5.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1987 respectively. 6.  On 5 April 2009 general elections took place in Moldova. On 6 and 7 April 2009 a large crowd protested in the streets against alleged electoral fraud. Hundreds of young persons were arrested on 7 April 2009 and later dates; many of them were ill-treated during arrest (for more details, see Taraburca v. Moldova, no. 18919/10, §§ 7-10 and 33-37, 6 December 2011, Buhaniuc v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 56074/10, § 7, 28 January 2014 and Iurcu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 33759/10, §§ 7-9, 9 April 2013). 7.  On 7 April 2009 the applicants were returning from Chişinău to their home village when the minibus in which they were travelling was stopped by masked armed men at 11.10 p.m. The men ordered the bus driver to drive to the police headquarters in Chişinău (“the police headquarters”), where the applicants, together with other passengers, were ordered to stand with their hands behind their heads. 8.  Upon entering the detention centre in the police headquarters, the applicants were taken to a room where five police officers registered their arrest. The applicants and other female detainees were ordered to stand with their faces to the wall and not to look to the sides. When one of them (N.) looked to the side, Officer A.C. hit her head against the wall. 9.  The first applicant was asked to identify her bag. According to her, A.C. threatened to throw away the bag instead of registering all of the items inside. She then proposed to register only the documents, the mobile phone and the contents of her wallet. The first applicant noticed that her arrest had been wrongly mentioned as having taken place at 2.20 p.m. and told that to the officer. A.C. allegedly threatened her with death if she did not sign, after which she signed the arrest record. In the meantime, several young men were lined up against the wall and were periodically hit if they tried to look around. The applicants heard sounds of people being beaten from the adjacent room, following which A.C. escorted one young man out of there. 10.  After signing the arrest record, A.C. took the applicants one by one to another adjacent room. Two officers were there (V.D., a male officer, and M.T., a female officer). V.D. ordered each of the applicants to undress. After they initially removed only a part of their clothes, V.D. shouted at them to fully undress. Each of the applicants was also ordered to do sit-ups while naked, while both officers smiled. The door remained partly open throughout the procedure. M.T. allegedly called the first applicant a prostitute. 11.  The applicants were placed, together with five other female detainees, in a cell, where they were held until 9 April 2009. No food was provided for them and they were not allowed to contact anyone outside the detention centre. During 7 and 8 April 2009 the officers would come every three hours to the cell where the applicants were being detained, officially in order to verify their presence. All those inside had to stand up, their hands behind the back. During one of such visits on 8 April 2009, A.C. told everyone in the applicants’ cell to be thankful to President Voronin, who had not ordered shots to be fired into the crowd during the unrest of 7 April 2009. 12.  On the morning of 9 April 2009 a prosecutor visited their cell and asked whether anyone had been ill-treated or had any other complaints. Several police officers from the police headquarters were standing just behind the prosecutor, which, according to the applicants, prevented them from complaining. The first applicant asked for permission to call home to see how her child was doing, but the prosecutor replied that he could not help and that she needed to negotiate that with the head of the detention facility. 13.  On the same day at 3.30 p.m. the applicants were taken, one by one, to a room in the police headquarters where a judge asked each of them their names. After finding their files and reading them for several seconds, the judge declared that five days of detention for each of the applicants would suffice. The entire “trial” took not more than five minutes. 14.  On the same day at around 11 p.m. the applicants and five other female detainees were ordered to enter the back section of a police minivan measuring 2.5 square metres and were taken to an unknown destination, without any explanation of the reasons for the move. Four hours later they arrived at Drochia police station. They spent the remainder of their detention at that police station and were released on 13 April 2009. After their release the applicants were so afraid that they did not leave their houses for a week. 15.  On 16 April 2009 a Moldovan news agency reported the allegation that three young women had been ordered to fully undress in front of male police officers. Following that the Internal Security Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs conducted, in April-May 2009, an internal investigation into the matter in order to verify the allegations. The applicants and N., another person detained together with the applicants, made statements to the investigator on 23 and 22 April 2009 respectively and recounted the facts as summarised in the preceding paragraphs. N. noted that she had been taken by Officer A.C. to the room in which she had been verbally abused and forced to fully undress by V.D., in the presence of a uniformed woman. 16.  On 18 May 2009 a prosecutor interviewed the applicants, who repeated their statements made to the police. These statements were then forwarded to the Prosecutor General’s Office. On 20 May 2009 the results of the internal investigation (see paragraph 15 above) were also submitted to the Prosecutor General’s Office. It would appear that the latter did not take any decision in respect of the material submitted to it. 17.  On 23 July 2009 the applicants made a complaint to the Prosecutor General’s Office, referring to the verbal abuse to which they had been subjected, as well as to the order to undress in front of male officers. 18.  On 18 and 20 August 2009 a prosecutor interviewed A.C. and V.D., who declared that they had not been at work on the relevant night. 19.  