Case of Eremia v. The Republic of Moldova, Moldova, European Court of Human Rights, 2013.
E’s husband, a police officer, had been abusive towards her, often in the presence of their teenage daughters, whose psychological well-being was adversely affected as a result. A protection order had been issued against E’s husband upon E’s first request but was not respected by the husband and was partly revoked on appeal. E filed a criminal complaint and claimed being pressured by other police officers to withdraw the complaint. Although a criminal investigation was finally launched, and substantive evidence of the husband’s guilt was found, the prosecutor suspended the investigation for one year subject to the condition that the investigation would be reopened if the husband committed another offence during that time on basis that the husband had committed “a less serious offence” and “did not represent a danger to society.” The ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 in respect of E as the suspension of E’s husband’s criminal investigation in effect shielded him from criminal liability rather than deterring him from committing further violence against E. The Court concluded that the refusal to speed up the urgent examination of their request for a divorce, the failure to enforce the protection order and the insult of E by suggesting reconciliation since she was “not the first nor the last women to be beaten up by her husband”, and by suspending the criminal proceedings amounted to “repeatedly condoning such violence and reflected a discriminatory attitude towards the first applicant as a woman” thus violating Article 14 of the Convention. There was also a violation of Article 8 in respect of E’s daughters in respect of their right to respect of private life, including a person’s physical and psychological integrity. The Court ordered the State to pay the applicants non-pecuniary damages and cost and expenses.
I.G. v. The Republic of Moldova, Moldova, European Court of Human Rights, 2012.
A 14-year-old girl was allegedly raped by an acquaintance. She complained that the authorities had failed to investigate her allegations effectively and that the requirement of corroborative evidence of resistance had been discriminatory against her. The Court found a violation of Article 3 on effective investigation and ordered the State to pay the applicant just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and awards the applicant EUR 10,000.