ECHR, domestic violence underestimated in Italy

Repeated requests for protection by a woman victim of domestic violence at the hands of her partner and inertia on the part of the competent authorities who did not carry out a careful risk assessment. Inevitably the condemnation of Italy by the European Court of Human Rights, which, in its ruling filed on 23 September (appeal 6045/24), found that Italy had violated Article 3 of the European Convention, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment, and Article 8, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life. For the Court, the fact that the national court classified acts such as molestation, assault, incessant phone calls, telephone monitoring and cameras in the home, as "mere spitefulness" that fell within the context of the separation, prevented effective protection of the victim.

The referral to Strasbourg was made by a woman who had suffered psychological, economic and physical violence by her partner from whom she was separating. The man had also installed cameras in the house and monitored her e-mails. Despitecomplaints and civil action, a protection order was not issued and the man was later acquitted in criminal proceedings.

Strasbourg not only upheld the appeal and condemned the State to pay 15 thousand euro in moral damages and 10 thousand in court costs, but also highlighted the gender stereotypes still present even in courtrooms. The national authorities should have known the real and immediate risks associated with the violence committed by the partner on a recurrent basis and, therefore, adopted appropriate measures to protect the woman. It is true that, following the complaints, an investigation had been opened, but the judicial proceedings leading to the acquittal had lasted four years. On this point, the Court points out that the investigative measures had been inadequate and the investigation not swift, compromising effective judicial protection. Delays, then, in domestic violence cases, have as a consequencethe aggravationof the victim's vulnerability.

 The European Court then stigmatised what had happened in the courtroom because, despite the finding of harassing and aggressive behaviour, the man had been almost justified because of resentence due to the separation and tensions over the custody of the child. The court, despite the presentation of a medical certificate, did not believe the woman's reconstruction. Thus, for the European Court, the national court did not show any awareness of the characteristics of domestic violence cases also because it did not act with due diligence.

The Court took into account the criticism already levelled at Italy by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, as well as by the Group of Experts on Domestic Violence (Grevio) regarding the implementation of the Istanbul Convention, which raised the alarm on cases of secondary legitimisation and on the interpretation of national courts that require habitual behaviour, incompatible with the ECtHR jurisprudence, before the crime of domestic violence can be established. The Istanbul Convention is a good example of the need to protect women against violence, but also of the need to protect women against violence.