The European Court of Human Rights has identified investigative deficiencies, accompanied by damaging gender stereotypes and victim-blaming attitudes, in the case of the gang rape of a British woman by Israeli nationals in Agia Napa, Cyprus in July 2019. The ruling was published yesterday and caused quite a stir in Britain, where it was featured in the country’s major media outlets. The condemnation of the Republic of Cyprus has nothing to do with the incident itself but with the handling of the case by the Cypriot authorities.

The 19-year-old (then) British girl had alleged that she had been gang-raped by young Israelis in Ayia Napa. The Israelis were arrested and released a few days later, as the British woman retracted her original allegation, saying she was not telling the truth. The retraction came after 10 days of constant questioning and pressure from the Cyprus Police. 

The Israelis who accused the British woman of gang raping her in the summer of 2019 are brought before an investigator. Eventually, the 19-year-old recanted her original allegation, saying she was not telling the truth, resulting in her being convicted of public harm and making false statements

But the matter did not end with the retraction of the complaint, as the 19-year-old was charged with public harm and disorderly conduct for making false statements. She went from being a prosecutor to a defendant and was sentenced to four months in jail. An appeal followed and the Supreme Court overturned the original verdict acquitting the British woman as various omissions were found in the process of investigating her allegation of rape.

Lawyers and policemen

As noted in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights – EHRC, the Cypriot Republic does not suffer from a lack of legislation to protect the rights of victims of sexual violence. Rape and lack of consent to sexual intercourse are criminal offences, and there are provisions for protection and support for victims.

The ECHR confirmed that the Cyprus Police did not fail to investigate the 19-year-old’s allegations, and therefore, within hours, they arrested the suspected Israelis, who were preparing to return to their country. They were detained and questioned, and genetic material samples were taken from them.

But as quickly as the investigation began, it was abruptly halted, and both the police and prosecution authorities bear responsibility for this. The invocation of the 19-year-old’s change of statement was the pivotal point at which the Cyprus Police, instead of looking for the rape suspects, began investigating the young British woman as a suspect in a false complaint.

How the alleged victim became an accused was of little concern to the trial court, which convicted her. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court identified all the errors and omissions and quashed the conviction, giving the 19-year-old legal weapons to appeal to the ECHR against the Republic of Cyprus.

They did not respect her “no”

The ECHR, in its judgment, reiterated that the police authorities have an obligation to take all measures reasonably possible to obtain all available evidence relating to the incident they are investigating, and it is for them to investigate all the facts and make a decision based on all the surrounding circumstances.

He added that noting certain deficiencies in the investigation, such as the failure to obtain sufficient forensic and witness evidence, there was a failure by police authorities to consider whether there was consent. As noted in the ruling, the Cypriot authorities had overlooked the fact that the 19-year-old had consumed alcohol and cocaine, evidence which could have affected her ability to consent.

There was also no mention of her explicit disagreement with the suggestion that she have sex with some of the suspects or that they showed no respect for her desire for privacy on all three occasions when they insisted on entering the hotel room despite being explicitly asked to leave.

It appears that no attempt had been made to check whether they had taken steps to ensure that the British woman would consent to sexual intercourse on 17 July 2019, but there was testimony that some of the suspected Israelis hoped and expected that they would have sex with her, simply assuming that they could do so after their friends had done so.

Moreover, in the Court of Appeal ruling, it appeared that the reluctance of the relevant authorities to pursue further investigation or initiate criminal proceedings had been based on the 19-year-old’s sexual freedom and behaviour.

As stated, her credibility appears to have been assessed based on gender stereotypes and victim-blaming attitudes, as due to her alleged past participation in group sexual activities it appeared to be taken for granted that she would not refuse to do the same on the day of her alleged rape.

