A woman who claimed Greek authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into her allegation of rape has won a resounding victory at the European court of human rights.
Almost three years after lodging the case, the complainant, from West Yorkshire, was said to be delighted after learning that the Strasbourg-based tribunal had criticised Greece over criminal proceedings that it said had “fallen short of the required standards”.
Describing the judgment as a “monumental moral victory”, her lawyer said it had not only exposed the Greek justice system’s failings but would set a precedent at a time when more UK tourists than ever visit the country.
Michael Polak, whose legal aid group Justice Abroad took up the case, said: “She is delighted … this is a truly important ruling for the rights of victims of sexual offences in Greece and throughout Europe. And our hope is that it will help other women avoid going through the same thing, given the popularity of Greece among holidaymakers from the UK.”
The woman, referred to as Ms X, from Dewsbury, was on holiday with her mother in Parga, a seaside town in north-west Greece, in September 2019 when she alleges the incident took place.
She pressed criminal charges against a hotel bartender, who was alleged in testimony to have pushed her into a staff room and sexually assaulted her. The suspect was detained for three days, during which the woman, who was then 18, was made to personally identify him in a face-to-face encounter that left her deeply distressed.
In a statement highlighting the “significant shortcomings” of the investigation, the court described the extent of the injuries the complainant had after the alleged attack. “Blood samples were taken from her and a physical examination conducted by a male doctor revealed bruising to her legs, thighs and genitals and a perforated hymen,” it said.
Police escorted the complainant to a police station in the nearby town of Preveza where she was “told she had to sign documents in Greek”, although in the absence of an official translation the woman had no idea what she was being asked to put her signature to, the court heard.
The suspect denied rape, claiming the sex had been consensual, and was released pending trial. A year later a local court concluded there were “insufficient indications to pursue the criminal charge” after police dropped their inquiry.
Throughout, Polak said, the woman was not informed or kept abreast of proceedings, partly because no lawyer had been willing to represent her locally.
In July 2021 the woman took the case to the Strasbourg court, claiming Greek authorities had breached their duty to protect her as a victim of gender-based violence.
“Not only did the court rule that the authorities did not carry out an effective investigation but they also found that her various rights as a victim to be informed of what was happening were breached,” Polak said. “What this case says is that holidaymakers must have their rights protected when something terrible like rape takes place.”
Record numbers of Britons have been visiting Greece since travel rebounded at the end of the Covid-19 crisis.
The Greek government argued that X’s complaint had been lodged out of time and that legal procedures had been followed meticulously.
The seven judges who examined the case, including a Greek justice, Ioannis Ktistakis, emphasised that authorities failed to inform the woman of her rights as a complainant, including her right to legal assistance, although she had “explicitly stated she wanted the accused to be prosecuted and punished”.
“The intimate nature of the subject matter, the applicant’s young age and the fact that she claimed to have been raped while on holiday in a foreign country called for a sensitive approach on the part of the authorities,” they said, noting that officials also failed to take measures to prevent the complainant from being further traumatised.
“There was no serious attempt to clarify the discrepancies or to assess the applicant’s state of mind and personal circumstances … Those elements, in addition to the manner in which they assessed the forensic report, which did not actually contradict the applicant’s version of events, were not isolated errors but significant shortcomings,” the judges added.
