C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 150

March 2012

C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania - 26692/05

Judgment 20.3.2012 [Section III]

Article 3

Effective investigation

Failure to carry out effective investigation into allegations of violent sexual abuse of a child: violation

Facts – In January 1998, the first applicant, a seven-year-old boy, was followed home from school by a man who forced his way into the family home and subjected him to a violent sexual assault before warning him at knife-point that he would be killed if he told anyone what had happened. Over the following months the abuse continued several times a week. In April 1998, after finally being told by his son what was happening, the boy’s father (the second applicant) alerted the police, who started an investigation. The first applicant identified his aggressor in a line-up and several witnesses stated that they had seen the man either entering, or in the vicinity of, the boy’s flat during the period in question. Two medical examinations of the boy indicated injuries consistent with repeated sexual abuse. After the investigation had been discontinued three times, the suspect eventually stood trial in 2004, when he was acquitted of rape and unlawful entry of the boy’s home. The domestic courts found that the parties and witnesses had given contradictory statements and were particularly concerned by the fact that the parents had waited a long time before going to the police. They further noted that the first applicant had not given an accurate description of the facts and was prone to fantasizing.

Law – Articles 3 and 8: Despite the gravity of the allegations and the particular vulnerability of the victim, the investigation had been neither prompt nor effective. The authorities had waited three weeks before ordering a medical examination of the victim and two months before interviewing the main suspect. Overall, the investigation had lasted five years. Furthermore, seven years after the incident, the main suspect had been exonerated without the authorities even trying to find out if there was any other suspect. Of even further concern in such a case of violent sexual abuse of a minor was that the authorities had not tried to weigh up the conflicting evidence and establish the facts or carry out a rigorous and child-sensitive investigation. In fact, while the courts had paid no attention to the length of the investigation, they had attached significant importance to the fact that the family had not reported the crimes immediately to the police and, to a certain extent, that the victim had not reacted sooner. The Court failed to see how the parents’ alleged negligence could have any impact on the diligence of the police in their response to the rape of a seven-year-old boy. Nor could it understand why the authorities had not been more aware of the particular vulnerability of the victim and the special psychological factors involved, which could have explained his hesitation in reporting the abuse and describing what had happened to him. The States had an obligation under Articles 3 and 8 to ensure the effective criminal investigation of cases involving violence against children, with respect for their best interests being paramount. It was particularly regrettable that the first applicant had never been given counselling or been accompanied by a qualified psychologist either during the rape proceedings or afterwards. The failure to adequately respond to allegations of child abuse in this case cast doubt over the effectiveness of the system Romania had put in place to comply with its international obligations to protect children from all forms of violence and to help the recovery and social reintegration of victims. Indeed, it had left the criminal proceedings devoid of any meaning. In sum, the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the allegations of violent sexual abuse of the first applicant and to ensure adequate protection of his private and family life.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 41: EUR 15,000 to the first applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy