STUART V UNITED KINGDOM 6TH JULY 1999 EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FACTS:-
The Applicant had been abused by her stepfather between 1967 and 1973 when she was aged seven to thirteen. He was convicted in 1997 and she made an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. This was refused under paragraph 7(b) of the Scheme on the grounds that the payment of compensation was excluded where the criminal injury was received before the 1st October 1979 and the victim and the assailant were living together at the time as members of the same family. She made an application to the European Court of Human Rights under Articles 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
HELD:-
Article 3 stated:-
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 8 stated:-
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private.....life....”
The European Court said that sexual abuse was unquestionably an abhorrent form of wrongdoing with debilitating effects on its victims. Children and other vulnerable individuals were entitled to State protection, in the form of effective deterrence, from such ill treatment.
In the instant case, the criminal law provided for severe penalties, together with civil remedies. The court referred to the case of Stubbings and Others v the United Kingdom 22nd October 1996 where it was held that Article 8 did not require the state to provide unlimited compensation for victims.For similar reasons, the court found that the State’s positive obligation under Articles 3 and 8 could not be interpreted as requiring a State to provide compensation to the victims of ill-treatment administered by private individuals. Therefore that aspect of the Applicant’s complaint should be rejected.
That left the Applicant’s complaints under Article 13 which stated:-
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by person acting in an official capacity.”
Article 14 stated:-
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
The court observed that Articles 13 and 14 complemented the other substantive provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. They had no independent existence. There could be no room for their application unless the facts at issue fell within the ambit of one or more of the other Articles of the Convention and Protocols.
Consequently the application was declared inadmissible.
FACTS:-
The Applicant had been abused by her stepfather between 1967 and 1973 when she was aged seven to thirteen. He was convicted in 1997 and she made an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. This was refused under paragraph 7(b) of the Scheme on the grounds that the payment of compensation was excluded where the criminal injury was received before the 1st October 1979 and the victim and the assailant were living together at the time as members of the same family. She made an application to the European Court of Human Rights under Articles 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
HELD:-
Article 3 stated:-
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 8 stated:-
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private.....life....”
The European Court said that sexual abuse was unquestionably an abhorrent form of wrongdoing with debilitating effects on its victims. Children and other vulnerable individuals were entitled to State protection, in the form of effective deterrence, from such ill treatment.
In the instant case, the criminal law provided for severe penalties, together with civil remedies. The court referred to the case of Stubbings and Others v the United Kingdom 22nd October 1996 where it was held that Article 8 did not require the state to provide unlimited compensation for victims.For similar reasons, the court found that the State’s positive obligation under Articles 3 and 8 could not be interpreted as requiring a State to provide compensation to the victims of ill-treatment administered by private individuals. Therefore that aspect of the Applicant’s complaint should be rejected.
That left the Applicant’s complaints under Article 13 which stated:-
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by person acting in an official capacity.”
Article 14 stated:-
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
The court observed that Articles 13 and 14 complemented the other substantive provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. They had no independent existence. There could be no room for their application unless the facts at issue fell within the ambit of one or more of the other Articles of the Convention and Protocols.
Consequently the application was declared inadmissible.