JUDGMENT
J.I. v. Croatia 08.09.2022 (app. no. 35898/16)
SUMMARY
The case concerned a rape victim’s complaint that the authorities had not taken seriously her allegation that her rapist – her father – had threatened to kill
her during prison leave.
The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European
Convention on Human Rights because of the lack of an effective investigation into her complaint.
The Court found in particular that even though the applicant had informed the police on three
occasions of a serious threat to her life by her rapist, they had never even commenced criminal
enquiries, let alone opened an investigation.
The authorities had been well aware that the applicant was particularly vulnerable as a Roma
woman and victim of serious sexual offences and should therefore have reacted promptly and
efficiently to protect her from her rapist’s threat being carried out as well as from intimidation,
retaliation and repeat victimisation.
PROVISIONS
Article 3
Article 14
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Ms J.I., is a Croatian national who was born in 1988 and lives in Zagreb (Croatia).
In May 2009 her father, B.S., was convicted of multiple acts of rape against her and sentenced to
eight years’ imprisonment.
Following the conviction, the applicant started a new life, changing her name, hairstyle and place of
residence and undergoing extensive therapy.
In 2015 she contacted the police on three separate occasions to report that her father was
threatening her.
On the first occasion, on 11 August 2015, she thought that her father had escaped from prison
because she had heard from family that he had been looking for her and had threatened to kill her
because he held her responsible for his imprisonment. The police told her that he had in fact been
granted prison leave and that there was no point in drawing up a report “since nothing ha[d] actually
happened.”
Then, on 3 September 2015, she called the police when she saw her father waiting in a bus station.
She hid in a nearby shop until the police arrived and escorted her and her father to their respective buses, ensuring no contact. The subsequent police report recorded that the applicant had told the intervening police officers that her father had threatened to kill her through her relatives.
Lastly, she wrote a letter to the police on 22 September 2015, complaining about their failure to
react to her concerns and requesting measures to protect her. This led to an internal police
investigation; however, no misconduct or shortcomings were found.
The police did not start a criminal investigation on any of these three occasions.
The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the domestic authorities’ failure to protect
her from her father’s intimidation and repeat victimisation and to effectively investigate his threats,
alleging also that she had been discriminated against as a woman of Roma ethnicity. It was declared
inadmissible in December 2015.
In the meantime, the prison authorities had suspended B.S.’s prison leave at the applicant’s request.
He was released from prison in April 2016 and expelled from Croatia to his country of origin, Bosnia
and Herzegovina. He has since died.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 3
The applicant maintained that she had lived in fear from the moment she learned that her father
had been granted prison leave. The Court did not doubt that that fear had been genuine, noting that
she was a highly traumatised Roma woman who had been the victim of appalling sexual abuse by
her father at a very early age. It considered that the threats, coupled with the anxiety and feelings of
powerlessness she had to have felt, had amounted to inhuman treatment with the meaning of
Article 3 of the Convention.
The authorities had therefore had a duty to investigate the applicant’s allegations, both under
domestic law and the European Convention. However, the police had never even commenced
criminal enquiries, let alone opened an investigation into the applicant’s allegations.
The authorities had moreover never made a serious attempt to take a holistic view of the applicant’s
case, including the domestic violence she had previously been exposed to, which was a requirement
in this type of case.
The Court concluded that the Croatian authorities had failed to effectively investigate a particularly
vulnerable rape victim’s allegation of a serious threat to her life, in violation of Article 3 of the
Convention.
The Court also found that neither the circ*mstances of the case nor any relevant evidence such as
statistics substantiated the applicant’s allegation of discrimination on the grounds of her Roma
origin. Nevertheless, the authorities had been well aware of the applicant’s particular vulnerability
as a Roma woman and victim of serious sexual offences, and they should therefore have reacted
promptly and efficiently to protect her from her rapist’s threat being carried out as well as from
intimidation, retaliation and repeat victimisation.
In view of that finding, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there was no need to give a separate
ruling on the applicant’s remaining complaint under Article 3.
Article 14
Given that the Court had already taken into account the applicant’s particular vulnerability in its
examination of her complaints under Article 3, it held unanimously that no separate issues arose
under Article 14.
Article 41 (just satisfaction)
The Court held, by six votes to one, that Croatia was to pay the applicant 12,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,500 in respect of costs and expenses.
Separate opinions
Judge Wojtyczek and Derenčinović expressed partly dissenting opinions.
