Europe

The husband (the offender) and his wife (the victim) were officially divorced and have not lived together since 2012. The defendant showed up to his ex-wife’s home in an inebriated state four times, using obscenities to insult her and thus intentionally harming her mental health. For three (out of four) of these episodes, the man was fined under Art. 173² of the Code of Administrative Offenses for domestic violence. Later, the victim reported to the police that her husband committed a crime under Art.

The offender (the man was older than 18 years) repeatedly raped a girl under 14 years of age. The court of first instance sentenced him to nine years in prison (isolation for a certain period of time in a closed-type penal institution). When determining the sentence, the court took into account what it considered to be mitigating circumstances, namely: (i) sincere remorse; (ii) partial payment of damages; (iii) admission of guilt; (iv) no prior criminal record.

The mother of minors (the plaintiff) had been convicted for committing a criminal offense. After serving her sentence, the plaintiff asked the child services agency to return her children to her; their grandmother had been appointed as their guardian as a way of protecting the rights and interests of the children. According to the plaintiff, after her release she got a job and a room in a dormitory, and she wanted to be allowed to raise her children on her own.

The plaintiff asked the court for a restraining order to protect herself and a child she had with her ex-husband (the defendant). According to her, the defendant would often resort to insulting her, using physical force on her in the presence of a small child (allegation supported by a forensic expert’s report), using obscene language regarding her, and systematically engaging in psychological violence that involved intimidation and stalking of her and their child.

The spouses were officially divorced. The appellant (the father) sued the defendant, his ex-wife, to remove obstacles to communication with his child and his participation in the child’s upbringing, as well as to determine the method of his involvement in the child’s upbringing. According to the appellant, after their divorce the defendant started trying to prevent him from fulfilling his parental duties and to turn the child against the appellant.

The plaintiff was hired as a cashier at a supermarket. Due to her pregnancy, she was hired as a part-time employee (working no more than four hours a day; under Art. 56 of the Labor Code, at the request of a pregnant woman, the employer must allow her a part-time working day or part-time working week), but worked full-time. While at work, she suddenly started experiencing health problems and asked the senior cashier to let her go home. The latter denied her request in a rude manner.

Pretending to be a cafe employee, the offender invited the complainant to a job interview where he tried to rape her and inflicted minor bodily injuries on her. For reasons beyond the criminal's control, his plan failed (the woman was able to escape and leave the scene of the crime). The court of first instance sentenced the man to six years in prison for attempted rape as a repeat offense, which is an aggravating circumstance.

The plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit against the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, asking to cancel paragraph 3 of the Medico-Biological and Socio-Psychological Guidelines for the Change (Correction) of Gender Identity adopted by the Ministry’s Order No. 60 dated 3 February 2011 (Order No. 60), specifically the part that lists the presence of children under the age of 18 and serious problems with social adaptation (unemployment, absence of permanent residence, etc.) as arguments for denying the procedure.

The applicant alleged that police had tortured him and that the domestic authorities had failed to investigate his complaint in that regard. The applicant was apprehended by the police on suspicion of committing several robberies. According to the applicant, the Chief,  Deputy Chief of the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Police Department, and other police officers tortured him during his detention at the police station. Police officers allegedly sought but failed to obtain a confession from him.