"VOLODINA VS RUSSIA"
The European Court of Human Rights has delivered its first judgement against
Russia on a case of domestic violence and discrimination against women
Russia on a case of domestic violence and discrimination against women
Judgement "Volodina vs Russia"
Discrimination against women who suffer domestic violence is the result of the state's inaction or ineffectiveness and its criminal negligence of the right to life and security.
The ECHR found that "this was not a simple failure or delay in dealing with violence against the applicant, but flowed from their [the authorities'] reluctance to acknowledge the seriousness and extent of the problem of domestic violence in Russia and its discriminatory effect on women".
The ECHR found that "this was not a simple failure or delay in dealing with violence against the applicant, but flowed from their [the authorities'] reluctance to acknowledge the seriousness and extent of the problem of domestic violence in Russia and its discriminatory effect on women".
Now, with the judgement Volodina vs Russia, the state must propose general measures and procedures in its domestic law to ensure that such violations do not happen again.
ECHR findings under Article 3 (prohibition of torture and cruel treatment)
The Court found that the authorities violated Article 3, because the response of the Russian authorities, who were aware of the risk of repeat violence by Valeria's former
partner, was clearly insufficient, given the seriousness of the crimes in question. The authorities did nothing to protect Valeria or to punish S. They remained passive, despite the serious risk of Valeria suffering cruel treatment, and this inaction and failure to take restraining measures enabled S to continue unhindered and in impunity his threats against, insults and persecution of Valeria (see para. 91). The Court recalled that the authorities have a duty to take protection measures in the form of effective restraint to prevent serious violations of personal inviolability by a family member or partner (para. 86).
partner, was clearly insufficient, given the seriousness of the crimes in question. The authorities did nothing to protect Valeria or to punish S. They remained passive, despite the serious risk of Valeria suffering cruel treatment, and this inaction and failure to take restraining measures enabled S to continue unhindered and in impunity his threats against, insults and persecution of Valeria (see para. 91). The Court recalled that the authorities have a duty to take protection measures in the form of effective restraint to prevent serious violations of personal inviolability by a family member or partner (para. 86).
Findings of the ECHR under Article 3 (obligation to carry out an effective
investigation)
investigation)
The Court found that the authorities had failed their obligation to investigate Valeria's
complaints about violence.
complaints about violence.
Findings of the ECHR under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of
sex)
sex)
The Court recognised that the authorities violated Article 14 because the "continued failure to adopt legislation to combat domestic violence and the absence of any form of
restraining or protection orders clearly demonstrate that the authorities' actions in the present case were not a simple failure or delay in dealing with violence against the
applicant, but flowed from their reluctance to acknowledge the seriousness and extent of the problem of domestic violence in Russia and its discriminatory effect on women. By tolerating for many years a climate which was conducive to domestic violence, the Russian authorities failed to create conditions for substantive gender equality that would enable women to live free from fear of ill-treatment or attacks on their physical integrity and to benefit from the equal protection of the law" (para. 132).
restraining or protection orders clearly demonstrate that the authorities' actions in the present case were not a simple failure or delay in dealing with violence against the
applicant, but flowed from their reluctance to acknowledge the seriousness and extent of the problem of domestic violence in Russia and its discriminatory effect on women. By tolerating for many years a climate which was conducive to domestic violence, the Russian authorities failed to create conditions for substantive gender equality that would enable women to live free from fear of ill-treatment or attacks on their physical integrity and to benefit from the equal protection of the law" (para. 132).
Why this is important
- This is the first ECHR ruling on domestic violence in Russia.
- For the first time, the ECHR recognised that the Russian authorities are showing discrimination against women.
- The Court reiterates that the issue of domestic violence, which can take various forms –
ranging from physical assault to sexual, economic, emotional or verbal abuse – transcends
the circumstances of an individual case. It is a general problem which affects, to a varying
degree, all member States and which does not always surface since it often takes place
within personal relationships or closed circuits and affects different family members,
although women make up an overwhelming majority of victims (para. 71).
Execution of the ruling
- Pay just compensation of the amount of 20,000 euros.
- Ensure an effective investigation of Valeria Volodina's complaints in the Russian
Federation's national courts.
