Cyprus failed in its legal duty to investigate a British woman’s allegation in 2019 that she had been gang-raped by Israeli tourists on the holiday island, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) said on Thursday.

The woman, who was 18 at the time and is identified in court documents as “X”, reported being raped by Israeli youths in July 2019 in Ayia Napa.

However, after hours of police interrogation without legal representation, she retracted her statement – which she later said she had done under duress. She was charged with “public mischief” and handed a suspended jail sentence.

In its ruling, the ECHR agreed with “X” that Cyprus had breached its obligations to effectively investigate and prosecute her allegations.

Related Articles

After her retraction, the youths were released from detention and returned home without facing further legal action. Some said they had had consensual sex with “X” but all denied rape.

In January 2022, Cyprus’ Supreme Court overturned the woman’s conviction, upholding her assertion that she had retracted her allegation under pressure, casting a harsh light on Cypriot practices in investigating sexual abuse.

Despite that ruling, Cyprus’ attorney-general declined to reopen an investigation into her original complaint, her lawyers said.

In its ruling, the ECHR observed that Cyprus had a legislative framework to protect the rights of victims of sexual violence. Specifically, the national law criminalised rape making direct reference to the absence of consent, and there was further legislation concerning the rights, support and protection of victims.

The court noted that the police had begun investigating X’s rape allegations without delay. They had traced the suspects quickly, secured warrants, collected DNA samples and other evidence and had not delayed in interviewing witnesses. The speediness of the investigation was not at issue.

“Nevertheless, the case had been marked by a series of shortcomings by the investigative authorities, the prosecutorial authorities and the first instance court. At the heart of the case was the overly hasty termination of the investigation, prompted by X’s retraction of her initial statements and the immediate initiation of criminal proceedings against X herself, culminating in her conviction. In subsequently overturning that conviction, the Supreme Court had identified some of the failures in the investigation,” the ECHR pointed out.

It reiterated that investigating 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 ECHR said.

Also observing “a number of shortcomings in the investigation, such as not obtaining sufficient forensic and witness evidence”, the court attached “particular importance to the failure of the authorities to examine whether there had been consent”.

“They had overlooked the fact that X had been drinking and that traces of cocaine had been found in her urine which could have affected her capacity to consent. No mention had been made of her express disagreement with the suggestion of having sex with some of the suspects or that they had shown scant regard for X’s wish for privacy on all three occasions when they had persisted in entering the room despite being expressly asked to leave,” it said.

“It seemed that no effort had been made to check whether they had taken any steps to ensure that X consented to sex on 17 July 2019, but there was testimony to the effect that some of the suspects had hoped and expected that they would have sex with her, simply assuming that they would be able to do so,” the court added.

“Moreover, the police and then the investigator had taken the suspects’ statements that no rape had taken place at face value despite testimony that S.Y. had said he would arrange for his friends to have sex with the applicant; that certain suspects had crudely expressed their intention to have sex with the applicant on 17 July 2019; that blood found on a condom and in the applicant’s vagina and bruises on X’s body and scratches on SY could have been a sign that force had been used; that X had not known most of the other suspects; and that her behaviour after the incident gave credibility to her allegations,” the ruling said.

“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. Her credibility appears to have been assessed through prejudicial gender stereotypes and victim-blaming attitudes. Because she had allegedly participated in group sexual activities before, it seemed to be taken for granted that she would not have refused to do so on the day of the alleged rape,” the court said.

It also observed that while the decision of the chief investigator to discontinue the investigation and the decision of the attorney-general not to reopen it had been largely based on alleged inconsistencies in X’s statements, they had failed to consider the circumstances under which those statements had been made and the psychological effect that the alleged rape might have had on her at the time, or whether she might have still been under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or sedatives given to her by her friend to calm her down.

In addition, it was not clear whether she had been given time to sleep or rest between the alleged rape and her first and second statements.

The court observed that “X, an 18-year-old foreigner, alone in Cyprus, had only been referred to a psychologist on 19 July 2019, two days after the alleged gang-rape.”

Moreover, even though she had been interviewed by a female police officer for her first statements, that had been done in the absence of a lawyer, a psychologist, or the social welfare services. Following six hours of questioning throughout the evening of 27 July 2019, X had ended up retracting her complaint after one o’clock in the morning. She maintained that the long and repeated interviews had led her to do so.

“In the court’s view, the numerous times X had had to repeat what had happened to the authorities, and their failure to adopt a victim-sensitive approach, constituted evidence of re-victimisation. In conclusion, the court observed that the case revealed certain biases concerning women in Cyprus which impeded the effective protection of X’s rights as a possible victim of gender-based violence.

The court held that Cyprus was to pay the applicant €20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €5,000 in respect of costs and expenses.