The British woman who reported to police that she was raped by Israelis in Ayia Napa five years ago did not face an effective investigation, and her rights to respect for private and family life were not upheld, the European Court of Human Rights said Thursday.
Additionally, the woman’s credibility was apparently assessed through prejudice against women and victim-blaming attitudes, the court added.The court said that Cyprus must pay the woman €20,000 and another €5,000 for legal expenses.
The court released its judgment in the case of “X.” (the woman’s alias) v. Cyprus, which concerned the British woman who had reported that she was gang-raped by a group of Israelis in 2019.Following her report, 12 Israeli suspects were arrested and an investigation opened, but the woman was then accused of falsely claiming she was raped and signed a retraction with a Cypriot court sentencing her to four months in jail for charges of public mischief for filing a false complaint.
In 2022, however, the Supreme Court in Cyprus overturned her conviction after she maintained she was pressured to withdraw the allegations and that it should not have been admitted in the trial because the teenager was suffering from PTSD and did not have a lawyer or interpreter.“The investigative and prosecutorial authorities’ response to X.’s allegations of rape had fallen short of the State’s duty to apply the relevant criminal provisions in practice through effective investigation and prosecution,” the court said.“Moreover, the credibility of X.’s allegations appeared to have been assessed through prejudicial gender stereotypes and victim-blaming attitudes,” the court added, saying that the case showed biases about women in Cyprus that impeded X.’s protection and rights.“It appeared that the authorities’ disinclination to pursue the investigation further or to initiate criminal proceedings had been based on X.’s sexual liberty and conduct,” the court said, adding that authorities took for granted that because she allegedly consented to group sexual activities previously, that she would not have refused to take part in these on the day of the alleged rape.
Court lays out shortcomings
The court laid out a series of shortcomings by investigators, prosecutors, and the first instance court.The court highlighted problems with the manner in which X. was questioned, stressing that while the investigation was discontinued largely based on “alleged inconsistencies in X.’s [first two] statements,” authorities failed to take the circumstances in which X. gave these statements into account.This included failing to consider the impacts of the alleged rape on the victim, the impact of the possible continued influence of drugs and alcohol, and the fact that it was unclear whether X. had time to rest between the statements, one of which she gave early in the morning following the attack, and the other in the afternoon that same day.Authorities also failed to obtain “sufficient forensic and witness evidence,” the court said, stressing that it failed to examine whether there had been consent.
What did investigators overlook?
Investigators overlooked the fact that X. was under the influence of drugs and alcohol – which could have impacted her ability to consent. They also made no mention of X.’s express disagreement to the suggestion to have sex with some of the suspects, made prior to the alleged rape.The investigators also “had taken the suspects’ statements that no rape had taken place at face value,” the court highlighted, saying that this was in spite of the fact that, among other evidence to the contrary, blood was found on a condom and in X.’s vagina, and there were bruises on X.’s body and scratches on one of the suspects who was accused of holding X. down while his friends raped her.The same suspect also said in testimony that he would arrange for her friends to have sex with X. and additional suspects had “crudely expressed their intention” to have sex with X., the court said.A central shortcoming in the investigation and prosecution was the “overly hasty termination of the investigation,” the court said, adding that this was joined by “the immediate initiation of criminal proceedings.”“Authorities are under an obligation to take whatever steps they reasonably can to secure all available evidence about the incident they are investigating. It had been up to the authorities to explore all the facts and decide on the basis of all the surrounding circumstances,” the court added.The court also said that X. was interviewed by police in the absence of a lawyer, a psychologist of social welfare services and was only referred to a psychologist two days after the alleged rape.Jerusalem Post Staff contributed to this report.