5
February 2010
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 40020/03
by M. and Others
against Italy and Bulgaria
lodged on 11 December 2003
STATEMENT
OF FACTS
THE FACTS
1. The applicants,
L.M., S.M., I.I., and K.L., are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1985,
1959, 1958 and 1977 respectively, and live in the village of Novo Selo in the Vidin region (Bulgaria). They are represented before the Court by Mr S.
Marinov, a lawyer practising in Vidin.
The applicants are of Roma ethnic origin. At the
time of the events (May-June 2003), the first applicant was still a minor. The
second and the third applicants are her father and mother, and the fourth
applicant is the first applicant’s sister‑in‑law.
The applicants’ version of the events
The facts of the case, as submitted by the
applicants, may be summarised as follows.
The first, second and third applicants arrived in
Milan on 12 May 2003 and were apparently offered work by X., a Roma man of Serb
nationality, residing in Italy, who accommodated them in a house in the village of Ghislarengo, in the province of Vercelli, where he lived with his family. They
remained there several days, during which time they were not offered work.
After a while, X. declared to the second applicant that Y., his nephew, wanted
to marry her daughter (the first applicant). As the second and the third
applicants refused, X. threatened them with a loaded gun. Then, the second and
the third applicants were beaten, threatened with death and forced to leave the
first applicant in Italy and go back to Bulgaria. Although the applicants
denied this, it seems from their first submissions that the second and the
third applicants had been offered money to leave their daughter behind. On 18
May 2003, the second and third applicants went back to Bulgaria.
The applicants submit that during the following
month spent at the house in Ghislarengo, the first applicant was kept under
constant surveillance and was forced to steal, was beaten, threatened with
death and repeatedly raped. Apparently, she had to be treated in hospital, but
the applicants submit that they are not aware of the name and location of this
hospital.
On 24 May 2003 the third applicant went back to Italy, accompanied by the first applicant’s sister‑in‑law (the fourth applicant), and lodged
a complaint with the Italian police in Turin, reporting that the first
applicant had been kidnapped, injured and threatened. They were settled in a
monastery near Turin. Then, the police accompanied them with an interpreter to
identify the house in Ghislarengo.
Apparently frustrated with the police’s slowness
in responding to the complaint, the second applicant lodged written complaints
with many other institutions. A letter of 31 May
2003, addressed to the Italian Prime Minister, the Italian Ministers of Foreign
and Internal Affairs, the Italian ambassador in Bulgaria, the Prefect of Turin,
the Bulgarian Prime Minister, the Bulgarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and the
Bulgarian ambassador to Italy, is included in the file.
On 11 June 2003 the police raided the house in
Ghislarengo, found the first applicant there and made a number of arrests. At
about 2 p.m. that day, she was taken to a police station in Vercelli and
questioned, in the presence of an interpreter, by two female and two male
police officers. The applicants allege that she was treated roughly and
threatened that she would be accused of perjury and libel if she did not tell
the truth. She was then forced to declare that she did not wish her alleged
kidnappers to be prosecuted, to answer “yes” to all other questions, and to
sign certain documents in Italian, which she did not understand and which were neither
translated into Bulgarian nor given to her. They also allege that the
interpreter did not do her job properly.
Later on that day, the third applicant was
questioned by the police in Vercelli in the presence of an interpreter. The
third applicant alleges that she was also threatened that she would be accused
of perjury and libel if she did not tell the truth, and that the interpreter
had not done her job properly. She claims that, as she refused to sign the
record, the police treated her badly.
At about 10 p.m. the first applicant was
questioned again. The applicants allege that no interpreter or lawyer was
present and that she is unaware of what was recorded. The first applicant was then
taken to a cell and left there for four or five hours. On 12 June 2003 at about
4 a.m., she was transferred to a shelter for homeless persons, where she
remained until 12.30 p.m.
On the same day, the first, third and fourth
applicants were brought by the police to the railway station in Vercelli and travelled back to Bulgaria. They submitted to the Court that the
facts were then investigated by the Italian authorities, but that no criminal
proceedings were instituted in Italy against the first applicant’s kidnappers,
or at least that they have not been informed, nor have they been able to obtain
information about any ongoing criminal investigation. They also complained that
the Italian authorities did not seek to question the second applicant in order
to establish the facts, by means of cooperation with Bulgarian authorities.
