J.I. v. Croatia, No 35898/16, ECtHR (First Section), 8 September 2022

Alleged death threats made to rape victim by her abuser. Violation of Article 3 ECHR in respect of the lack of an effective investigation.

Art. 3 ECHR
Art. 14 ECHR

1.    To fall within the scope of Article 3 ECHR, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity. When assessing whether this minimum level is reached, several factors must be considered, including the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical and mental effects, as well as the sex of the victim and the relationship between the victim and the author of the treatment.

2.    Even in the absence of physical harm or intense physical or mental suffering, a treatment that humiliates or debases an individual’s human dignity, or that arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority such that his or her physical integrity or moral resistance is affected, can be characterized as degrading under Article 3 ECHR.

3.    The prohibition of ill-treatment under Article 3 ECHR covers all forms of domestic violence, including death threats. Under these circumstances, domestic authorities face an obligation to carry out effective investigations into the complaints of the alleged victims.

(In the instant case, the applicant, a Croatian citizen of Roma origin, complained of a violation of Article 3 ECHR due to the Croatian authorities' failure to protect her from death threats by her father, who had previously been convicted of sexual violence against her. After characterizing the death threats suffered by the applicant as inhuman treatment under Article 3 ECHR, the Court pointed out that Croatian authorities should have conducted effective investigations into the applicant’s allegations, a circumstance that did not occur. Therefore, the Court found a violation of Article 3 ECHR in its procedural dimension).

The applicant also alleged a violation of Article 14 ECHR, claiming that the dismissive behavior by Croatian authorities was due to her ethnic Roma origin. Although the Court found no circumstances to support the charge of discrimination, it noted that the applicant’s ethnic origin, together with her sex and past trauma, placed her in a particularly vulnerable condition, which should have led the authorities to react promptly and effectively to her complaints.