 2000 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Bacău District Court decided to discontinue prosecution of P.E. and not to prosecute S.P. and L.I.D. The second applicant objected. 29. On 27 July 2000 the prosecutor at the Bacău District Court allowed the objection and sent the case back to the police for further investigation. 30. On 28 February 2001 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Bacău District Court again decided to discontinue the prosecution. On 5 September 2001 the second applicant’s objection was allowed by the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice. The latter sent the case to the District Court prosecutor and ordered him to continue the investigation. 31. On 7 March 2002 the prosecution file was sent to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Bacău County Court with an instruction to continue the investigation. 32. On 16 September 2002 the prosecutor at the Bacău County Court discontinued the prosecution of P.E. and decided not to prosecute S.P. and L.I.D. on the ground that they had not committed the crimes. It was also decided to continue the investigation in order to identify the criminals. 33. The second applicant appealed against the decision. On 11 November 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Bacău Court of Appeal reversed the decision. 34. On 8 April 2003, the prosecutor at the Bacău County Court committed P.E. to trial for rape and unlawful entry of the victim’s home (violare de domiciliu). It was also decided not to prosecute S.P. and L.I.D. The first applicant sought civil damages in the amount of 300,000,000 Romanian lei. 35. During this period some witnesses were brought in again for interviews and a new expert report was drafted concluding that the anal lesions suffered by the first applicant may have been produced ten to twelve days before the expert examination of 19 May 1998. On 31 March 2002, the second applicant refused to subject his son, the first applicant, to another psychiatric evaluation. 36. Throughout the investigation and prosecution, the second applicant complained several times about the length of the proceedings. His complaints were dismissed by the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Bacău District Court on 16 August 1999 and 29 February 2000. On 12 July 2002 the Bacău County Police answered a similar complaint, outlining the latest procedural steps taken in the case. 37. In addition, on 22 November 2001 the second applicant complained that he, his family and some of the witnesses had received threats from P.E. On 8 November 2004 P.E. threatened the applicants with retaliation. They reported the incidents to the police. 38. On 20 April 2004 the second applicant complained about the prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute S.P. and L.I.D. On 21 May 2004 the Bacău District Court dismissed the complaint. The decision became final as the parties did not appeal against it. 39. The case was initially referred to the Bacău County Court. However, on 27 May 2003 the County Court changed the legal classification of the crimes and sent the case to the District Court. It noted that at the time when the facts occurred, males were not recognised as potential victims of rape. Furthermore, at the time of the investigations, same-sex relations had been decriminalised. Therefore the facts under investigation could only be classified as the crime of “sexual perversion” and “sexual corruption of a minor”, which were under the jurisdiction of the district courts. The Bacău District Court started the examination of the case. On 13 May 2003 the first applicant gave a detailed description of the facts. P.E. denied having committed any crime against the applicant. 40. In September 2003 the first applicant’s older brother gave a statement to the court. He related what his brother had told him about the abuse. He further stated that around that period (January to April 1998) his brother’s behaviour had changed, he had refused to eat, had constantly been scared and had sometimes had blood on the back of his underpants. He declared that their mother had also noticed those blood stains. 41. The first applicant’s mother admitted that neither she nor her husband had taken time off work to accompany the child and see what had happened, although she had noticed the changes in his behaviour and sometimes even physical signs of potential abuse. 42. Several witnesses were interviewed by the court, including the neighbours R.I. and R.M., as well as S.P. 43. Between 20 December 2002 and 25 March 2003, the first applicant underwent a psychological evaluation. The final report revealed that he showed anxiety when shown his alleged aggressor’s image, uncertainty and social isolation; that he wished to have the routine of a “normal child”; and that he had a tendency to exaggerate and invent things, common to sufferers of trauma caused by such violence, especially children. 44. On 3 June 2003 the second applicant complained about the length of the proceedings and about P.E.’s request for release. On 11 August 2003 he complained that P.E. had been released from detention. 45. On 17 November 2003 the first applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation in Iaşi Hospital No. 7. The examination commission noted that he was scared, insecure, had difficulty concentrating and showed the frustration associated with the experience of not being believed by others. 46. On 5 May 2004 the Bacău District Court acquitted P.E., on the ground that the crimes had not been committed by him. 47. The court noted in particular that the parents had failed to notice the change in their child’s behaviour and to notify the authorities in good time, but rather had waited until after the abuse had been going on for some time. The court also observed that the descriptions of the facts given by the first applicant and the witnesses had not been accurate and differed in the details and pointed to the fact that the second applicant had tried to influence some of the witnesses to give statements against P.E. The court also attached importance to the fact that the searches performed during the criminal investigation had revealed no traces of P.E.’s presence in the victim’s apartment or any evidence in P.E.’s apartment to support the accusation against him. Lastly, the court considered that the findings of the medical report were not conclusive as to P.E.’s guilt. 