On 5 March 2001, O.R., a 21-year-old female Russian national, traveled with the intention to work as an “artiste” in a cabaret. A cabaret owner, X.A., had applied for an “artiste” visa and work permit for her. O.R. was granted a temporary resident permit as a visitor in a cabaret owned by X.A. On 16 March 2001 she began her employment at the cabaret, which was managed by M.A., the brother of X.A. While working at the cabaret, she shared an apartment with her colleagues. After only three days, on 19 March 2001, O.R. left the apartment leaving behind a letter saying that she was tired and intended to go back to Russia.
M.A. notified the Limassol Immigration Office of O.R.’s disappearance and requested that she be arrested and deported to Russia so that he could hire another artiste. However, O.R. was not included in a police list of wanted persons. On 28 March 2001, M.A. was informed that O.R. was at a discotheque. He gave information to the police about her whereabouts and requested they arrest her. However, M.A. went himself to the discotheque with a security guard from his cabaret, retrieved O.R., and took her to the Limassol Central Police Station. The duty passport officer did not corroborate her illegal presence in Cyprus, as there was no record of M.A.’s complaint on 19 March 2001. In any case, domestic law did not allow a person to be illegal until 15 days pass after the filing of the complaint. The Police Aliens and Immigration Service advised the Limassol police of her detention, but requested that M.A. pick her up from the station and bring her to the immigration office the following day at 7 a.m.
M.A. subsequently picked up O.R. at around 5:20 a.m. and accompanied her to a 5th floor apartment belonging to M.P., one of the cabaret employees. O.R. was placed in a room on the upper level of the apartment, with M.A. sleeping in the living room, blocking her only exit. At around 7 a.m., M.A. and M.P. awoke and found police officers gathered around O.R.’s dead body on the street. After investigation and autopsy, Cypriot authorities concluded that her death was not the result of a criminal act. Rather it was found that the injuries on her body were the result of an accidental fall, also the cause of her death.
On 13 September 2001, Mr Rantsev, the father of O.R., approached Russian authorities to apply to the Public Prosecutor of Cyprus on his behalf for free legal assistance and waiver of court costs in order to initiate an additional investigation of his daughter's death. Not satisfied with the results of the proceedings, or the activities of the two governments regarding the investigation of the matter, Mr Rantsev brought the case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on 26 May 2004.
Кипр
Российская ФедерацияEuropean Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, 7 January 2010, held some violations of European Convention on Human Rights.
1st Instance:
European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, 7 January 2010, held some violations of European Convention on Human Rights.
Nikolay Mikhaylovich Rantsev (Mr Rantsev) alleged violations of the right to life (Article 2), freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3), freedom from slavery, servitude, forced and compulsory labour (Article 4), and the right to liberty and security of the person (Article 5) under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).
Mr Rantsev claimed that the Republic of Cyprus insufficiently investigated the death of his daughter, O.R. He also alleged that the Cypriot police inadequately protected O.R. while she was still alive, and that the Cypriot government failed to take necessary steps to bring justice those responsible for her ill-treatment and death.
The Court reviewed a number of reports dealing with the phenomenon of human trafficking in Cyprus generally, the peculiarities of the situation of “artistes” in Cyprus, applicable Cypriot and Russian laws and practice, other regional and international treaties and instruments, and third-party submissions. The Court then examined the following:
(1) Admissibility: The Cypriot government had requested discontinuance of the application because it had already offered a solution to Mr Rantsev’s concern; namely a unilateral statement acknowledging some responsibility and reporting that it had ordered an independent investigation into the case. The Court observed that allegations of violations of the right to life, the right to be free from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, and the right to liberty and human security in the context of human trafficking are of a very serious nature and warrant close examination. It also considered the paucity of case-law on the interpretation of Article 4 in the context of trafficking cases and acknowledged its obligation to elucidate, safeguard and develop guarantees enshrined in the Convention. It perceived the examination of trafficking issues to be a necessity.
(2)Violation of Article 2: According to the Court, a government shall create proper enforcement machinery that prevents and punishes violations, which imposes a positive obligation to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual. It was of the opinion that the undisputed suffering and general risk of ill-treatment and cruelty to which the victims of human trafficking usually fall prey cannot constitute a real and immediate risk to life but that each case ultimately depends on its own facts. It found that there was no foreseeability of risk to O.R.’s life by Cypriot police when they handed her over to M.A. Therefore it was held that Cyprus did not violate its positive obligation to protect her life. However, given the failure to effectively investigate O.R.’s death, the Court found a procedural violation of Article 2 on the part of Cyprus.
(3) Violation of Article 3: The Court noted that Articles 3 and 4 were connected and as such the violations of these articles was addressed together.
