Skip to content
crime-and-justice — Health-and-wellness — Judicial — Science — Ecthr — Sexual-health — General-news — Shortcomings — Estimate — Did

France found guilty by ECHR in three cases of child rape

Investigating authorities and internal courts were found lacking in protecting three minor girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, during three distinct incidents, according to the European Court of Human Rights.

,   and  Administrator
6 min read

France found guilty by ECHR in three cases of child rape

Three young females lodged complaints at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), leading France to be reproached on Thursday, April 24, for deficiencies in the judicial treatment of sexual assault against minors. In each of the three applications, the investigative authorities and domestic courts neglected to provide adequate protection for the complainants who reported instances of rape when they were 13, 14, and 16 at the time of the incidents, according to the court's ruling, unanimously adopted.

The court noted that "the internal courts did not thoroughly examine the circumstances surrounding the incidents and did not sufficiently consider, in their assessment of the complainants' understanding and consent, the vulnerable position in which they were at the time of the disputed acts."

Thus, the court supports the claims of the victims who argue that their vulnerability, particularly due to their age, was disregarded throughout their respective legal processes. The court particularly calls attention to the shortcomings in the "evaluation of the authenticity of consent" of these young girls. In two instances within a few months, it serves as a reminder to France that "the European and international legal framework advocates for a clear reference to the concept of free consent to prosecute rape and sexual assaults."

On January 23, following the publication of a ruling concerning the "marital duty," the ECtHR already underscored that "any non-consensual sexual act is a form of sexual violence." It sided with a 69-year-old woman, whose divorce was granted on the grounds of "the continuous refusal by the wife since 2004 of intimate relations with her husband," according to the Court of Appeal of Versailles. This contemporary judgment, on Thursday, April 24, comes amidst parliamentary deliberations over a text aimed at incorporating the concept of consent into the definition of rape and sexual assault.

You have 53.6% of this article left to read. The remaining portion is reserved for subscribers.

Enrichment Data:

General:

The French parliamentary discussions regarding the integration of consent into the definition of rape and sexual assault are currently ongoing. Here's a summary of the crucial points:

Background and Context

  • Current Definition: French law defines rape using "violence, coercion, threat, or surprise," omitting consent[5].
  • European Context: More than a dozen European countries have already incorporated consent into their rape laws. France opposed a consent-based definition at the EU level in 2023, but recent developments have prompted renewed debate[5].

Recent Developments

  • Legislative Bill: A bill proposing to incorporate the concept of consent into the legal definition of rape and sexual assault was debated in the French parliament on April 1, 2025. This bill receives support from lawmakers such as Véronique Riotton and Marie-Charlotte Garin[1].
  • Parliamentary Approval: By April 5, 2025, the French parliament had approved a cross-party bill to include non-consent in the definition of rape. The bill now proceeds to further legislative stages[4].
  • Gisèle Pelicot Case: The landmark trial of dozens of men who raped Gisèle Pelicot in late 2024 significantly influenced the debate. It underscored the need for changes in the legal and social approach to sexual violence in France[1].

ECtHR Admonishment

  • On April 24, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) censured France for failing to safeguard the rights of teenage rape victims. A 2019 case showcased how charges were reduced due to the absence of violence, threat, or coercion, which are currently prerequisites to define rape under French law[2].
  • Impact on Debate: This admonishment puts additional pressure on France to revise its laws, potentially bringing them closer to international standards that emphasize consent, possibly leading to a consent-based definition of rape[2][5].