On 10 September 2009 the military prosecutor’s office, which had been tasked with examining all complaints of ill-treatment during the events of April 2009, decided not to launch a criminal investigation in response to the applicants’ complaint of 23 July 2009 to the Prosecutor General’s Office, in the absence of any evidence that an offence had been committed. He noted that M.T. had declared that she alone had conducted body searches of the applicants and that A.C. and V.D. had not been at work that day. The applicants found out about that decision on 14 October 2009. On 15 October 2009 their lawyer challenged the decision, noting that the investigation had not been prompt or thorough; that they had not undergone any expert psychological examination to verify whether it could be concluded that they had suffered psychological trauma; that the decision had been based solely on the declaration by the officers involved that they had not been at work on the relevant day, without verifying whether they had been urgently called in to work to deal with the emergency situation on 7 April 2009; and that no criminal investigation had been launched by that date. This complaint was rejected by a more senior prosecutor on 9 November 2009. 20.  On 16 November 2009 the applicants’ lawyer received a letter from the prosecution informing her of the decision of 9 November 2009. On 20 November 2009 the applicants challenged the decisions of 10 September and 9 November 2009 before the Rîşcani District Court. On 19 January 2010 the court allowed their application and annulled both those decisions. The court found that the investigation had been superficial and listed a series of actions which had not been carried out, such as interviewing the arresting officers and those responsible for escorting them and registering their arrest; verifying the reasons for their transfer to Drochia police section, the person who had ordered the transfer and the reason why the prosecutor had not established a breach of applicable legislation as a result of that transfer; determining the reason for the prosecutor’s failure to examine the applicants’ complaint within the statutory seventy-two hours.
(b)  Criminal proceedings against the police officers 21.  On 2 February 2010 the Chişinău prosecutor’s office launched a criminal investigation on suspicion that Officers A.C., V.D. and M.T. had ill-treated the applicants by means of psychological intimidation and forcing them to undress in front of persons of the opposite sex.
(i)  Proceedings against Officers V.D. and M.T. 22.  On 15 March 2010 the prosecution charged V.D. and M.T. with ill-treating the applicants. 23.  On 23 April 2010 the case against V.D. and M.T. was submitted to the Centru District Court for trial. 24.  The Centru District Court scheduled hearings in the case approximately once a month. From the beginning of the trial, that court had held four hearings and postponed five others for various reasons such as the absence of the prosecutor, of one of the applicants or of their lawyers, as well as annual leave taken by the prosecutor and the judge. 25.  On 15 July 2011 the Centru District Court of Chișinău found the two police officers guilty of ill-treating the applicants. It sentenced V.D. to six years’ imprisonment and M.T. to five years’ imprisonment, conditionally suspending the execution of both sentences for a probation period of five years. The officers were also prohibited from holding positions in the police for five years. Although the operative part of the judgment was read out on 15 July 2011, the applicants were sent the fully reasoned decision by post on 7 December 2011. 26.  On 3 May 2012 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld that judgment, reducing V.D.’s imprisonment term to five years and maintaining all the other sanctions. The court found that the law did not allow suspension of a sentence for which the punishment exceeded five years’ imprisonment and that the lower court had made an error. It corrected the error by reducing V.D.’s sentence to five years’ imprisonment. 27.  On 23 October 2012 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgment of 3 May 2012 and ordered a rehearing by the Chișinău Court of Appeal. 28.  On 13 March 2013 the Chișinău Court of Appeal adopted a judgment, convicting V.D. and M.T. and sentencing both to five years’ imprisonment, conditionally suspending the execution of both sentences for a probation period of five years. The officers were also prohibited from holding positions in the police for five years and were sentenced to 240 hours’ community service. In reply to the applicants’ arguments in respect of the leniency of the lower court’s judgment and about impunity, with reference to the Court’s judgments in Valeriu and Nicolae Roşca v. Moldova (no. 41704/02, 20 October 2009) and Pădureţ v. Moldova (no. 33134/03, 5 January 2010), the court found that those cases were not applicable to the present case since in both of them serious physical ill-treatment had been caused, while the applicants in the present case had only been psychologically ill-treated. Moreover, one witness who had been subjected to the same treatment as the applicants during the relevant events had refused to completely undress and had not been ill-treated as a result. The court also noted that the accused had committed the offence “owing to the situation obtaining on 7-8 April 2009 in Chișinău, [when] peaceful protests [had] escaped the control of law-enforcement authorities ... result[ing] in mass disorder, with the destruction of sites of national importance”. 29.  In their appeal the applicants argued, inter alia, that suspending the sentence imposed on V.D. and M.T. was unlawful since it was contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, which was effectively part of domestic law. They relied on the judgments in Roşca and Pădureţ (cited above) and referred to Gäfgen v. Germany ([GC] no. 22978/05, ECHR 2010) as evidence that even threats of torture were sufficient to constitute ill-treatment. They added that following the Moldovan judgments mentioned above the Criminal Code had been amended so as to exclude the possibility of suspending the serving of sentences imposed for torture. Sentencing the officers to the minimum allowed by law, with the effect of shielding them from serving any prison time and in view of their persistent denial of having committed the crime, had not ensured the required preventive effect. 30.  On 13 September 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice found “no grounds for doubting the [victims’] statements”. However, it upheld the judgment adopted since the applicants had not indicated any specific errors in the application of the law by the lower court, which had taken a lawful and reasoned decision and had properly individualised the sentences in view of the nature and seriousness of the offence. 31.  During the criminal investigation and the trial V.D. and M.T. were not suspended from their duties.
