ECHR condemns Cyprus in the case of the woman that has been allegedly raped in Ayia Napa in 2019

This article provides an overview of the key points of the decision of the ECHR in the case of X v. Cyprus.

On the 27.2.2025 the European Court of Human Rights ("ECHR") held unanimously that in the case of X v. Cyprus (application no. 40733/22) there has been a violation of articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR awarded compensation and costs to the applicant.

In the abovementioned case the applicant alleged that she was gang-raped but later recalled her complaint. She has been prosecuted and convicted for committing public mischief, however, upon appeal she has been aquitted. The Supreme Court noted various failures in the investigative process of her rape allegation.

We consider the key points of the above-mentioned decision to be the following:

• The case was marked by serious deficiencies on the part of the investigative authorities, the prosecution, and the first instance court.

• Investigative authorities have a duty to take all necessary steps to collect all available evidence related to the case they are investigating. In this instance, the investigative authorities failed to gather sufficient forensic evidence and testimonies, as well as to examine whether consent was present.

• The investigative authorities ignored the fact that X had consumed alcohol and that traces of drugs were found in her urine, which could have affected her ability to consent. She had also explicitly expressed her unwillingness to have contact with some of the suspects.

• The investigative authorities disregarded various pieces of evidence that were incriminating for the suspects.

• X’s credibility was assessed based on biased gender stereotypes and victim-blaming attitudes.

• The investigative authorities failed to consider that inconsistencies in X’s statements could have been due to her psychological state, lack of sleep or rest, or the possibility that she was still under the influence of substances during her second statement.

• X gave a lengthy statement in the absence of a lawyer, psychologist, or a social welfare officer.

• The fact that X was forced to repeatedly recount what had happened to her to the authorities and the authorities’ failure to adopt a victim-sensitive approach constitutes evidence of re-victimization.

If in doubt whether your human rights have been violated, consider seeking legal advice.

This article has been written by Chara Palekythriti, Lawyer - Legal Consultant ©

Disclaimer: This article is for informative purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, opinion or otherwise.