5.  The applicant, Ms Violeta Pulfer, is an Albanian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Tirana. 6.  On an unspecified date in 2011 the applicant and her husband moved to Vlora. The applicant agreed to buy a house which had been unlawfully built by S.N. In the meantime, S.N. had lodged an application for the regularisation of the house’s unlawful status. 7.  On 19 October 2011 the applicant and S.N. concluded a down‑payment agreement (kontratë kapari) according to which the applicant deposited just under half of the sale price as a down-payment (kapar), the remainder to be paid upon the regularisation of the house’s status and the conclusion of the sale agreement. 8.  On 8 December 2011 the applicant moved into the house on the basis of the down-payment agreement. 9.  On 12 January 2012 S.N. asked the applicant to vacate the house. The applicant opposed the eviction and reminded S.N. of the obligations arising from the down-payment agreement. It appears that on the same day S.N. also destroyed some of the applicant’s movable property. 10.  On 1 February 2012 S.N. lodged a civil action, requesting that the down-payment agreement be declared null and that he be allowed to retake possession of the house. 11.  On 3 May 2012 the Vlora District Court dismissed the action and found that the down-payment agreement was valid and lawful. It also found that the request for the repossession of the house was not based on law. As no appeal had been lodged against it, the decision became final on 18 May 2012. 12.  It would appear that on 10 July 2012 the status of the house was regularised and, consequently, S.N. obtained the ownership deeds. No subsequent sale agreement seems to have been concluded between S.N. and the applicant. 13.  In the morning of 8 September 2012 S.N. forced his way into the house. According to the applicant, he put a rope around her neck and she was dragged to the ground and knocked against the surrounding walls for around ten minutes. 14.  On the same day the applicant sent text messages to the chief of police and the district prosecutor, seeking the authorities’ protection against further violence. She submitted screenshots from her mobile telephone of the said text messages to the Registry of the Court as evidence. According to the applicant, the police intervened after one and a half hour. 15.  On 9 September 2012 the applicant’s husband saw E.N., S.N.’s wife, removing tools and objects from the house’s garage. On the same day the applicant went to the police station to lodge a criminal complaint against S.N. for theft. 16.  It would appear that on 10 September 2012 the applicant went to live in her mother’s home in Tirana. 17.  On 30 October 2012, with police assistance, the applicant entered the house and found that it had been emptied. 18.  On an unspecified date, in January 2012, the applicant had lodged a criminal complaint against S.N. for the offence of “self-administered justice” (vetëgjyqësia) under Article 277 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”). 19.  On 12 January 2012 the prosecutor took statements from S.N. and E.N. about their efforts to evict the applicant from the house. 20.  On 14 May 2012 S.N. was charged with the offence of self‑ administered justice under Article 277 of the CC. 21.  On 20 June 2012 the prosecutor committed S.N. for trial. The case file was forwarded to the Vlora District Court in order for it to conduct the proceedings. 22.  On 12 December 2012 the Vlora District Court decided to discontinue the proceedings on the basis of Article 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) as an amnesty had been granted in respect of that offence pursuant to the General Amnesty Act (Law no. 107 of 8 November 2012 on Amnesty). 23.  On 8 September 2012 the applicant lodged another criminal complaint against S.N. for the offence of self-administered justice under Article 277 of the CC. On the same day the prosecutor questioned S.N as a person against whom an investigation was opened. 24.  On 9 September 2012 the applicant made a statement before the prosecutor complaining about the events of 8 and 9 September 2012 (see paragraphs 13-15 above). She also complained about E.N. On the same day E.N. was questioned in that connection as a person against whom an investigation was opened. 25.  Following the alleged assault of 8 September 2012, on 9 September 2012 the prosecutor ordered that the applicant undergo a medical examination. 26.  On 10 September 2012 a police officer referred the offence of self‑administered justice against S.N. and E.N. to the prosecutor. 27.  