(4) Violation of Article 4:
(a) Does Article 4 include a protection against human trafficking? The Court emphasized that the Convention provisions and the concepts must be in conformity with the object and purpose of the treaty, in this case “the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the individual". It also noted that the Convention was a living instrument that has to be interpreted in light of present-day conditions. The Court referred to Siliadin v. France and ICTY’s analysis of this case. On this basis it concluded that human trafficking, as defined in Article 3(a) of the Palermo Protocol, fell within the scope of Article 4 of the Convention.
(b) What is the scope of Article 4 vis-à-vis human trafficking? The Court emphasized "the prevention of trafficking, protection of victims, and prosecution and punishment of traffickers". According to the Court, states have an obligation to take operational measures to protect victims or potential victims of trafficking in the circumstances where the state authorities knew or should have known that an identified person had been or was at real and immediate risk of being trafficked or exploited within the meaning of Article 3 of the Palermo Protocol. It also established a duty to cooperate amongst States in cases where events related to trafficking might happen outside of a State’s own territory, referring to the Palermo Protocol.
(c) What positive obligations to take anti-trafficking measures, if any, does Cyprus have under Article 4? Did Cyprus violate Article 4? As to the legislative and administrative obligations, the Court found Cyprus’s anti-trafficking law to be consistent with the Palermo Protocol and considered it satisfactory and suitable. However, it found fault with Cyprus' immigration legal framework and policy. Regarding protective obligations, it found that even though Cypriot authorities were aware that foreign women coming to Cyprus on "artiste" visas were often sexually exploited in cabarets. Furthermore they held that Cypriot authorities ignored this and lacked police training in identifying a potential victim of trafficking. Thus, the Court found Cyprus in violation of its obligation under Article 4 in regards to protective measures.
(5) Violation of Article 5: The Court considered the issue of the issue of O.R.'s supervised stay in the apartment and the argument that there was no legal basis of continued detention in the police station until M.A. came. The Court found that O.R.’s detention at the police station and her captivity in the apartment amounted to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention.
The Court ordered Cyprus to a payment of EUR 40,000 for pain and suffering to the father of the dead girl.
Nikolay Mikhaylovich Rantsev (Mr Rantsev) alleged violations of a right to life (Article), freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3), freedom from slavery, servitude, forced and compulsory labour (Article 4), and a right to liberty and security of the person (Article 5) under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom (ECHR). Mr. Rnastev complained under Article 2 and 4 of the Convention that Russia failed to protect O.R. from the risk of human trafficking and failed to investigate her subsequent death.
The Court reviewed a number of reports dealing with the phenomenon of human trafficking in Cyprus generally, the peculiarities of the situation of “artistes” in Cyprus, applicable Cypriot and Russian laws and practice, other regional and international treaties and instruments, and third-party submissions. The Court then examined as follows.
(1) Jurisdiction: Russia had objected to the admissibility of Mr Rantsev’s application based on the Court’s jurisdiction ratione loci, arguing that criminal acts happened outside of its sovereign territory. However, the Court found that it had jurisdiction to examine whether Russia had taken the necessary steps to combat trafficking and to find out whether Russia was in breach of its obligations as it alleged trafficking had commenced in Russia, thereby Russia had obligations to take measures to protect O.R. from being trafficked and to investigate whether she had been trafficked at all.
(2) Violation of Article 2: according to the Court, the obligation under Article 2 requires that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force. It did not find grounds for violation on the part of Russia because under this article there was no “free-standing obligation incumbent upon Russia” to investigate the death of its national abroad, absent any special feature that could have imposed on Russia such an obligation.
(3) Violation of Article 4: see reasoning of Cyprus regarding general discussion on this matter. What positive obligations to take anti-trafficking measures, if any, does Russia have under Article 4? Did Russia violate Article 4? – as to legislative and administrative obligations, the Court held that Russia had not violated any obligations because it had taken adequate measures to raise awareness about human trafficking through a media campaign. Regarding protective obligations, Russia did not have a credible suspicion of a real and immediate risk of the trafficking of O.R. About procedural obligations of Russia to investigate human trafficking, the Court found that Russia had an obligation to investigate the possibility of the involvement of Russian individuals or networks in the trafficking of O.R. to Cyprus and the means of such recruitment, thereby, decided that this failure to investigate recruitment amounted to a violation of Russia’s procedural obligation to investigate allegations of trafficking under Article 4.
Russia was ordered EUR 2,000 for pain and suffering because the state had not identified and explained, where the young women was recruited and by whom in Russia.
European Court of Human Rights
Case of Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, ECHR 2010. Available at:
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-96549
