Communicated on 5 February 2021
Published on 22 February 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 37532/20
A.G. and Y.G.
against Russia
lodged on 24 August 2020
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicants are mother and son who were born in 1990 and 2014. They are Russian nationals and live in Moscow. The applicants are represented before the Court by Ms S. Gromova and Ms M. Nemova, lawyers practising in St Petersburg and the Moscow Region, respectively.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
3. In 2011 the first applicant married G.S., a national of Azerbaijan, in accordance with local custom. Shortly thereafter G.S. began serving a sentence of imprisonment for armed robbery. After his release in late 2013, the first applicant became pregnant and went to live with G.S.’s parents. From that time G.S. has been abusing her verbally and physically.
4. In August 2014 the first applicant was admitted to hospital to be treated for intrauterine hypoxia and other pregnancy-related complications. The second applicant was born with neuropsychiatric conditions that affected his intellectual development.
5. In February 2015 the applicants and G.S. started living together. In March 2015 the first applicant and G.S. registered their marriage, and G.S. legally acknowledged his paternity in respect of the second applicant.
6. G.S. continued to abuse the first applicant. He also drank and used drugs. She did not seek help for fear that the violence would escalate. The child was scared and tried to hide from his father.
7. On 21 January and 12 April 2016 G.S. hit the first applicant on the face and head. The first assault was reported to the police by her mother, the second by the trauma unit of the local hospital. On 28 January and 22 January 2016 the Vykhino-Zhulebino police station in Moscow issued the decisions not to investigate. They held that the battery was a privately prosecutable offence and that his threats of death were not sufficiently “real” to constitute criminal conduct.
8. On 7 July 2017 the first applicant divorced G.S. They intermittently lived together until March 2019. G.S. would make amends with her and promise to behave better but after a while he would again become abusive and violent.
9. On 13 March 2019 G.S. stormed the door of the applicants’ flat and threatened to kill the first applicant. He tore out the peephole and tossed lit cigarettes through the opening onto the floor. She called the police. On 22 March 2019 the Vykhino-Zhulebino police refused to investigate. They had interviewed G.S. who denied breaking the door or threatening the first applicant. Based on his claims, the police concluded that no offence had been committed.
10. At about 11 p.m. on 31 July 2019 a heavily drunk G.S. walked into the hairdressing studio where the first applicant worked. He fell asleep on a sofa. The first applicant spotted a knife in his pocket and took it away for safety. At about midnight she woke him up, as she was about to go home. On the way home G.S. pleaded with her to take him back in as he had no place to live. As they approached the house, he asked about his knife and she gave it back to him. He got hold of it and stabbed himself in the stomach. The first applicant called an ambulance. On 16 December 2019 an investigator with the Kuzminskiy District Investigations Department in Moscow declined to institute criminal proceedings, since G.S.’s wounds had been self-inflicted.
11. On 24 November 2019 G.S. accosted the applicants as they were leaving a store. He asked the child if he remembered him. The child told him excitedly that they had gone to the grandmother’s house. G.S. cut him off and swore at the first applicant and her mother. The child held back and said, “You are not my dad, you are some other man (ты не папа, ты дядя)”. The first applicant became scared for the child, fearing that G.S. might get aggressive and hurt him. She began pulling the child towards the house, as he kept repeating, “You, man – go home”. G.S. told the first applicant, “I am going to kill you”, pulled a knife out of his pocket and stabbed her three times in the chest. She grabbed the child and ran into the house for shelter. A neighbour called an ambulance for her. She was diagnosed with stab wounds to the chest and abdomen with heavy internal bleeding and taken to emergency surgery.
12. On 10 December 2019 G.S. was charged with attempted murder of the first applicant under Articles 30(3) and 105(1) of the Criminal Code.
13. On 14 February 2020 the first applicant asked the investigator to grant the second applicant the status of an injured party. A medical assessment established that the November assault had aggravated his pre‑existing mental condition. He had developed recurring fears, increased anxiety, emotional instability and begun obsessively playing stereotypically aggressive games. A child psychologist and the first applicant’s mother stated that the incident had adversely impacted his mental state. When interviewed, the second applicant said that, after the attack, he had thought that his “mom was finished, only her body (скелет) was left”.
14. On 17 February 2020 the investigator rejected the request, holding that no harm to the second applicant had been established. The first applicant applied for a judicial review of the refusal. By judgment of 1 June 2020, as upheld on appeal on 29 July 2020, the Kuzminskiy District Court held that the investigator had correctly decided on the request because that decision was within the scope of his exclusive discretion.
15. On 12 March 2020 counsel for the first applicant asked for a judicial review of the police decision not to investigate the incident on 13 March 2019. On 17 March 2020 the Kuzminskiy District Court discontinued the proceedings on her application, as it had transpired that on 27 February 2020 the supervising prosecutor had set aside the refusal to investigate. On 5 August 2020 the Moscow City Court rejected her appeal. The first applicant has not received any further information about the investigation into the 13 March 2019 incident.
COMPLAINTS
16. The first applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that the Russian authorities failed to establish a legal framework capable of protecting her against recurrent acts of violence and conduct an effective investigation into the ill-treatment inflicted by her former partner.
17. The second applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the authorities failed to protect him from witnessing his father’s violence against his mother and to acknowledge his status as a victim of violence.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. As regards the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in connection with the ill-treatment of the first applicant by G.S., did the Russian authorities discharge their obligation to protect her against the violence? In particular,
(a) Did the Russian State discharge the obligation to establish and apply effectively a legislative framework for punishing all forms of domestic violence and providing sufficient safeguards for victims?
(b) Did the Russian authorities discharge the obligation to take the reasonable measures that might have been expected of them in the circumstances in order to avert further risk of ill-treatment after the first applicant had reported the first assault? Did the Russian authorities design and implement a strategy for risk assessment and management of domestic violence?
(c) Did the Russian authorities discharge the obligation to conduct an effective investigation into all instances of ill-treatment which had been reported to them and to bring the perpetrator to account?
2. As regards the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention, did the Russian authorities discharge the obligation to protect the second applicant from having to witness the violence which his father inflicted on his mother (see Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 3564/11, §§ 74-79, 28 May 2013) and acknowledge the adverse impact which the assault may have had on his well-being?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy