EIT: Toimimattomuus perheväkivaltatapuksessa muodosti EIS 3 artiklan loukkauksen

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on tehnyt varsin selväksi, että perheväkivaltatapauksiin tulee suhtautua vakavasti. Se katsoi Liettuaa koskevassa tuomiossaan, että viranomaisten passiivisuus syytetoimiin ryhtymisessä muodosti Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 3 artiklan loukkauksen (kidutuksen, epäinhimillisen ja halventavan kohtelun kielto).

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

The Court noted that Ms Valiulienė had addressed the city district court as early as February 2001 to bring a private prosecution against her partner. She had provided specific descriptions of each incident of ill-treatment and had indicated the names of several witnesses. The Court found that the Lithuanian authorities had received sufficient information from her to raise a suspicion that a crime had been committed. As of that moment, they had therefore been under an obligation to act upon her criminal complaint.

While the authorities had initially acted without undue delay, the investigation had been suspended repeatedly following the transfer of the case to the public prosecutor. The fact that the prosecutor’s decisions had been quashed by the higher prosecutor as not being thorough enough indicated a serious flaw on the part of the State.

Furthermore, even though the Lithuanian Code of Criminal Procedure had changed in May 2003, the prosecutor had decided to return the case to Ms Valiulienė for private prosecution only two years after the legislative reform, in June 2005. The decision had been upheld despite Ms Valiulienė’s plea that it would entail the risk of her partner enjoying impunity, given that the time-limit for prosecution was approaching. The Court underlined that even after the legislative reform it would have been possible for a public prosecutor to investigate acts causing minor bodily harm, provided that this was in the public interest.

As a result of the prosecutor’s decision, the circumstances of the case had never been established by a competent court of law. Therefore, one of the purposes of criminal prosecution, namely the effective protection against acts of ill-treatment, had not been achieved in Ms Valiulienė’s case. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 on that account.

Koko lehdistötiedote, josta löytyy linkki myös koko tuomioon, löytyy täältä:
Valiulienė v. Lithuania

Naisiin kohdistuvaa väkivaltaa koskeva EIT:n faktalehtinen löytyy täältä: Violence against Women