(ii)  Proceedings against Officer A.C. 32.  On 16 April 2010 the criminal investigation that had started on 2 February 2010 against the three police officers (see paragraph 21 above) was discontinued in respect of A.C. The prosecutor summarised the applicants’ statements and referred to the results of the identity parades during which each of the applicants had identified A.C. as the person who had taken them to the room in which they had been ordered to undress and do sit-ups. The first applicant stated that A.C. had ordered everyone to face the wall and not to look back. When one young woman (N.) had looked away, he had hit the back of her head, as a result of which her forehead had struck the wall. The first applicant added that when another officer had been describing the personal items in her purse, A.C. had threatened to throw it away. Subsequently she had been ordered to sign a document. When she had pointed out that the time of arrest had been noted incorrectly, A.C. had told her “I’ll give you one [that is to say ‘hit you’] so that you’ll join your grandmother in the grave”. The second applicant had given a similar description, noting that when she had entered the detention facility she had seen many persons against the wall, many of whom had been beaten by the police, while not offering any resistance. The prosecutor found that A.C. had clearly exceeded his powers as a police officer, but that the applicants had not sustained such serious damage as to qualify as torture. Accordingly, his actions were qualified as excess of powers under the Contravention Code (Codul contravenţional). Since the three-month prescription period for this administrative offence had already expired, the case against A.C. could not be pursued. He continued to work as a police officer throughout the proceedings. 33.  On 22 April 2010 the applicants’ application to have the decision of 16 April 2016 annulled was rejected by the prosecutor who had adopted it. On 4 June 2010 the lawyer asked a more senior prosecutor to annul the decisions taken on 16 and 22 April 2010. She argued, inter alia, that A.C. should not have been relieved of criminal responsibility since he had acted at least as an accomplice of V.D. and M.T., in respect of whom the prosecution had continued to press criminal charges. In particular, A.C. had been fully aware of V.D.’s presence in the room to which he had escorted the applicants and three other female detainees and had known that they would be subjected to a strip search. Moreover, he had acted brutally towards the applicants, humiliating them and hitting one of the female detainees (N.) and other persons in their presence. This treatment had had a considerable effect on the applicants, taking into consideration their gender and age (the second applicant was 21 at the relevant time) and the dominant position held by the police officer. Moreover, having witnessed A.C.’s openly hitting N. in front of the applicants had caused them to fear being subjected to similar treatment. In addition, the applicants’ will to resist police intimidation had been completely broken since the reason for their detention had not been explained to them, nor had they been informed of the rights which they had had, in the absence of a guarantee of being able to defend those rights. They had thus been forced to sign documents which had subsequently led to their detention. It had been also unclear why the prosecutor had not charged A.C. with the criminal offence of excess of powers (Article 328 of the Criminal Code, see paragraph 37 below), but had preferred to examine the case under the Contravention Code, with the effect of letting A.C. go unpunished. 34.  On 10 June 2010 her lawyer was informed that her complaint had been rejected and that the decision could be appealed against to the investigating judge. 35.  On 26 July 2010 the applicants challenged in court the decisions of 16 and 22 April 2010, as well as that of 10 June 2010. The lawyer formulated essentially the same arguments which she had made in her complaint to the prosecutor (see paragraph 33 above). 36.  On 15 October 2010 the investigating judge of the Rîşcani District Court rejected the applicants’ complaint as unfounded. The court found that under Article 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a criminal investigation lawfully discontinued by a prosecutor could be reopened only if new circumstances had been discovered or where the decision had been affected by a fundamental defect in the proceedings. Since the prosecution had decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against A.C. and in the absence of any new circumstances warranting the reopening of the investigation, it was contrary to Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the court to order the reopening of the criminal proceedings against him. The judge also found that the prosecutor had fully and objectively examined the case, taking into account all the evidence available. That decision was final.