7.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Mica. She has been diagnosed with a slight intellectual disability.
8.  On 20 May 2008 around 7 p.m. the applicant was walking home from the village of Căpâlna, where she had been helping her husband all day in the fields. Near the village of Mica, she was approached by an unknown individual, identified later as T.F.S., who started walking alongside her and who tried unsuccessfully to engage her in conversation.
9.  At some point, they met two men. One of them, whom the applicant knew by sight as I.L., stopped T.F.S. and asked him if he wanted to accompany him in order to finalise a transaction over a horse. T.F.S. replied that he would join him later.
10.  In her statement to the police made later (see paragraph 17 below), the applicant described the subsequent events as follows:
After the two men went away, T.F.S. continued walking along with her. He eventually offered her money and a mobile phone if she agreed to have oral sex with him. She refused saying that she was not “that kind of person” and added that she had a husband at home. T.F.S. continued following her and, as the applicant was telling him that he was wasting his time because she would not accept the proposal, he grabbed her by the right arm and the neck and dragged her close to a nearby cemetery. The applicant alleged that she was threatened by T.F.S. to obey, otherwise he would use the knife he had in his possession. He told her to undress and lie on the ground. In a state of shock, the applicant obeyed. Then T.F.S. raped her. After he finished, he told her that they would meet again and warned her not to tell anyone about the incident. He then left.
11.  The applicant went straight to the police station in Mica. Nearby, she met I.S., who had previously been the landlady of a local police officer. The applicant told I.S. that she had been raped by a man wearing black clothes. I.S. advised the applicant not to tell anyone about what had happened, as she would make a fool of herself in front of the whole village because she had no witnesses. The applicant nevertheless knocked on the window and then on the door of the police station. As no one answered, she went home and showered. Later that evening she talked to her mother and to a friend, explaining to them what had happened. Next day, when her husband came home from the field where he had spent the night, she told him that she had been raped.
12.  In the morning of 21 May 2008 the applicant went to the local police in Mica accompanied by her husband and lodged a criminal complaint. She complained that she had been threatened with a knife by an unknown man and forced to have sexual intercourse with him.
13.  The same day the police interrogated I.L., who confirmed he had seen the applicant the previous day walking with T.F.S. He stated that he had not noticed anything special in her behaviour.
14.  Later that day T.F.S. gave a statement to the police. He admitted having suggested sexual intercourse to the applicant, but claimed that the applicant’s reply was that she was afraid that her husband would find out. He confirmed that the act had taken place on the side of the road but claimed that it had been consensual. He was then allowed to leave.
15.  When they checked T.F.S.’s criminal record the police found out that he had a previous conviction for rape.
16.  On 22 May 2008 the applicant went to the Târgu-Mureş Institute of Forensic Medicine for examination. The report drafted on that occasion concluded that the applicant had two bruises on her right arm consistent with a compression between two hard surfaces, resulting in temporary disability of two to three days. It also stated that the applicant did not have any “rape-specific injuries” in her genital area.
17.  On 3 June 2008 the applicant gave a second statement to the police. She gave a detailed description of the events of 20 May, and mentioned that after T.F.S. had grabbed her violently and dragged her along the ground, she had entered into a state of shock, was afraid for her life and could neither react nor resist. She further mentioned that she feared that the aggressor might have given her a venereal infection. She concluded that ever since the attack she had been in a constant state of distress and was afraid to leave the house, fearing that the attacker would come and find her because she had dared to complain to the police. For these reasons, she requested protection for herself and her family.
18.  On 9 July 2008 the police interrogated I.S., who confirmed that she had seen the applicant arriving at the police station on 20 May 2008 to lodge a complaint of rape and that she had seen the applicant leaving, as the police station was closed.
19.  On several occasions in June, July and August, T.F.S. was searched for by the police for further statements, but was not found at his house.
20.  On 21 January 2009 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Târnăveni District Court decided not to open criminal proceedings, as the acts committed by T.F.S. did not constitute a crime. The prosecutor relied on the following elements: I.L. had testified that he had not noticed anything unusual when he had met the applicant and T.F.S. on 20 May, prior to the alleged rape; the applicant had failed to ask for help although, prior to the sexual intercourse, she and T.F.S. must have passed in front of a petrol station on their way to the village; the forensic medical examination had revealed no injury in the genital area; as regards the bruises on the applicant’s right arm, the forensic report provided no indication as to when they had been caused; no other injuries had been found on the applicant’s body.
21.  On 22 February 2009 the applicant made a complaint against the prosecutor’s decision to the chief prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Târnăveni District Court. She reiterated that T.F.S. had threatened her that he would use a knife, and had violently grabbed her by the arm and throat, and that that was why she had complied with his orders. Furthermore, she mentioned that she had been advised by the police to withdraw her complaint, because there were no witnesses. She complained that after the police took her initial statement they had failed to provide her with information about her procedural rights as a victim. Subsequently, she had to call the 112 emergency services in order to find out that she needed to go to the forensic medicine institute for a medical examination. She also mentioned that when her husband went to the prosecutor’s office in order to submit the results of her medical exams, the case prosecutor had told him that the complaint had been withdrawn. She requested the prosecutor to ask for clarification of the forensic medical certificate as regards the possible date of the bruises found on her arm. She also requested that a psychiatric expert report be made in the case, in view of the fact that she was suffering from oligophrenia and depressive syndrome. The applicant also requested that witnesses, and in particular I.L., be reheard in more detail, and that the alleged perpetrator be subjected to a polygraph test. Lastly, she stated again that she was afraid for her life, and requested protection from the police for her and her family. A medical certificate dated 30 May 2008 indicating that she was suffering from first-degree oligophrenia with an IQ of 57 and depressive syndrome was attached to her complaint.