- Take measures to ensure that such violations do not happen again.
Will Russia execute the decision?
- The authorities have already paid the set compensation in 230 cases represented by the
Justice Initiative project.
- Within six months after the judgement takes effect, the Russian Government must present
to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers an action plan for preventing future
violations.
On domestic violence
Domestic violence in Russia is the authorities' responsibility.
Impunity creates more violence.
Impunity creates more violence.
2018 statistics on domestic violence in the Russian Federation
1044 crimes
Were registered under Article 117 of the Criminal Code (torture) and related to domestic violence. Of these, 903 (86.49%) concerned violence against women, and 203 (19.44%) against legal minors.
658 women and 35 children
Were recognised as victims under Article 111 of the Criminal Code (intentional infliction of grave injury)
1464 women and 50 children
Were recognised as victims under Article 112 of the Criminal Code (intentional infliction of injury of medium gravity)
2592 women and 276 children
Were recognised as victims under Article 115 of the Criminal Code (intentional infliction of light injury)
Valeria's story
Valeria Volodina met S. in 2014
On January 1, 2016, Valeria went to the police for the first time to report a beating, but the police did not open a case. Valeria left S., but he tracked her down, begged her to return, and then began to threaten her. He threatened to kill her son from her first marriage if she refused to return to him. At the police station, she was told, "What do you want, for your child to be dragged off to the police?" The local police officer said to her that news of it would reach the school where the boy was studying and that he would "have problems".
In January 2016, Valeria left Moscow to hide from S. He tracked her down there and forced her to go to Ulyanovsk with him, saying, "we're going to live together now and
everything is going to be fine". A few months later, Valeria managed to escape from him and filed a complaint with the police for abduction but received no reply.
On January 25, 2016, after another beating, Valeria ended up in hospital, where she had to have an abortion, because S. had beaten her in the abdomen. At the hospital, she told the local police officer that it was S. who had beaten her, but on this occasion too, no case was opened.
On May 18, 2016, S. again beat and tried to suffocate Valeria. She went to the police and underwent a medical inspection that found evidence of injury to her face, neck, arms and legs. But still, no criminal case was opened.
On January 1, 2016, Valeria went to the police for the first time to report a beating, but the police did not open a case. Valeria left S., but he tracked her down, begged her to return, and then began to threaten her. He threatened to kill her son from her first marriage if she refused to return to him. At the police station, she was told, "What do you want, for your child to be dragged off to the police?" The local police officer said to her that news of it would reach the school where the boy was studying and that he would "have problems".
In January 2016, Valeria left Moscow to hide from S. He tracked her down there and forced her to go to Ulyanovsk with him, saying, "we're going to live together now and
everything is going to be fine". A few months later, Valeria managed to escape from him and filed a complaint with the police for abduction but received no reply.
On January 25, 2016, after another beating, Valeria ended up in hospital, where she had to have an abortion, because S. had beaten her in the abdomen. At the hospital, she told the local police officer that it was S. who had beaten her, but on this occasion too, no case was opened.
On May 18, 2016, S. again beat and tried to suffocate Valeria. She went to the police and underwent a medical inspection that found evidence of injury to her face, neck, arms and legs. But still, no criminal case was opened.
Valeria left for Moscow, because in Ulyanovsk, S. was "literally living in her building entrance, preventing her from working, writing complaints to the bosses at the café, where she worked, posing as a customer". S. set up in the social media network VKontakte a fake account with Valeria's personal information, added her son, relatives, and her son's teacher as 'friends', and began to post intimate photographs of Valeria on the account. No action was taken on Valeria's complaint for interference in her personal life.
On July 30, 2016, S. once again tracked Valeria down in Moscow. He waited for her at the entrance to her building and, when she arrived, began to suffocate her. The neighbours came running, hearing the noise. "He said this was a family affair but I asked the neighbours not to leave me alone until the police arrived", Valeria said. The police did come, but on this occasion too, they refused to open a criminal case.
