Sexual abuse

Case no. [39272/98], ECHR, Strasbourg, 12 December 2003, M.C. v. Bulgaria

Ground: The Article 3 of ECHR on the prohibition of torture; The Article 3 on degrading treatment; The Article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life; The Article 13 on the right to an effective remedy; The Article 14 on the prohibition of discrimination; sexual abuse.

The abstract of the Judgment

The applicant, M.C., is a Bulgarian national. She alleged that she was raped by two men, A. and P., aged 20 and 21, when she was 14 years old, the age of consent for sexual intercourse in Bulgaria. After the raping, she was found by her mother and was sent to hospital where the medical examination noticed that the hymen, her vaginal membrane was damaged. A. and P., both denied raping M.C. The criminal investigations conducted found insufficient evidence that M.C. had been compelled to have sex with A. and P. The proceedings were terminated on 17 March 1997 by the District Prosecutor, who found that the use of force or threats had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. In particular, no resistance on the applicant’s part or attempts to seek help from others had been established. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. Written expert opinions submitted to the European Court of Human Rights by M.C. identified “frozen fright” (traumatic psychological infantilism syndrome) as the most common response to rape, where the terrorised victim either submits passively to or dissociates her or himself psychologically from the rape.  Of the 25 rape cases analysed, concerning women in Bulgaria aged between 14 and 20, 24 of the victims had responded to their aggressor in this way.

M.C. complained that Bulgarian law and practice do not provide effective protection against rape and sexual abuse, as only cases where the victim resists actively are prosecuted.  She submitted that Bulgaria has a positive obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights to protect the individual’s physical integrity and private life and to provide an effective remedy.  She also complained that the authorities had not effectively investigated the events in question. She relied on Article 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment), Article 8 (right to respect for private life), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). The Court held, unanimously, that in this case there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights as the respondent State failed to comply with its positive obligations under those provisions. Under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 8,000 euros (EUR) for non-

pecuniary damage and EUR 4,110 for costs and expenses. Note! In the HUDOC there is a summary of the judgment in Albanian language. This is done by the European Centre, COE and EC.