22.  On 24 February 2009 the chief prosecutor rejected the applicant’s complaint, finding that the evidence available did not suggest that physical force had been used by T.F.S. to have sexual intercourse with the applicant. The prosecutor relied firstly on the fact that I.L. had not noticed anything unusual about the applicant or T.F.S. when he had met them, and secondly on the absence of injury to the applicant’s genital area.
23.  On 20 March 2009 the applicant, represented by her husband, complained about the prosecutors’ decisions before the Târnăveni District Court. In her submissions, she stressed that T.F.S. had admitted having used force on her. She also claimed that during the reconstruction of the scene conducted by the Mica police, when she was showing the police officer how T.F.S. had grabbed her by the neck, the latter had “jumped at her” and stated furiously that he had not “grabbed her that hard”. The applicant stated that during the events of 20 May T.F.S. had constantly threatened that he would use the knife he had with him. She further complained about the attitude of the authorities who had investigated her complaint, mentioning that she had been advised by the police to withdraw her complaint because there were no witnesses and because “she was asking for it” and in any event “it did her good”. She requested the court to order a clarification of the forensic certificate in order to specify the possible date of the injuries on her arm.
24.  On 6 May 2009 the Târnăveni District Court allowed the applicant’s complaint and decided to refer the case back to the prosecution with a view to opening criminal proceedings against T.F.S. The court found that the prosecutor’s conclusion to the effect that the sexual act had been consensual was unsupported by evidence. It further found that the lack of reference in the forensic certificate to the date of the applicant’s injuries should have led the prosecutor to investigate further in order to redress this omission. The court also stated that the absence of injury to the applicant’s genital area was consistent with the allegation of threat. Finally, the court criticised the prosecutor’s failure to consider the fact that the injuries to the applicant’s arm were consistent with being grabbed forcefully.
25.  The court ordered the prosecutor to proceed to the following acts: a psychiatric examination in order to determine whether, having regard to the applicant’s diagnosis of oligophrenia, she was able to react or to fight back or whether she may have not been able to express her will; the re‑interrogation of I.S. in order to clarify the applicant’s state of mind when she had met and talked to this witness; a confrontation between the applicant and T.F.S. with a view to clarifying the contradictions in their statements with reference to the psychological and physical coercion; and a socio-moral assessment of the applicant to ascertain her behaviour in society and her level of credibility in the community. Finally, the court advised the prosecution to take into account the fact that T.F.S. had previously been convicted of rape and therefore may have been aware of the legal requirements for the existence of the crime of rape.
26.  On 15 October 2009 the prosecutor attached to the Târnăveni District Court appealed on points of law (recurs) against the decision of 6 May 2009, on the grounds that the evidence the District Court had requested was irrelevant. A psychiatric evaluation of the victim, when more than seventeen months had passed since the incident, would no longer be conclusive. Similarly, neither the re-interrogation of I.S. nor a confrontation between the applicant and T.F.S. were necessary. Finally, the prosecutor stressed that, in the present case, the refusal to open criminal proceedings had been done on the ground that the act committed by T.F.S. lacked the elements defining the crime of rape. More specifically, in the absence of a connection between the injuries to the applicant’s arm and the alleged physical coercion, and in the absence of any injuries specific to the crime of rape in the genital area, the alleged physical coercion had not been proved.
27.  The applicant was represented before the appeal court by an ex officio lawyer, appointed upon a request made by her husband. The lawyer stressed that the evidence ordered by the Târnăveni District Court in the decision of 6 May 2009 was extremely important to the case, and that failure to collect this evidence at the relevant time was the prosecution’s fault. She also pointed out that the applicant should have been given legal assistance ex officio during the investigation in order to adequately protect her procedural rights.
28. T.F.S. stated before the court that he agreed with the prosecutor’s appeal and “if the injured party thinks he is guilty, she should bring witnesses to prove it”.
29.  On 11 February 2010 Mureş County Court allowed the prosecution’s appeal and rejected the applicant’s complaint with final effect. The court stated in particular that it was unnecessary to re-interrogate S.I., since in her first statement she had not mentioned having seen the applicant in a state of discomfort whilst confessing to her that she had been raped. The court further found that the forensic report did not support the applicant’s allegations, since, on the one hand, it did not reveal injuries specific to rape in the genital area, and, on the other, the injuries to the applicant’s arm were undated. It finally found both the conduct of a psychiatric assessment and the confrontation between the applicant and T.F.S to be unnecessary, and deemed a socio-moral assessment to be irrelevant.
30.  As a result, the applicant was ordered to pay the court fees for the proceedings initiated by her before the first-instance court.