The European Court of Human Rights has accepted a unilateral declaration of the Polish government and decided to strike from its log the case of a minor victim of a gang rape who alleged that the government's handling of that case violated her human rights.

The victim was 14 when she was attacked by three of her middle school classmates. In 2011, a family court found the underage assailants guilty and sentenced them to a young offender institution, but suspended their convictions for a probation period. During the probation period, they were placed in a noncustodial, reformatory training program.

A large number of mistakes were made in the proceedings, but because they were governed by juvenile justice procedures, the victim had only a limited standing in the case and was unable to appeal. The minor victim gave testimony to the family court three times and was questioned in an inappropriate way, considering her age and the circumstances of the crime.

The girl and her mother filed an application to the ECtHR, arguing that the proceedings had violated a number of their legal rights. They alleged a violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights), a violation of the right to a private life (Article 8) and the lack of an effective remedy (Article 13).

Unilateral declaration

In the proceedings before the ECtHR, the Polish government issued a unilateral declaration in which it admitted the violations and agreed to pay to the applicant 10,000 euros as a compensation for moral losses. Pursuant to the Strasbourg court’s procedure, the submission of a unilateral declaration may result in the removal of a case from the case list. In response to the government's submission, the applicants asked the court to issue a judgment.

The ECtHR accepted the government’s declaration and removed the case from its docket in January 2015.

This practice is not uncommon. The Polish government increasingly often opts to conclude cases before the ECtHR by a unilateral declaration, thereby ending cases before significant precedents are set. If this latest case had been concluded with a judgment, it could have been of crucial importance for defining the exact scope of victims’ rights in juvenile justice proceedings.

Advocates Małgorzata Surdek and Adam Jodkowski of the law firm CMS Cameron McKenna represent the victim pro bono. The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights is observing the case.