It appears from the file that, after June 2003,
the applicants sent several letters and several
lettersemails, most of which were in Bulgarian, to the Italian
authorities (such as the Italian Prime Minister, the Italian Ministers of Justice
and Foreign AffairsInternal Affairs and the Minister of, the
General Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeal of Turin, the Turin prefectthe mayor of Ghislarengo and the
Italian diplomatic authorities in Bulgaria),
with a request to provide them with information about the police raid of 11
June 2003 and to start criminal proceedings against
the first applicant’s alleged kidnappers. They also complained that they had
suffered threats, humiliation and ill-treatment at the hands of the police.
They asked those authorities to forward their complaints to the Public
Prosecutor in Vercelli and to the police department of the same town.
At the same time, the applicants also wrote to
the Prime Minister of Bulgaria, the head of the consular relations division of
the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Bulgarian Consulate in Rome, requesting them to protect their rights and assist them in obtaining information from
the Italian authorities. The Bulgarian Consulate in Rome provided the
applicants with some certain information.
. The
applicants did not provide the Court with any document regarding their
questioning and the subsequent criminal proceedings
against them. Their lawyer claimed that, considering
the circumstances, including the alleged refusal of the Italian Embassy
in Bulgaria, it was impossible to submit any document. Apart from copies of the letters sent to the
Italian institutions, they only submitted two medical reports, dated 22 and 24 June 2003,
establishing that the first applicant had a bruise on the head, a small wound
on the right elbow and a broken rib, and was suffering from post-traumatic
stress disorder. She had lost her virginity and was suffering from a vaginal
infection. One of the medical reports concluded that these injuries could have
been inflicted in the way the first applicant had reported.
The Government’s version of the events
On 21 April 2009 and 30 July 2009 at the Court’s
request, the Italian Government submitted a number of documents, among which
was the transcription of the first complaint lodged by the third applicant on
24 May 2003 with the Turin police, and the minutes of the interviews
with the first applicant, the third applicant and some of the alleged
kidnappers, which took place on 11 June 2003.
It appears from these documents that the
transcription of the third applicant’s first complaint against the alleged
kidnappers (lodged with the Italian police in Turin on 24 May 2003), as well as
the applicants’ complaints sent by their representative to different Italian
institutions the following days, were transmitted to the Italian police in
Vercelli (26 May and 6 June 2003 respectively) and to the Public
Prosecutor of the same town (4 and 13 June 2003 respectively), who started
criminal proceedings against unknown persons for kidnapping (1735/03 RGNR).
From 27 May 2003 onwards, the police of Vercelli and Turin jointly took a number of investigative actions which led to a raid on
the house in Ghislarengo on 11 June 2003.
On 7, 11, 12 and 13 June 2003, the Ministry of
Internal Affairs was informed by fax of developments in the case. On 11 June
2003 at about 2.30 p.m., immediately after the raid, the first applicant was
questioned by the Public Prosecutor of Vercelli, who was assisted by the
police. She made allegations that showed a number of discrepancies, compared
with the complaint already submitted by her mother, and which led the
authorities to conclude that no kidnapping, but an agreement about a marriage,
had in reality taken place between the two families. This conclusion was
confirmed by some photographs given to the police after the raid by X.,
apparently showing a wedding party at which the second applicant received a sum
of money from X. When showed the photographs, the first applicant denied that
her father had taken money as part of the agreement about the marriage.
At 8.30 p.m. the third applicant was questioned
by the Public Prosecutor in Vercelli. She stated again that her daughter had
not married Y. of her own free will, and claimed that the photographs were
nothing but a fake, taken on purpose by the alleged kidnappers, who had
threatened them with a gun, in order to deprive their version of the facts of
its credibility. The Vercelli police also questioned X., Z. and Y, who stated
that Y. had entered into a consensual marriage with the first applicant.
As a result of these interviews and on the basis
of the photographs, the Public Prosecutor of Vercelli decided to turn the
proceedings against unknown persons for kidnapping (1735/03 RGNR) into
proceedings against the first and third applicants for perjury and libel
(1283/03 RGNR). Later that evening the first and the third applicants were informed
by the Vercelli and Turin police about the charges and invited to appoint a
representative. They were then provided with a court-appointed lawyer. At about
11.30 p.m. the first applicant was transferred to a shelter for homeless
people. On 12 June 2003 she was released into the custody of her mother.
