International Case Law

Y. v. Slovenia European Court of Human Rights (2015)

International law, Sexual violence and rape, Statutory rape or defilement

Applicant is a citizen of Ukraine who came to Slovenia as a teenager with her family.  Applicant alleged that when she was 14 a family friend repeatedly sexually assaulted her.  The police investigated and an expert in gynecology examined the applicant.  After complaints and a letter from the State Prosecutor’s Office to the local police a criminal complaint was issued.  The ensuing investigation and trial extended over a period of eight years.  During that time the defendant was allowed to repeatedly cross examine the applicant.  Moreover, a lawyer with whom the applicant had shared confidential information about the case was allowed to represent the defendant.  The defendant was acquitted, the applicant was referred to civil court for damages, and the applicant received a settlement from the government for the undue delays in the proceedings.  The Court found that Slovenia violated the European Convention of Human Rights in two ways.  Slovenia violated Article 3 when it failed to promptly investigate and prosecute the complaint of sexual abuse.  Furthermore, Slovenia violated Article 8 because it failed to sufficiently protect the applicant’s personal integrity and privacy in the proceedings.

Case of W. v. Slovenia European Court of Human Rights (2014)

International law, Sexual violence and rape

In 1990 at age 18, W. was raped by a group of seven men.  Three other men aided and abetted the rape.  Seven months later, the court acquitted the men of all charges, finding that the victim had not “seriously resisted sexual intercourse.”  The Public Prosecutor appealed the judgement and in 1991, a year after the assault, the appellate court overturned the acquittal.  The Slovenian authorities attempted to locate the perpetrators, but two defendants had emigrated to Austria and could not be found.  Between 1995 and 2001, the victim wrote eight letters to the court urging the proceedings to continue and five hearings were adjourned for failure of some of the defendants to appear.  Various excuses, such as frequent changes in the presiding judges, were offered to the victim as excuses for the stalled proceedings.  Finally, in May 2001, the authorities issued an international arrest warrant for the defendants located abroad.  In June 2002, six defendants were found guilty of rape and aggravated rape.  However, due to the passage of time, they were only sentenced to eight months to one year of prison.  The last defendant was extradited in 2004, convicted of aiding and abetting the rape, and sentenced to eight months in prison.  The victim received €5,000 from the Slovenian government in recognition of delay in prosecuting the defendants; however, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that this amount (while the statutory maximum in Slovenia) was insufficient redress.  The ECtHR noted that Slovenian authorities failed to proceed with the case in a diligent manner and that the defendants received prison sentences of less than the minimum sentences prescribed by law.  Thus, the domestic authorities failed to comply with their obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights.  The ECHR, deciding in equity, awarded the victim €15,000 in addition to the €5,000 she received from the domestic authorities.

W. v. Slovenia European Court of Human Rights (2014)

Sexual violence and rape

The applicant was raped by a group of men, some of whom were juveniles at the time. The Maribor Basic Court first acquitted them, but on appeal it was remitted to a new panel of judges. The case was delayed for a decade because some of the defendants had emigrated to Austria. The court finally tried the defendants in trials in the early 2000’s. The applicant alleged a violation of Article 3 of the Convention because the delays in the criminal proceedings against the individuals who raped her. The Court ruled that the compensation awarded to the applicant by the domestic court did not constitute consistent redress and that there was a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.