Communicated on 14 November 2016
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 58737/14
A.P.
against Armenia
lodged on 19 August 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms A. P., is an Armenian national who was born in 1997. Between November 2011 and February 2012 the applicant, who has had a mild intellectual disability since birth, was raped and indecently assaulted by A.G., aged 49, who was the head of the village community and also the sports teacher at the village school. On 27 February 2013 the Regional Court, sitting in camera, convicted A.G. of rape and indecent acts committed in respect of a minor and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The judicial acts’ internet database does not contain any information concerning the criminal case. It merely states the number of the case with A.G.’s name and is listed as ‘in camera proceedings’. The applicant subsequently brought a civil claim for damages against the State, claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of sexual abuse by A.G., head of the village community and school teacher. In her claim the applicant also asked that the case be examined behind closed doors and that no information concerning the proceedings be published in the judicial acts’ database, including her name, taking into account the nature of the case. The applicant’s civil claim was rejected in the final instance by the Court of Cassation on 30 April 2014. The information concerning the applicant’s claim, including her full name, was published on the judicial acts’ internet database.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that she was abused by A.G., a State official and a teacher at a village school, while exercising his official duties.
She complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the courts made full information concerning her civil claim for damages available on the judicial acts’ internet database.
The applicant further complains under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention that no compensation for the non‑pecuniary damage suffered has been available to her from the State.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, as a result of the acts inflicted on her by A.G.?
2. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life as a result of the publication of the information concerning her civil claim for damages on the judicial acts’ internet database, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her Convention complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, was the fact that no compensation for non‑pecuniary damage was available to her compatible with the requirements of that Article?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy