Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 97

May 2007

Giusto, Bornacin and V. v. Italy - 38972/06

Decision 15.5.2007 [Section II]

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Inhuman treatment

Repatriation of a child who had been subjected to abuse in Belarus: inadmissible

The applicants are a married couple who claimed they were also acting on behalf of the child they took in as part of a foreign exchange and holiday scheme for children in the care of a Belarusian orphanage. Over the previous three years she had spent about 18 months with them, resulting in a relationship similar to that between parents and their children. According to the applicants, every time she arrived she was bruised, had trouble sleeping and her behaviour was almost autistic; these disorders would gradually subside over time, only to reappear as the date of her return to her country drew closer. She also had cigarette burns on her abdomen. The girl said she had been undressed, bound, kissed and bitten. A psychologist attested the psychological after-effects. The child spoke of suicide and tried to kill herself. She refused to visit a friend, who she said was one of the people who had sexually abused her. The boy concerned confirmed this and the psychologist found both children’s stories plausible. The prosecuting authorities opened a file. Medical examinations revealed traces of violence. The applicants applied to the children’s court (“the court”) to adopt the child, but their application was rejected. When the Belarusian Ministry of Education protested, the embassy invited the court to order the child’s repatriation. The court observed the various traces of the violence the child had suffered in the orphanage and the need for therapy. She met two doctors from Belarus but was in a state of stress and adamantly refused to take her clothes off. The embassy sent the court a programme for the child’s full psychological, pedagogical and medical rehabilitation. They said that the authorities had taken urgent steps to clarify the situation in the orphanage and undertook to keep the Italian Government informed of any developments. After examining the child, Belarusian medical experts ruled out the possibility that repatriating her might affect her physical or mental health.  She would be accompanied on the journey by specialised staff. The embassy considered that there was no objective case for keeping the girl in Italy and invited the authorities to act. Failing that, Belarus would be obliged to suspend international adoptions and holidays for children in Italy. A report drawn up by a child neuropsychiatrist stated that the child was no doubt physically fit but not psychologically fit for the journey. In a note addressed to the president of the court, the Commission for International Adoption of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers expressed its willingness to offer the broadest, most practical cooperation to facilitate the repat