The ECtHR also observed that while the decision by the chief investigator to discontinue the investigation and the decision by the prosecutor general not to order its continuation were largely based on alleged inconsistencies in the British woman’s statements, they had not taken into account the circumstances in which she had given her statement and been questioned and the psychological effect the alleged rape may have had on her at the time, or whether she was still under the influence of alcohol, drugs or sedatives given to her by a friend to calm her down. In addition, it was unclear whether she had been given time to sleep or rest between the alleged rape and her first and second statements.

The court noted that the 19-year-old, who was alone in Cyprus, was not referred to a psychologist until July 19, 2019, two days after her alleged gang rape. Furthermore, although she had spoken to a female police officer in her initial statements, this had been done without the presence of a lawyer, psychologist, or social services.

After six hours of questioning throughout the afternoon of July 27, 2019, the 19-year-old was forced to withdraw her complaint after 01.00, claiming that long and repeated interrogation statements had led her to this decision. In the view of the ECHR, the many times the 19-year-old had to repeat to the police officers what had happened and their failure to adopt a more victim-sensitive approach constituted an indication of her re-victimisation.

Consumption for women

The ECtHR observed that the case revealed certain prejudices about women in Cyprus, which prevented the effective protection of the 19-year-old’s rights as a potential victim of gender-based violence.

In the light of the numerous deficiencies identified, the court concluded, without expressing an opinion as to the guilt of the suspects, that the reaction of the investigating and prosecuting authorities to the British woman’s allegations of rape did not meet the duty (“positive obligation”) of the State to apply the relevant criminal provisions in practice through effective investigation and prosecution. Consequently, there was a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.

The court also held that the Republic of Cyprus must pay the 25-year-old (now 25) €20,000 for non-material damage and €5,000 for costs and expenses. This is a decision by a chamber of the ECHR, which gives both sides within three months to request that the case be referred to the court’s Grand Chamber for a final decision.

Polymorphous disruption

Following the 19-year-old’s complaint in July 2019, there was a strong public reaction to the young Israelis. They had made a group visit to Cyprus to “have fun” before joining the army. The Israelis denied their guilt, claiming that they had sexual intercourse with the 19-year-old with her consent.

A video taken from the British girl’s room was shown, which did not show her reaction while there was group sexual activity with some of the Israelis. Messages she had sent inviting some of them to her room were also shown.

There was a strong mobilization by Israel to ensure that the young men, after the 19-year-old’s initial complaint was withdrawn, were returned to their country, which they were. When they were brought to the court for a remand order, representatives of the Israeli embassy appeared in court, and when they were released, there were celebrations from the suspects and their friends.

There was also an intervention by the British government to allow the 19-year-old to return to Britain to continue her studies. However, the British girl remained in Cyprus and for months she was vilified as a person who tried to get back at the Israelis not for raping her, but for making a video of her, which they posted on the Internet.

The way she had been treated by the Cypriot police, prosecution, and judicial authorities showed clear bias, as they seemed to want her convicted.

When she was brought to court as a defendant for public harm, the judge found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The original judgment stated that the court “accepted as credible the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses,” who “made a very good impression,” gave “prompt and clear answers to the questions put to them, and their disarming answers left no room for doubt.”

At the same time, the court rejected as “totally unreliable” the testimony of the accused, from which she “did not make a good impression, did not tell the truth and tried to mislead the House”, and finally in a new testimony on 28/7/19 she admitted that she “lied that she was raped on 17/7/19, that the truth is that she was not raped and that what happened in the apartment was with her consent”.

According to the judge, the court held that “the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt”, adding that “the prosecution succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt the case against the 19-year-old, who was found guilty of committing the offence charged”. He then sentenced her to four months’ imprisonment suspended for three years and a fine of 140 euros for court costs.

The acquittal

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Cyprus ruled that the 19-year-old’s right to a fair trial was violated at first instance, making her conviction unsafe. It, therefore, proceeded to acquit her. Its multi-page ruling stated that “even if the findings of the original judgment are based on the credibility of the witnesses, the judgment may be set aside if it appears so unsafe or inadequate that there is an underlying doubt in the mind of the Court of Appeal as to its correctness”.