In August 2016, S. cut through the brakes on Valeria's car, which was parked nearby her building. The police inspected the car but proposed that Valeria "have an independent evaluation done to assess the damage", after which they refused to open a criminal case. Her attempt to file a complaint for attempted murder was rejected. The police explained the refusal to open a case for the beatings by saying that this is "private prosecution" and that Valeria should take the initiative herself to go to a justice of the peace. But at that time, battery of this kind was considered "private-public prosecution" and the police should have opened a case, only, the police had not been made aware of the legal amendments.
In September 2016, Valeria discovered under the lining of her bag a device sewn into place, containing a sim-card, presumably a GPS tracker. Her application to the Investigative Committee produced no result.
On March 6, 2018, after the communication of Valeria's application to the ECHR, the authorities finally opened a criminal case under Article 137 of the Criminal Code (Violation of inviolability of private life) for the dissemination of Valeria's personal photographs in the social media network VKontakte without her consent. There were no suspects in the criminal case, but S. was questioned as a witness.
On March 21, 2018, Valeria called a taxi from her home. Shortly afterwards, she noticed that S. was following the taxi in his car. He blocked the taxi, got out of his car, pulled Valeria out of the taxi and dragged her to his car. Valeria sprayed him from a gas canister. He grabbed her bag, got in his car and drove off.
Valeria went to the police and the taxi driver gave evidence as a witness. But the police did not open a criminal case for robbery, because a few days later, S. and his lawyer brought Valeria's telephones to the police station, though they were damaged, and her passport was deposited in her letterbox. The fact that the telephones had been damaged meant that the investigator could not accept as evidence the threats that Valeria had received via messages. A case was thus not opened for making threats.
Valeria applied for state protection under the only case that had been opened at this point – the criminal case under Article 137 of the Criminal Code.
On April 16, 2018, her application for state protection was rejected. In response to Valeria's application for state protection and her complaints about domestic violence, the police wrote:
On July 30, 2016, S. once again tracked Valeria down in Moscow. He waited for her at the entrance to her building and, when she arrived, began to suffocate her. The neighbours came running, hearing the noise. "He said this was a family affair but I asked the neighbours not to leave me alone until the police arrived", Valeria said. The police did come, but on this occasion too, they refused to open a criminal case.
In August 2016, S. cut through the brakes on Valeria's car, which was parked nearby her building. The police inspected the car but proposed that Valeria "have an independent evaluation done to assess the damage", after which they refused to open a criminal case. Her attempt to file a complaint for attempted murder was rejected. The police explained the refusal to open a case for the beatings by saying that this is "private prosecution" and that Valeria should take the initiative herself to go to a justice of the peace. But at that time, battery of this kind was considered "private-public prosecution" and the police should have opened a case, only, the police had not been made aware of the legal amendments.
In September 2016, Valeria discovered under the lining of her bag a device sewn into place, containing a sim-card, presumably a GPS tracker. Her application to the Investigative Committee produced no result.
On March 6, 2018, after the communication of Valeria's application to the ECHR, the authorities finally opened a criminal case under Article 137 of the Criminal Code (Violation of inviolability of private life) for the dissemination of Valeria's personal photographs in the social media network VKontakte without her consent. There were no suspects in the criminal case, but S. was questioned as a witness.
On March 21, 2018, Valeria called a taxi from her home. Shortly afterwards, she noticed that S. was following the taxi in his car. He blocked the taxi, got out of his car, pulled Valeria out of the taxi and dragged her to his car. Valeria sprayed him from a gas canister. He grabbed her bag, got in his car and drove off.
Valeria went to the police and the taxi driver gave evidence as a witness. But the police did not open a criminal case for robbery, because a few days later, S. and his lawyer brought Valeria's telephones to the police station, though they were damaged, and her passport was deposited in her letterbox. The fact that the telephones had been damaged meant that the investigator could not accept as evidence the threats that Valeria had received via messages. A case was thus not opened for making threats.
Valeria applied for state protection under the only case that had been opened at this point – the criminal case under Article 137 of the Criminal Code.
On April 16, 2018, her application for state protection was rejected. In response to Valeria's application for state protection and her complaints about domestic violence, the police wrote:
"…No evidence that the victim, citizen Volodina, faces real threats from S… has been established. All earlier complaints by Volodina V. I. about threats are the result of their personal acrimonious relations and S.'s jealousy".
