Despite Deputy Attorney General Angelides’ claim, ECtHR ruling constituted a substantive criticism of how the rape case was handled by the Cyprus authorities as a whole, and himself personally.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled on 3 July that the Republic of Cyprus violated a woman’s (N.T.) rights after she accused a current DISY politician (A.T.) of alleged rape.
Specifically, Cyprus authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation and prosecution, and did not fulfill their central task of assessing the issue of non-consent, the Court said. The Court also found that N.T. was faced with secondary victimisation through guilt-inducing, moralising and sexist stereotypes. The rape claim was handled by Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides in Cyprus.
Following the public outcry caused by the handling of the case as it was revealed by the ECtHR, Angelides held a press conference on 8 July where he addressed the ruling.
The Cyprus Investigative Reporting Network (CIReN) fact-checked a claim Angelides made during his statement regarding the ECtHR judgment and delivered a verdict.
The Claim
During the press conference, Deputy Attorney General Angelides claimed that the ECtHR disagreed with the language used in explaining the rationale for the dismissal of the criminal case against A.T., and was of the view that other evidence should have been taken into consideration.
“The suspension of the case, when new evidence emerged, was purely a judgment after evaluating this new testimony. The rationale for the suspension was (as) stated: It would prevent victims from reporting such incidents. The view expressed in the ECtHR decision was different; it was that the inconsistencies we highlighted should not have been formulated with the wording mentioned and should have been balanced by other evidence that exists. However, I repeat and emphasize: The ECtHR did not find bad faith, or abusive procedure, or ulterior motives, or intention to violate the rights of the victim,” Angelides said.
The Facts
The woman, (N.T.) reported in 2021 that 10 years earlier, when she was 18, a 20-year-old schoolfriend (A.T.), raped her.
Though police had opened an investigation and filed an indictment against the man, Deputy Attorney General Angelides, in December 2021, decided to drop the criminal proceedings against A.T., noting the applicant’s credibility remained in question after “new evidence and additional statements emerged.”
More specifically Angelides considered that N.T.’s “admission that she liked A.T. was of particular importance as regards the issue of credibility, as it might have somehow impacted her behaviour by sending him the wrong signal that consent on her behalf was self-evident.”
He further noted that “irrespective of her credibility it was important to examine whether A.T. could have subjectively, even if wrongly, believed that the complainant had consented. If that were the case, the conditions of the offence of rape were not met.”
Angelides added that “his decision was also based on the low chance of success of the case before the court and that lack of success in several criminal prosecutions could have a deterrent effect on victims from reporting such offences in the future”.
N.T. filed a case against Cyprus at the ECtHR in June 2022, claiming that Cyprus authorities failed to effectively investigate and prosecute her allegations of rape, and that she suffered gender-based discrimination.
What did the ECtHR actually say?
The ECtHR in its judgment, noted among others:
- “That the decision to discontinue A.T.’s prosecution was not based on lack of corroborating evidence. Rather it was based on the alleged inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements.”
- “Importantly, the prosecutors had already been aware of her prior affection for A.T. and had been made aware of her messages to him when they decided to bring new charges before the Assize Court on 10 June 2021. Therefore, the Deputy Attorney General’s decision to discontinue criminal proceedings appears unconvincing.”
- “The Deputy Attorney General’s conclusion appears selective, with a victim‑blaming attitude. It exposed the applicant to secondary victimisation through guilt-inducing, moralising and sexist stereotypes, placing disproportionate emphasis on her expression of sentiment towards A.T., while failing to consider key elements that may have pointed to the absence of consent.”
- “The Court attaches importance to the failure of the authorities in their central task of assessing the issue of non-consent. Notwithstanding its subsidiary role in the matter, the Court is particularly concerned that the authorities did not try to weigh up the conflicting evidence and made no consistent efforts to establish the facts by engaging in a context-sensitive assessment.”
- “The Court is of the view that the authorities failed to establish the facts by engaging in a context-sensitive assessment and with due regard to the special psychological factors inherent in cases concerning sexual abuse, especially by a person close to the victim.”
- “The Court considers that certain language and arguments used by the prosecutors and, ultimately, the Deputy Attorney General in assessing the present case convey prejudices and sexist stereotypes liable also to discourage women’s confidence, as victims of gender-based violence, in the justice system. The Court’s previous findings concerning the secondary victimisation suffered by the applicant are sufficient to enable it to conclude that the grounds of the decision of the Deputy Attorney General (as the final determination in the case) were imbued with discrimination on grounds of sex.”
- “Thus, the Court concludes, on the basis of all the foregoing considerations, that the shortcomings of the national authorities, and specifically the methods used to assess the authenticity of the applicant’s consent, not only deprived her of appropriate protection but also exposed her to secondary victimisation, which also constitutes discrimination.”
Verdict: Misleading
Even though in his statement Angelides acknowledges there was a violation of the victim’s rights, his overall characterisation of the court’s ruling is misleading as he is framing the Court’s findings as a disagreement on language and methodology rather than a substantive criticism of how the case was handled as a whole.
The Court, in its ruling, is not only criticising the language used and how evidence was handled, but also is disagreeing with the Deputy Attorney-General’s decision to discontinue the prosecution saying this was based on “alleged inconsistencies” and referring to it as “unconvincing.” The Court is also noting that the Deputy Attorney General’s conclusion, while exposing the applicant to secondary victimisation, “failed to consider key elements that may have pointed to the absence of consent.”
This project is supported by the European Media and Information Fund (EMIF). The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the authors and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.