On 10 September 2012 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert. The medical report found visible marks on the applicant’s neck resulting from strangulation, and haematomata on the head resulting from impact with a hard object. The above injuries had made the applicant temporarily unfit for work for a period of nine days. 28.  It appears from the case file that the applicant’s health started to deteriorate as a result of the assault on 8 September 2012. Afterwards, she sought expert medical advice in Greece. 29.  On 14 September 2012 the prosecutor opened criminal investigation no. 1473 against S.N. for alleged infliction of bodily harm (plagosje e lehtë me dashje) and self-administered justice under Articles 89 and 277 of the CC. An investigation was also opened against E.N. for alleged self‑administered justice. 30.  On 4 October 2012 the applicant lodged another criminal complaint against S.N. for, inter alia, the offences of threat, breaking and entering, insult, theft, destruction of property and malicious use of telephone calls under Articles 84, 112, 119, 134, 150 and 275 of the CC. 31.  On 4 October 2012 the prosecutor opened criminal investigation no. 1588 against S.N. for the offence of malicious use of telephone calls under Article 275 of the CC. 32.  On 8 October 2012 the prosecutor decided to join the two investigations, nos. 1473 and 1588. 33.  On 12 October 2012 S.N. made a statement before the prosecutor. 34.  According to a hospital certificate of 27 November 2012 drawn up in Greece, the applicant underwent a serious anterior cervical discectomy (an operation to remove a herniated or degenerative disc in the neck area of the spine) in Greece. She subsequently had to wear a cervical collar for two months. 35.  On 6 December 2012, following the applicant’s lawyer’s statement that her health had deteriorated, and that she had undergone surgery and a magnetic resonance imaging scan of her cervical spine, the prosecutor ordered a new medical examination. The lawyer also submitted a detailed list of the applicant’s belongings which had been inside the house in September 2012. 36.  On 17 January 2013 the forensic experts confirmed that strangulation marks and haematomata on the head as a result of the events of 8 September 2012 and a suture (as a result of surgery) had been found on the applicant’s body. The above injuries had rendered her temporarily unfit for work for a period of over nine days. They further stated that on the basis of the documents in the case file, namely the hospital certificate of 27 November 2012, the magnetic resonance images, and the report of a consultation with a particular neuropsychiatrist, the damage found on the magnetic resonance images was unrelated to the events of 8 September 2012; they had been caused as a result of conditions that had existed before the trauma. 37.  On 15 February 2013 the prosecutor’s office found that S.N. was suspected of having committed the offences provided for in Articles 89, 275 and 277 of the CC. E.N. was suspected of having committed the offence provided for in Article 277 of the CC. However, it decided to discontinue the investigation, since an amnesty had been granted in respect of the alleged offences pursuant to the General Amnesty Act. The decision also made reference to two forensic examinations of 10 September 2012 and 17 January 2013. The decision, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“... on the basis of the forensic examination of 10 September 2012 it was found that the bodily injuries had rendered her temporarily unfit for work for over nine days.
...
[The applicant] alleges that on the day of the accident she suffered serious bodily injuries, as a result of which she had to undergo surgery. On 6 December 2012 she was subjected to a forensic re-examination, which was concluded on 17 January 2013 ..., it was found that the bodily injuries had rendered her temporarily unfit for work for over nine days. The injuries fall to be examined under the offence of bodily harm prescribed in Article 89 of the Criminal Code.
...
On the basis of information obtained during the investigation ..., it appears that from 24 to 27 September 2012, S.N. harassed (e ka shqetësuar) Violeta Pulfer by way of telephone calls, and threatened not to allow her to return to the house she had purchased. In these circumstances, it is suspected that S.N. and E.N. have committed the offence laid down in Article 277 of the Criminal Code, whereas S.N. [is] also [suspected of] the offences laid down in Articles 89 and 275 of the Criminal Code ....
On 28 November 2012 [the General Amnesty Act] entered into force. Section 5 provides for the discontinuation of the criminal prosecution of all offences committed until 30 September 2012 in respect of which the Criminal Code prescribed a sentence of up to two years’ imprisonment or a lighter punishment.
...