Valeria received a refusal to take preventive measures against S. in the form of prohibition of specific activities (Article 105.1 of the Criminal Code), which had come into force in April 2018. In her application, she asked for S. to be banned from coming near her, her home and workplace, and from sending her messages. Her request that S. undergo a psychological and psychiatric assessment also met with a refusal by the investigator, who said that he "would decide the investigation's progress himself".
Currently, the investigation under Article 137 of the Criminal Code has been stopped "due to the impossibility of establishing the individual to be held criminally liable". The complaints for beatings, threats and stalking have all met with refusal to open a criminal case.
Currently, the investigation under Article 137 of the Criminal Code has been stopped "due to the impossibility of establishing the individual to be held criminally liable". The complaints for beatings, threats and stalking have all met with refusal to open a criminal case.
Seven steps to combat domestic violence
1. Introduce immediate bans on contact between the violator and the victim (protection orders) and serious penalties for failure to respect the ban.
2. Oblige the violator to leave the shared home for a certain time period. If and when this is impossible, provide safe shelter and emergency help to the victim and the children (if there are children).
3. Introduce criminal liability for violence in the family under public prosecution and provide victims with free legal, psychological and social aid.
4. Train police, doctors, psychologists, judges and social workers in use of special standards for inter-agency cooperation.
5. Study the problem of domestic violence and keep detailed statistics.
6. Support active involvement of men in efforts to combat violence against women and raise public awareness about types of violence, its consequences, the assistance mechanisms for victims.
7. Educate and raise boys and girls without stereotypes and on the basis of gender equality.
2. Oblige the violator to leave the shared home for a certain time period. If and when this is impossible, provide safe shelter and emergency help to the victim and the children (if there are children).
3. Introduce criminal liability for violence in the family under public prosecution and provide victims with free legal, psychological and social aid.
4. Train police, doctors, psychologists, judges and social workers in use of special standards for inter-agency cooperation.
5. Study the problem of domestic violence and keep detailed statistics.
6. Support active involvement of men in efforts to combat violence against women and raise public awareness about types of violence, its consequences, the assistance mechanisms for victims.
7. Educate and raise boys and girls without stereotypes and on the basis of gender equality.
Why the law fails to protect
The Russian Federation had three types of legal regime, and none of them offered
effective protection from domestic violence.
effective protection from domestic violence.
The Russian Federation had three types of legal regime, and none of them offered
effective protection from domestic violence.
effective protection from domestic violence.
In all three regimes:
- Victims receive no free legal aid, but the aggressor has the right to a lawyer provided by
the state;
- Victims receive no psychological and social support, but aggression in the family (unlike
attacks in the street) forces victims to find a new home and support and to make big
changes to their lives;
- Cases are not opened if the victim does not write a complaint, and the police do not try to
clarify whether refusal to file a complaint is dictated by threats from the aggressor, even if
the victim's body shows visible signs of injury and relatives or neighbours have
complained to the police about cries and blows;
- Cases are closed if the victim declares reconciliation with the attacker, and courts have no
obligation to ascertain whether the reconciliation was made under threat.
Before July 2016
Complaints about battery were considered private prosecution
Complaints about battery were considered private prosecution
Thus, there was no protection against domestic violence
- The police would open a case for battery, and the victim would herself have to collect the
evidence, obtain a medical assessment, and go to the justice of the peace to support the
charge.
From July 2016 to end of January 2017
Complaints about battery were considered private-public prosecution
Complaints about battery were considered private-public prosecution
Thus, there was no protection against domestic violence
- Cases are opened at the request of the victim, but it is the police that must conduct the
investigation and send the case to court.
From the end of January 2017 to date
Battery within the family has ceased to be a criminal offence and is now prosecuted under the Administrative Offences Code.
Battery within the family has ceased to be a criminal offence and is now prosecuted under the Administrative Offences Code.
Why this fails to protect against domestic violence:
- Penalties have no "deterrent effect": In most cases, the attacker is fined 5000 roubles;
- There is criminal liability for repeat violence only if the police have drawn up a report on
the first incident of violence, and if not more than a year has passed since the attacker was
fined;
- If a second episode of violence occurs within a year, a case will be opened under the rules
for private charges.