003-3817886-4379056

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 028 (2012)   24.01.2012   Bulgarian authorities’ investigation of rape of 13-year old girl   was too slow   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case P.M. v. Bulgaria (application no. 49669/07),   which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there   had been:   A violation of the authorities’ obligation under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman   and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights to   investigate cases of sexual abuse.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that, raped at the age of 13, the   authorities took more than 15 years to complete the ensuing investigation and she had   no remedies against their reluctance to prosecute her aggressors.   Principal facts   The applicant, P.M., is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Stara   Zagora (Bulgaria).   In March 1991, P.M. – aged 13 at the time – went to a party at the home of a 21-year-   old man. She was first threatened and raped by one of the guests, a 17-year-old boy.   She was then beaten by the host who also tried to rape her but was interrupted by his   mother who returned home.   P.M. told her parents about what had happened and they took her to a doctor and   informed the police. A medical report dated the same day recorded an injury to her   hymen and several bruises on her head.   In April 1991, P.M.’s mother complained to the police about the two young men who had   allegedly assaulted her daughter. The police opened an inquiry and interviewed P.M.   They also interviewed her two alleged aggressors, noting down their addresses.   In January 1992 the prosecutor opened criminal proceedings against the two men only   to stay them in November the same year on the basis that one of them could not be   found. There is no information about whether the authorities took any steps to find him.   Eight years later, in December 2000, the criminal proceedings were resumed and some   investigative steps taken. However, a prosecutor terminated them in September 2003 in   respect of one of the accused on the basis that the limitation period had expired. In   March the following year, the proceedings were terminated in respect of the second   accused too, as the prosecutor found that the charges against him had not been proven   and that it was impossible to gather new evidence given the long period of time that had   elapsed.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   The proceedings were restarted, terminated a second time, and reopened again. In   November 2005, one of the accused was convicted of aggravated rape but relieved from   liability and punishment because of the expired limitation period. Although the same   court found the second accused guilty of attempted aggravated rape and sentenced him   to three years imprisonment, the upper court terminated the proceedings against him as   time-barred. P.M. did not appeal.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 3, P.M. complained that the investigation into the sexual   offences of which she had been a victim had been ineffective and she could not challenge   that.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 October   2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Lech Garlicki (Poland), President,   David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland),   Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),   Ledi Bianku (Albania),   Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria),   Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro),   Vincent A. de Gaetano (Malta), Judges,   and also Lawrence Early, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Admissibility   The Court found that while the sexual offences against P.M. had been committed before   Bulgaria became a party to the European Convention on Human Rights (on 7 September   1992), the investigation into those offences had been carried out after that date.   Therefore, the Court was competent to examine the application as far as the   investigation was concerned.   Furthermore, P.M. had not appealed the last decision to terminate the proceedings as   time-barred in respect of the man who had been found guilty of attempted aggravated   rape. However, in view of the clear domestic legislation and case-law on the period of   limitations, the Court found that an appeal was unlikely to have overturned that   termination.   Consequently, P.M.’s complaint was admissible.   Investigation (Article 3)   The Court noted that at the time it had become competent to examine the case (which is   September 1992, the date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of Bulgaria)   the investigation into P.M.’s rape complaint was dormant. No significant investigative   steps had been taken on the ground that the address of one of the suspects was   unknown.   However, when he had been finally found eight years later, he had apparently never   changed his address and no attempts had been made to find him during that time. The   Court found that the Bulgarian authorities’ inaction had been on the border of being   arbitrary, bearing in mind in particular the gravity of the facts and P.M.’s age at the   time. Given that the investigation had advanced exceptionally slowly, it was not   surprising that the prosecution had become time-barred at some point. Consequently,   the investigation had been ineffective, even though the facts of the case and the identity   of the offenders had been established.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 3.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Bulgaria was to pay P.M. 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-   pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s   RSS feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Celine Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 90 21 58 77)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   3