The applicants’ complaints sent to many Italian institutions during the
following months were received by the Police Department in Vercelli, translated
into Italian and forwarded to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
1 The criminal proceedings against the first
applicant
On 11 July 2003, the Public Prosecutor attached
to the Juvenile Court of Piedmont and Valle d’Aosta started criminal
proceedings (1838/03 RGNR) against the first applicant for perjury and libel.
On 6 November 2003, at the applicants’ request,
the Bulgarian consul in Italy asked the Public Prosecutor to provide him with
information on the state of the proceedings against the first and the third
applicant. The Public Prosecutor answered on 7 November 2003. An exchange
of correspondence followed between the two authorities about the state of the
proceedings.
On 28 November 2003 the first applicant was
invited for questioning before the Public Prosecutor, but she was in Bulgaria and did not appear.
On 15 December 2005 the Juvenile Court acquitted
the first applicant on the ground that the offences committed were occasional
and not serious, and therefore “socially irrelevant”.
2. The criminal proceedings against the third applicant
On 26 June 2003 the Public Prosecutor of Turin started
criminal proceedings (18501/03 RGNR) against the third applicant for perjury
and libel.
On 22 July 2003 the Public Prosecutor of Turin
ended the investigation against the third applicant and sent the case to the
Turin Criminal Court.
On 8 February 2006 the Turin Criminal Court
acquitted the third applicant, on the ground that it was impossible, on the
basis of the contradictory statements made by the applicants and of the photographs,
to establish the facts clearly. Therefore, there was no evidence that the third
applicant had committed the offences of perjury and libel.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants raised different complaints under
several articles of the Convention and under many other international treaties.
They complain that the first applicant suffered ill-treatment,
sexual abuse and forced labour as did (to a lesser extent) the second and third
applicants at the hands of the Roma family in Ghislarengo, and that the Italian
authorities (especially the Public Prosecutor in Vercelli) failed to
investigate the events adequately.
They also complain that the first and third
applicants were ill-treated by Italian police officers during their questioning.
They complain that the first and the third
applicants were not provided with lawyers and/or interpreters during their
interviews, were not informed in what capacity they were being questioned, and
were forced to sign documents of whose content they were unaware.
They complain that their treatment by the Italian
authorities was based on the fact that they were of Roma ethnic origin and
Bulgarian nationality.
. Finally,
they complain that the Bulgarian authorities (notably the Bulgarian consular
authorities in Italy) did not provide them with the required assistance in
their dealings with the Italian authorities, but simply served as a channel of
communication.
QUESTIONS
A. Questions
common to the Parties
1)
Was an effective and speedy investigation carried out into
the first applicant’s allegation of forced labour in Mr X.’s household,
contrary to Article 4 of the Convention? In particular what steps were taken to
ensure that the first applicant was not in effect the victim
of human trafficking or was not subjected to any sexual or other form of
exploitation (see Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04)?
2)
In connection with the procedural guarantees flowing from Articles
3 and 4 of the Convention, did the various authorities enable the applicants to
participate effectively in the investigations of their complaints?
3)
In respect of the possible elements of human trafficking, are the
Governments of Italy and Bulgaria parties to the Council of Europe Convention
on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (the "Trafficking
Convention")? In the context of their obligations under Articles 3 and 4
of the Convention, to what extent were the requirements of the Trafficking
Convention, or other relevant international instruments, observed in the handling of the present case by the Italian
and Bulgarian authorities?
4)
Has there been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with
Article 3, as regards the applicants’ Roma origin in the handling
of the present case by the Italian and Bulgarian authorities?
5)
Both the Italian and Bulgarian Governments are invited to submit copies
of all relevant documents pertaining to the investigations in the present case
(in addition to what has already been submitted by the Italian Government to
date).
B. Questions to
the Italian Government
1)
In the context of the State’s positive and procedural obligations
under Article 3 of the Convention to guarantee the effective protection of
the individual, did the Italian authorities speedily and adequately
investigate the first applicant’s allegations regarding the alleged
ill-treatment (to some extent confirmed by the medical reports dated 22 and 24
June 2003) which
she experienced in the household of Mr X?
2)
Why did the Italian police wait two weeks before intervening to release
the first applicant (not yet 18 years of age) from the control of the X
family?
