A Case Note on X v. Cyprus (Application No. 40733/22)
Introduction & Background of the Case
In the case of X v. Cyprus, on 27 February 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Cyprus had violated Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In 2019, a British woman visiting Cyprus met a man at the hotel where they were both staying. After some consensual interactions, she later claimed that during a later encounter, she was raped by twelve men, friends of the same man. Following the applicant’s report to the authorities, it was revealed that during prior encounters, she had been recorded without her consent while engaging in sexual activity with the individual she had initially met. On several occasions, this individual’s friends entered the room without the applicant’s consent, disrupted these encounters, and proceeded to make unauthorized video recordings — incidents which later formed a significant part of the evidentiary context in the domestic proceedings.
Domestic Proceedings & Conviction
During the course of the legal proceedings, the applicant provided a total of four statements, within which certain inconsistencies arose, citing difficulties in recalling specific details such as the number of individuals involved, and ultimately retracted her allegations of rape. This situation inevitably raises a critical question: how can it reasonably be expected of an 18-year-old individual, who was allegedly subjected to rape, to recall every detail with precision after giving four separate statements — without the assistance of legal counsel or a translator, in a country where she was neither a citizen nor familiar with the legal system? Moreover, is it fair or appropriate for authorities and judicial actors to undermine her credibility simply because she recalled additional details or inconsistencies emerged in the course of such a flawed and unsupported investigative process?
Furthermore, after enduring hours of questioning under these conditions, deprived of her procedural rights, how can it be fairly expected that she would not eventually retract her statement or fail to realize that such a retraction might not be entirely voluntary, but rather a reflection of exhaustion, fear, and the immense psychological pressure so often experienced in cases of this nature? It is also important to note the findings of the Council of Europe’s Expert Group on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO) in its report on Cyprus, which highlights that a victim’s withdrawal of a statement or refusal to testify is frequent in cases of domestic violence characterised by power and control dynamics, as well as in other forms of violence against women. GREVIO stresses the crucial importance of proactively and rigorously collecting all relevant evidence in addition to the victim’s statement, particularly to enable effective ex officio prosecution of crimes of violence against women, as required by Article 55 of the Istanbul Convention.
Additionally, the available evidence at the scene was deemed insufficient, no physical signs of force were identified on the applicant’s body, and video recordings obtained from prior encounters appeared to show consensual relations between the applicant and the individual in question. In light of these factors, the authorities closed the rape investigation and subsequently convicted the applicant of public mischief for allegedly making a false complaint.
The investigative and prosecutorial authorities’ decision to place greater emphasis on physical evidence, rather than conducting a proper assessment of whether valid consent was given, highlights a concerning lack of appropriate expertise in handling such sensitive cases. In particular, the assertion that the applicant had previously engaged in consensual sexual activity — and the reliance on video footage from prior encounters to infer consent — was both legally and ethically irrelevant to the incident under examination. It is a fundamental principle that consent is situational, specific, and can be withdrawn at any moment; prior consent cannot be presumed to extend to subsequent encounters. The fact that an individual may have consented to sexual activity on one occasion in no way diminishes the possibility that a later encounter, absent valid consent, may amount to rape. The handling of this case demonstrates a worrying failure to apply this basic principle.
Supreme Court Acquittal & Request to Reopen the Investigation
The applicant appealed the penalty imposed on her to the Supreme Court, which ultimately acquitted her. In reaching this decision, the court considered several key factors: the applicant was only 18 at the time, subjected to nearly six hours of interrogation without legal counsel, and unaware of her right against self-incrimination. She was required to provide multiple statements without access to legal assistance in a foreign country where she was unfamiliar with the legal system. Moreover, while the applicant had not specified the time of the alleged rape, the first-instance court and investigators made assumptions about the timing, contradicting timestamps from videos recorded without her consent. The Supreme Court also found no evidence that the applicant had engaged in group sex. These findings highlighted the serious procedural and evidentiary shortcomings in how the domestic authorities handled the case.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the applicant requested the Attorney General to reopen the case. The Attorney General informed the applicant that there was insufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, citing contradictions in the applicant’s statements and inconsistencies with other evidence, which undermined her credibility. As such, the Attorney General concluded that further investigation was unnecessary, as all appropriate steps had already been taken.
Application to the ECtHR & the Court’s Findings
After exhausting domestic remedies, the applicant brought her case before the ECtHR, alleging violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR. She argued that the investigation was marred by serious procedural failings, including untrained officials, failure to secure the crime scene, and delays in essential medical examinations. The authorities, she contended, placed undue emphasis on physical evidence while neglecting to properly assess issues of consent, and inappropriately considered her prior consensual activity in evaluating the rape allegation. She was also required to give multiple statements without legal counsel or a translator, as previously noted.
The Court acknowledged that the authorities responded promptly to the initial complaint but identified serious procedural failings throughout the investigation and trial. It criticized the premature closure of the case following the applicant’s retraction and noted concerns about the fairness of the proceedings. Key deficiencies included the police’s failure to establish the timing of the alleged rape and the medical examiner’s flawed assessment, which overlooked physical findings, failed to take the applicant’s medical history, and disregarded evidence of possible force — exposing significant gaps in the handling of the case.
It should be noted here that GREVIO’s report on Cyprus highlights significant gaps in the country’s response to rape and violence against women, including inadequate training for law enforcement and a lack of proper investigative protocols. These deficiencies have fostered a climate of mistrust, leading to underreporting by victims. The ECHR’s guide on Article 8 also stresses that courts must avoid reinforcing sexist stereotypes and secondary victimisation, ensuring that victims’ rights are respected during trial. In this case, the premature closure of the investigation, mishandling of evidence, and failure to protect the applicant’s procedural rights exemplify the systemic issues identified by GREVIO and outlined in the ECHR’s standards. This situation demonstrates the critical need for reform in both legal practice and institutional response in Cyprus.
Concluding Remarks: The Need for Legal Reform and Gender Equality
It is particularly significant that the Court approached this case from a progressive perspective, rather than perpetuating entrenched misogynistic and gender-stereotyped legal reasoning. While this marks an important step, it also highlights the ongoing global need for substantial progress in the legal treatment of rape, sexual violence, and violence against women. However, it is extremely important that, even though the laws have evolved in a progressive way, those applying the law must be adequately educated and ensure that they apply the law fairly, without engaging in misogynistic, gender-based stereotypes. Only then can we ensure that legal practice mirrors the progressive intent of the law, not just in theory but in practice.
- This analysis is based on the official publication from the ECtHR website.
Be First to Comment