Published on 19 July 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 14407/20
B.S. against Iceland
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 29 June 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern allegations of insufficient or ineffective criminal investigations into, and failure to prosecute, the applicants’ charges for sexual assaults.
The first applicant, B.S., pressed charges in March 2019 against a man for sexual assault committed in July 2018, when she was a minor. Statements were taken from the applicant and the accused in March 2019. The District Prosecutor notified the applicant in June 2019 that the case had been closed on the grounds that it was not likely to lead to a conviction. The Director of Public Prosecutions upheld the decision in September 2019. The applicant was granted anonymity by this Court on 21 April 2021.
The second applicant, S.O., pressed charges in May 2018 against two men for sexual assault committed in June 2012. A statement was taken from the applicant in May 2018 and the accused in August and October 2018. The District Prosecutor notified the applicant in June 2019 that the case had been closed on the grounds that it was not likely to lead to a conviction. The Director of Public Prosecutions upheld the decision in October 2019. The applicant was granted anonymity by this Court on 21 April 2021.
The third applicant, M.R., pressed charges in June 2019 against a man for sexual assault committed three days earlier. She was a minor at the time. A statement was taken from the applicant in June 2019 and the accused in July 2019. The District Prosecutor notified the applicant in March 2020 that the case had been closed on the grounds that it was not likely to lead to a conviction. The Director of Public Prosecutions upheld the decision in August 2020. The applicant was granted anonymity by this Court on 21 April 2021.
The fourth applicant, G.M., pressed charges in September 2018 against two men for sexual assaults committed in 2005-2009. She was a minor for a large part of that period, the two men were seventeen years her senior and one of them was her close relative. Statements were taken from the applicant in September and October 2018 and the accused in December 2018. The District Prosecutor notified the applicant in July 2019 that the case had been closed on the grounds that it was not likely to lead to a conviction. The Director of Public Prosecutions overturned the decision on 5 November 2019 on the grounds that the investigation had not been fully investigated. After additional investigative measures had been carried out, the District Prosecutor notified the applicant in May 2020 that the case had been closed on the grounds that it was not likely to lead to a conviction. The Director of Public Prosecutions upheld the decision in September 2020. The applicant was granted anonymity by this Court on 21 April 2021.
The applicants complain that the respondent State has failed its positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 § 1 of the Convention to carry out effective criminal investigations into and prosecute their charges for sexual violence. The applicants also complain under Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with the above Articles, that the respondent State has as a result failed to protect them as women against gender-based violence.
COMMON QUESTIONS
1. Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the positive obligations of States inherent in Articles 3 and 8 § 1 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation and prosecution of acts of sexual assault and domestic violence, were the investigations in the present cases by the domestic authorities in breach of the above-mentioned Articles (see, for example, M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 148-53, 4 December 2003, and E.B. v. Romania, no. 49089/10, §§ 53-56, 19 March 2019)?
3. Have the applicants suffered gender-based discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, §§ 184‑91, ECHR 2009, and Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 109-14, 9 July 2019)?
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
4. As concerns the first applicant (B.S.), did the domestic authorities conduct the investigation with the necessary diligence and promptness, taking all reasonable steps available to them to obtain the relevant evidence, including witness statements, medical reports and the report of the Children’s House (Barnahús) (see, for example, I.G. v. Moldova, no. 53519/07, §§ 40-45, 15 May 2012, and M. and Others v. Italy and Bulgaria, no. 40020/03, §§ 99-100, 31 July 2012)? Was sufficient regard had to the best interests of the applicant as a minor victim of alleged sexual offences (see, for example, C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania, no. 26692/05, § 82, 20 March 2012, and N.D. v. Slovenia, no. 16605/09, § 61, 15 January 2015)?
5. As concerns the second applicant (S.O.), did the domestic authorities conduct the investigation with the necessary diligence and promptness, including taking appropriate steps to reduce the risk of collusion between the alleged perpetrators (see, for example, Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, § 126, 24 July 2014, and the cases cited therein)?
6. As concerns the third applicant (M.R.), was sufficient regard had to the best interests of the applicant as a minor victim of alleged sexual offences (see the above-mentioned cases of C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania, § 82, and N.D. v. Slovenia, § 61)? Did the domestic law and practice in force at the material time in Iceland provide effective protection against all forms of rape and sexual abuse of minors as required under Articles 3 and/or 8 of the Convention (see, for example, X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, §§ 179-92, 2 February 2021)?
7. As concerns the fourth applicant (G.M.), did the domestic law and practice in force at the material time in Iceland provide effective protection against all forms of rape and sexual abuse of minors as required under Articles 3 and/or 8 of the Convention (see, for example, X and Others v. Bulgaria, cited above, §§ 179-92)?
Did the authorities sufficiently investigate and assess the charges brought by the applicant, taking account of the applicant’s age at the time of events and potential relationships of power, authority and trust between her and the accused (see, for example, the above-cited cases of M.C. v. Bulgaria, §§ 163-66, and X and Others v. Bulgaria, § 180)?
Were there any changes in the testimony of the accused between the investigations initiated in 2005 and 2018 respectively? If so, did the authorities sufficiently assess the credibility of the testimony of the accused in this light?
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Nationality
Represented by
Notes
1.
14407/20
B.S. v. Iceland
13/03/2020
B.S.
Icelandic
Sigrun Ingibjoerg GISLADOTTIR
Anonymity
2.
17008/20
S.O. v. Iceland
25/03/2020
S.O.
Icelandic
Sigrun Ingibjoerg GISLADOTTIR
Anonymity
3.
3538/21
M.R. v. Iceland
11/01/2021
M.R.
Icelandic
Sigrun Ingibjoerg GISLADOTTIR
Anonymity
4.
14833/21
G.M. v. Iceland
02/03/2021
G.M.
Icelandic
Sigrun JOHANNSDOTTIR
Anonymity
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy