Communicated on 12 October 2020
Published on 2 November 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 63221/19
Yelena Nikolayevna TRETYAKOVA and Yelizaveta Sergeyevna TRETYAKOVA
against Russia
lodged on 3 December 2019
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicants, Ms Yelena Nikolayevna Tretyakova and Ms Yelizaveta Sergeyevna Tretyakova, are Russian nationals. They are mother and daughter who were born in 1969 and 2002 and live in St Petersburg. They are represented before the Court by Ms V. Kogan.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
3. Mr T., the husband of the first applicant and father of the second, drank heavily and had a history of verbal and physical abuse of them. On 10 May and 28 June 2016 he assaulted the mother and threatened to kill her. When the daughter came to her mother’s defence, he pushed her away and twisted her arms. Both applicants underwent a medical examination which recorded the injuries they had suffered. The police instituted criminal proceedings against T. on the charge of making threats of death, an offence under Article 119 of the Criminal Code, and that of battery, under Article 116. On 5 April 2017 the battery case was discontinued on the grounds that battery no longer constituted a criminal offence (see Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 49, 9 July 2019). The investigation into threats of death was discontinued on 12 May 2017 because of a settlement between the first applicant and T.
4. In June 2017, the first applicant divorced T. They continued living together because the flat was in their joint ownership.
5. On 5 November 2017 T. had a drunken row with the first applicant and threatened to kill her. A medical assessment noted several abrasions on her neck. The police opened an investigation into the threats of death and submitted the case for trial. On 27 December 2018 a justice of the peace of Court Circuit no. 174 of St Petersburg found T. guilty and sentenced him to 160 hours’ community service. In her statement of appeal, the first applicant submitted that the non-custodial sentence did not have a sufficient deterrent effect and was incapable of preventing T. from re-offending. On 3 June 2019 the Primorsky District Court of St Petersburg dismissed her appeal and upheld the conviction.
6. Between January and March 2018 the first applicant reported to the police new domestic assaults involving threats of death, kicks, punches and an attempted strangulation. Each time the police instituted a criminal case against T. on the charge of threats of death. The cases were joined at the pre-trial stage. On 7 December 2018 a justice of the peace of Court Circuit no. 175 found T. guilty on all charges and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment conditional on one and a half years’ probation.
7. On 28 February 2019 the first applicant asked the police to investigate T. on the charge of “tormenting”, an offence under Article 117 of the Criminal Code. She submitted that a repetition of violent assaults on her and on her daughter amounted to the kind of systematic abuse which that provision envisaged. On 24 June 2019 the Investigations Committee in St Petersburg instituted the criminal proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
8. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that the domestic authorities have failed to protect them from recurrent violence. They did not remain totally passive but still failed to take due measures to avert the violence against the applicants and ensure their safety. The applicants allege that the existing legal framework is deficient because of the absence of legal provisions capable of preventing domestic violence.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. The parties are requested to inform the Court of the outcome of the investigation under Article 117 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 7 of the Facts).
2. As regards the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention in connection with a series of assaults on the applicants, did the Russian authorities discharge their obligation to protect them against the recurrent 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 reported assaults? 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 – including both the threats of death and actual bodily harm – which had been reported to them and to bring the perpetrator to account?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy