The applicant, known as X, is a Georgian national who was born in 2005 and lives in Georgia.
In May 2021, at the age of 15, X disclosed to a relative that she had been sexually abused by her stepfather when she was 13. The matter was reported to the police on 7 May 2021, and a criminal investigation was opened. The authorities conducted interviews with X, her mother and her stepfather, and arranged psychological and gynaecological examinations. Other evidence was also collected.
On 28 May 2021, the prosecution authorities refused X’s request to be granted victim status, citing the early stage of the investigation. That decision was upheld by a senior prosecutor in June 2021.
In August 2021, X’s lawyer requested a further interview, following additional disclosures by X alleging more serious offences. However, no further investigative steps were taken.
In February 2022, X appealed the refusal to grant her victim status. In March 2022, the Tbilisi City Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the available evidence did not establish with certainty that a criminal offence had been committed or that X had suffered harm.
The investigation remained ongoing at the time of the application.
Relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, X complained that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into her allegations of sexual abuse and that certain investigative measures had caused her additional harm. She further alleged, under Article 14, that the deficiencies amounted to discrimination based on sex.
The European Court of Human Rights reiterated that States are under a positive obligation to criminalise and effectively investigate allegations of sexual abuse of children.
As regards the legislative framework, the Court found that Georgian law was adequate. It noted in particular that non-consensual sexual offences against children were treated as aggravated offences and that the law did not depend solely on proof of physical force.
However, the Court identified serious deficiencies in the handling of X’s case. The investigation had effectively stalled at a preliminary stage, with no meaningful investigative steps taken after July 2021. The reasons for this prolonged inactivity were unclear and incompatible with the urgency required in cases involving alleged sexual abuse of minors.
The Court was particularly critical of the refusal to grant X victim status. Despite the existence of prima facie evidence, including her detailed account, corroborating witness statements, documentary material, and expert psychological and medical assessments, the authorities concluded that no harm had been established. The Court considered that this reflected an unwillingness to engage in a genuine investigation.
Further concerns arose from the authorities’ failure to take additional statements from X, which could have clarified the seriousness of the alleged offences. The Court also criticised certain investigative measures. While gynaecological examinations may be appropriate in some cases, the Court found no justification for such an examination in X’s circumstances, noting that it had likely caused her additional physical and psychological trauma. It also found that a question posed to X during an interview, asking whether she had wanted her stepfather’s sexual attention, was inappropriate and potentially harmful.
Taken together, these shortcomings demonstrated that the investigation lacked the required diligence, sensitivity and effectiveness. The Court emphasised that investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse must be both rigorous and tailored to the vulnerability of the victim.
Accordingly, the Court found a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention on account of the failure to conduct an effective investigation.
As regards Article 14, the Court found no evidence that such investigative failures disproportionately affected girls compared to boys, and declared that complaint inadmissible.
The Court held that Georgia was to pay the applicant €10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.