48. On 4 October 2004 the Bacău County Court dismissed the appeals lodged by the prosecutor and the applicant against the judgment given by the District Court. The County Court found that there were contradictions in the statements given by the parties and witnesses. It acknowledged that such contradictions may have been caused by the time that had lapsed between the events and the examination of evidence by the courts, but considered that the length of the investigations had not been the main cause of the discrepancies. Accordingly, it noted that from the beginning of the investigation the second applicant and the witnesses had given contradictory descriptions of the aggressor in their various statements and considered that some of the witnesses had been dishonest and that the victim’s father had tried to influence several individuals to testify against P.E. The court also considered that the police line up had not been carried out properly, as the persons chosen to stand with P.E. had differed in physical appearance, in particular their height, length of hair, and posture. It also noted that only one family from the whole block of flats had heard the child screaming. The court was concerned by the fact that despite the alleged physical evidence of abuse (blood stains for example) and other odd occurrences around the house (missing food, moved furniture), the parents had waited a long time before reporting the alleged abuse to the police. Lastly, it noted that his psychological profile indicated that the first applicant was prone to exterior influence and fantasizing, and considered that he might have “put his parents on a false track, either because he did not know who the aggressor was or because he wanted to hide the latter’s identity”. On 20 January 2005 the Bacău Court of Appeal dismissed, by two votes to one, the appeals in cassation lodged by the prosecutor and the applicant. It reiterated the arguments put forward by the County Court. The dissenting judge argued that the evidence in the file was sufficient to convict P.E. for sexual corruption and unlawful entry. 49. At the date when the abuse against the first applicant occurred, the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code read as follows: “(1) Sexual intercourse with a female through coercion or taking advantage of her incapability of defending herself or of expressing her will, is punishable by three to ten years of imprisonment. (2) The sentence will be from five to fifteen years if: (a) the act was committed by two or more than two persons together; ... (3) The sentence will be from ten to twenty years if the victim is not yet fourteen years old ...” “(1) Sexual intercourse with a female who has not yet reached fourteen years of age is punishable by imprisonment of from one to five years.” “(1) Sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex, carried out in public or which causes a public scandal, is punishable by imprisonment of between one and five years. (2) Sexual intercourse by an adult with a juvenile of the same sex is punishable by imprisonment of between two and seven years and loss of certain rights. (3) Sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex who is incapable of defending him or herself or of expressing his or her will, or which is performed through coercion, is punishable by imprisonment of between three and ten years and loss of certain rights.” “(1) Acts of sexual perversion committed in public which cause a public scandal are punishable by imprisonment from one to five years.” “(1) Acts of an obscene nature committed to a minor or in his or her presence are punishable by imprisonment from three months to two years or by a fine.” 50. Articles 197 and 198 have been amended successively in order to recognise males as potential victims of rape and statutory rape, by Law no. 197/2000, which entered into force on 15 November 2000 and by Emergency Ordinance no. 89/2001, which entered into force on 26 June 2001. The latter Ordinance also decriminalised consenting same sex intercourse. 51. On 28 September 1990 Romania ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“the CRC”), in force since 2 September 1990. The CRC stipulates that the best interests of the child and his or her dignity shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children (Article 3). 52. The CRC urges Member States to take all appropriate measures to protect children from all forms of violence, including sexual abuse, and to provide for the recovery and social reintegration of victims. The relevant articles read as follows: “1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child. 2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.” “States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent: (a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;” “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.” 53. The Committee on the Rights of the Child interpreted the text of the CRC in its General comments. Its latest General comment no. 13 (2011) on the right of the child to freedom from all forms of violence is aimed at guiding State parties in understanding their obligations under Article 19 of the CRC, building on existing documents and reflecting on the evolution of the protection in question. The Committee acknowledged the efforts of the States to prevent and respond to violence. It nevertheless found that the States were lagging behind in their obligations: “§ 12 ...In spite of these efforts, existing initiatives are in general insufficient. Legal frameworks in a majority of States still fail to prohibit all forms of violence against children, and where laws are in place, their enforcement is often inadequate.” The Committee expresses the view that States are under a “strict obligation” to undertake all appropriate measures to fully implement this right for all children (paragraph 37 of the General comment). Among the State obligations, the Committee identified the need to: review and amend domestic legislation in line with Article 19 of the CRC; ensure protection to child victims and effective access to redress and reparation; enforce law in a child-friendly way; and provide for counselling support (paragraphs 41-44 of the General comment). The Committee develops further on the content of the “protective measures”, stressing the importance of prevention, the need for an easily accessible report mechanism, the importance of rigorous and child-sensitive investigation and of effective and child-friendly justice where due process must be respected (in particular paragraphs 45-58 of the General comment). 54. On 25 October 2007 the Council of Europe, recognising that the well-being and best interests of children are fundamental values shared by all member States, adopted the Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse urging the Member States to adopt measures to protect children from any form of abuse and to put in place a system capable of punishing any such acts. On 17 May 2011 the respondent State ratified that Convention which entered into force in respect of Romania on 1 September 2011.