## Facts

- Loreta Valiulienė lived in Lithuania with her partner, J.H.L., and alleged he assaulted her five times between early January and early February 2001, including strangling, hair-pulling, blows to the face, and kicks.
- Forensic examinations documented bruises and abrasions from multiple incidents; the injuries were classified domestically as minor bodily harm.
- In February 2001, the applicant initiated a private prosecution and provided incident details and witness names.
- In January 2002, the domestic court forwarded the matter to the public prosecutor, leading to a pre-trial investigation and charges against J.H.L.
- The investigation was repeatedly suspended for failure of the suspect to appear and asserted lack of evidence; higher prosecutors repeatedly quashed suspensions as insufficiently thorough.
- After a May 2003 legal reform treating minor bodily harm as generally subject to private prosecution, the prosecutor discontinued the public investigation in June 2005 and returned the case to the applicant; a court upheld that approach in September 2005, reasoning the prosecutor had discretion and saw no public-interest basis to proceed publicly.
- The applicant later attempted to relaunch private prosecution, but the court refused to examine it in February 2007 because the limitation period had expired.
- The applicant complained to the ECtHR that the authorities failed to protect her from domestic violence and that the criminal-law response was ineffective, resulting in impunity.

## Issues

1. Whether repeated domestic assaults supported by medical evidence reached the minimum severity threshold under Article 3 to trigger State positive obligations.
2. Whether the State complied with Article 3’s procedural obligation to conduct an effective investigation and provide an effective criminal-law response where there was an arguable claim of domestic violence, given repeated suspensions, delay, and eventual time-bar.

## Decision

- The ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb.
- The Court held that the applicant’s allegations, corroborated by forensic evidence and involving multiple assaults in a short period, constituted an arguable claim of ill-treatment requiring an effective official response.
- The Court concluded that repeated suspensions, insufficient investigative thoroughness, and delay—followed by returning the case to private prosecution near the limitation deadline—contributed to the prosecution becoming time-barred and to the perpetrator’s impunity.
- The Court awarded just satisfaction under Article 41.

## Legal Principles

- Article 3 imposes positive obligations to maintain and apply, in practice, an effective system of criminal-law protection against ill-treatment, including domestic violence.
- Where there is an arguable claim of ill-treatment, the State must conduct an effective investigation capable of leading to identification and punishment of those responsible.
- Repeated discontinuances or suspensions for lack of diligence, particularly when corrected by supervisory authorities as insufficiently thorough, can show a failure to meet the required investigative standard.
- Procedural arrangements (including shifting cases to private prosecution) and limitation rules must not be applied in a manner that foreseeably results in impunity in domestic-violence cases.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Lithuania breached Article 3 procedurally because the authorities’ lack of diligence and ineffective handling of prosecutorial responsibility allowed the limitation period to expire, leaving the applicant without a realistic criminal-law remedy and resulting in impunity for domestic violence.


Valiulienė v. Lith., App. No. 33234/07 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 26, 2013)