The offences set out in Articles 89, 277 and 275 of the Criminal Code, in respect of which investigations have been opened, have a maximum term of imprisonment of two years, and were committed prior to 30 September 2012. Under these circumstances, there are grounds which mean that the investigation (procedimi penal) cannot continue.” 38.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the prosecutor’s decision of 15 February 2013 with the General Prosecutor of Albania. She requested that the investigation be continued by the district prosecutor on account of theft in collusion with others, destruction of property, torture and constraint through threat or violence for the acquisition of property under Articles 134, 150, 86, 109/b of the CC respectively. She also complained of a lack of impartiality of the prosecutor. 39.  On 25 April 2013 the applicant was awarded full disability status and was recognised as permanently unfit for work. 40.  On 11 July 2014 the General Prosecutor sent the file to the Fier district prosecutor’s office to proceed with the applicant’s complaint concerning the impartiality of the Vlora district prosecutor. 41.  On 2 and 3 November 2017, the Government and the applicant, respectively, informed the Court that the applicant had lodged a complaint with the Vlora District Court against the prosecutor’s decision of 15 February 2013 under Article 329 of the CCP. 42.  On 18 May 2015 the Vlora District Court had dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It found that the prosecutor had carried out all the necessary investigative steps and that the proceedings had been duly discontinued pursuant to the General Amnesty Act. 43.  On 15 September 2015 the Vlora Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant for the same reasons as given by the Vlora District Court. It also noted that the applicant had not claimed before the domestic courts that any investigative actions had been omitted by the prosecutor’s office. 44.  On 14 July 2016 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision of 15 September 2015. 45.  On an unspecified date the applicant made another criminal complaint against S.N. and E.N. for the offence of theft under Article 134 of the CC. 46.  On 3 November 2017 the applicant informed the Court of the outcome of the third investigation. 47.  On 2 November 2012 the prosecutor opened investigation no. 1762 against S.N. and E.N. for the offence of theft under Article 134 of the CC in relation to the event of 30 October 2012. 48.  On 6 December 2012 the applicant made another statement before the prosecutor, complaining of, amongst other things, the theft of her belongings that had occurred on 30 October 2012. 49.  On 13 March 2013 the prosecutor’s office classified the offence as self-administered justice under Article 277 of the CC. 50.  On 10 April 2014 the Vlora District Court discontinued the proceedings on the basis of Article 387 of the CCP since an amnesty had been granted in respect of the offence pursuant to the General Amnesty Act. 51.  On 3 November 2017 the applicant also informed the Court that, on an unspecified date in 2014 she had lodged with the Tirana prosecutor another complaint against S.N. for the offences of threat, grievous bodily harm (plagosje e rëndë me dashje) and insult under Articles 84, 88 and 119 of the Criminal Code. The applicant had also complained that the forensic medical report of 17 January 2013 had been based on forged documents and that the offence of grievous bodily harm had in fact been committed. 52.  On 30 June 2014 the Tirana prosecutor, after having carried out some investigative actions, decided not to send the case for trial on the grounds that there were no elements of a crime. He reasoned that the magnetic resonance images and the neuropsychiatrist consultation, which the forensic medical report had relied on, were not related to the events of 8 September 2012. 53.  On 3 December 2014 the Tirana District Court, following an application by the applicant, decided to quash the prosecutor’s decision and ordered him to continue the investigation. It decided that the prosecutor should examine the evidence as submitted by the applicant and any other evidence or claim related thereto, carrying out a thorough investigation. 54.  On 6 October 2015 the Tirana Court of Appeal, following an appeal by the prosecutor, upheld the District Court’s decision of 3 December 2014. 55.  In February 2018 the Government informed the Court about the following development. On 6 December 2017, the Tirana prosecutor’s office registered the criminal proceedings on account of falsification of documents. On 11 December 2017 the Tirana prosecutor’s office declared its lack of competence and transferred the case to the Vlora prosecutor’s office, which registered the case no. 9854 on 14 December 2017. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing. However, the Government stated that this set of proceedings had no bearing on the applicant’s complaints.