|
Headnote |
Summary of decision
The State’s positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not require the State to provide compensation to the victims of ill-treatment by individuals. Article 14, which prohibits discrimination on certain grounds, could not form the basis of an independent complaint as the facts in issue did not fall within the ambit of another Convention right.
Facts
The applicant (‘S’) was sexually abused by her step-father between 1967 and 1973 while he was living with her, her mother and brother. He was convicted of rape and other offences in March 1997 and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.
In February 1997, S made an application for compensation which was refused by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (‘the Authority’) on the basis of paragraph 7(b) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996 (‘the 1996 Scheme’). Paragraph 7(b) excluded the payment of compensation where the criminal injury was received before 1 October 1979 and the victim and assailant were living together at the time as members of the same family.
S asked for a review and her application was refused again by the Authority on 16 September 1997. She then lodged an appeal to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel (‘the Panel’). This was refused on 12 January 1998.
On appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, S sought to rely on the European Convention on Human Rights. S argued that Article 3 (which prohibits torture and other inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment) and Article 8 (which provides for a right to a private and family life) impose on the State a positive obligation to provide compensation to victims of childhood abuse where such compensation cannot be obtained from the perpetrator. In the alternative she argued that the distinction between, on the one hand, victims of criminal injuries who were living with the perpetrator as members of the same family at the relevant time and, on the other hand, other victims was discriminatory and prohibited by Article 14, together with Articles 3, 8 and 13, of the Convention.
Held, declaring the application inadmissible,
(1) The State’s positive obligation under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention could not be interpreted as requiring the State to provide compensation to the victims of ill-treatment by individuals. As the Court found in Stubbings and Others v. The United Kingdom (22 October 1996), the protection afforded in domestic law against the sexual abuse of children (criminal sanctions and in certain circumstances civil remedies) satisfied the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention.
(2) Article 14, together with Article 13, complemented the other substantive provisions of the Convention and Protocols. It could not form the basis of an independent complaint unless the facts at issue fell within the ambit of one or more of the other Articles of the Convention and Protocols (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, (28 May 1985), Series A no 94, §71). As the fact about which the applicant complained, namely the denial of compensation, did not fall within the scope of Articles 3 or 8, then Articles 13 and 14 were not therefore applicable.
Parts of scheme and other legislation referred to in judgment
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1996, paragraph 7(b)
European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 3, 8, 13 and 14
Cases referred to in judgment
A v. the United Kingdom, (judgment of 23 September 1998), Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998- VI § 22;
Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, (judgment of 28 May 1985), Series A no 94, § 71).
Aydin v. Turkey, (judgment of 25 September 1997), Reports 1997- VI, § 86;
Stubbings and Others v. The United Kingdom, (judgment of 22 October 1996), Reports 1996 - IV § 62;
Representation
Mr C.S Fyfe for S
|