Societal and Political Reactions

  • Political Support: President Emmanuel Macron expressed support for revising the definition of rape on March 8, 2024[1].
  • Feminist and Societal Debate: The debate is contentious, with some concerned that focusing on consent might place additional burdens on victims, while others believe it's essential for better representation of victims' experiences[3][5].
  • Conviction Rates: France's low conviction rates for sexual violence cases (86% of cases dismissed) and rape (94% dismissed) illustrate the complexity and hurdles in addressing these crimes effectively[5].
  1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) noted that, in three cases, French courts failed to fully examine the circumstances surrounding incidents of sexual assault against minors and neglected to give sufficient consideration to the complainants' vulnerability, particularly due to their age, thereby underscoring the shortcomings in the "evaluation of the authenticity of consent."
  2. The ECtHR highlighted that the internal courts did not sufficiently consider the vulnerable position of the young complainants at the time of the disputed acts and did not thoroughly examine the circumstances surrounding the incidents, thus supporting the claims of the victims.
  3. The European Court of Human Rights, in its ruling, emphasized that the internal legal framework, particularly in France, should advocate for a clear reference to the concept of free consent to prosecute rape and sexual assault, a reminder to France of its obligations under the European and international legal framework.
  4. Amidst parliamentary deliberations over a text aimed at incorporating the concept of consent into the definition of rape and sexual assault, the ECtHR also underscored that any non-consensual sexual act is a form of sexual violence and serves as a reminder of the need to address this important issue in France's legal framework.
  5. In the broader context of ongoing parliamentary discussions, the European Court of Human Rights' admonishment of France for failing to safeguard the rights of teenage rape victims and its emphasis on the need for a consent-based definition of rape could potentially influence France to bring its laws closer to international standards that emphasize consent.
Investigating authorities and domestic courts in Europe were deemed inadequate in safeguarding three underage girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, during specific incidents. The European Court of Human Rights made this determination in each of the three cases presented.
Investigative authorities and domestic courts neglected to ensure proper protection for three minors, aged 13, 14, and 16, as ruled by the European Court of Human Rights in separate cases.
Investigative authorities and domestic courts in Europe did not offer sufficient safeguards to three underage girls, who were aged 13, 14, and 16 at the time of the events, according to the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.
Authorities responsible for investigations and internal courts in each case neglected to provide sufficient protection to three girls, age 13, 14, and 16 at the time of the incidents, as ruled by the European Court of Human Rights.
Investigative authorities and domestic courts in Europe did not offer sufficient safeguards to the 13, 14, and 16-year-old girls during the incidents, as ruled by the European Court of Human Rights in each of the three cases.
In each of the three instances, the investigative bodies and internal courts fell short in providing adequate protection to the 13, 14, and 16-year-old girls during the respective events, according to the European Court of Human Rights.
Investigating authorities and domestic courts were found wanting in their duty to provide adequate protection to three underage girls, who were 13, 14, and 16 respectively, during the occurrence of the cited incidents, according to the European Court of Human Rights.
Investigating authorities and internal courts were found lacking in their protection of three underage girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, as ruled by the European Court of Human Rights in three separate cases.
In the three separate cases, the investigative authorities and internal judiciaries allegedly neglected their duty to secure the safety of three young girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, as found by the European Court of Human Rights.
Investigating authorities and domestic courts were inadequate in safeguarding the three minor girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, during the relevant incidents, as ruled by the European Court of Human Rights.
In three distinct instances, the investigative bodies and judiciary systems in each case fell short in ensuring proper protection for three minors aged 13, 14, and 16, as ruled by the European Court of Human Rights.
Investigative authorities and internal courts were found wanting in their duty to safeguard three teenage girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, during the events in question, by the European Court of Human Rights.
Three teenage girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, were found to be not sufficiently safeguarded by the authorities and internal courts in three separate instances, according to the European Court of Human Rights.
Investigative authorities and domestic courts allegedly did not provide sufficient protection for three girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, as determined by the European Court of Human Rights in separate cases.
Investigative authorities and internal jurisdictions did not adequately safeguard three girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, during critical incidents. This conclusion was reached by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to three separate cases.
In three separate instances, the investigative bodies and internal judiciaries were unable to provide adequate protection to three girls aged 13, 14, and 16, as determined by the European Court of Human Rights during the specified events.
Investigative authorities and domestic courts in each of the three cases were inadequate in safeguarding 13, 14, and 16-year-old girls, as determined by the European Court of Human Rights regarding past incidents.
In all three cases, the investigative authorities and domestic courts were deemed insufficient in safeguarding the 13, 14, and 16-year-old girls during the pertinent incidents, according to the European Court of Human Rights.
Investigative authorities and domestic courts were found deficient in their responsibility to safeguard three girls, age 13, 14, and 16, during the respective incidents, as ruled by the European Court of Human Rights.
Investigating authorities and internal jurisdictions were found lacking in providing proper protection to three teenage girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, during the occurrence of three separate incidents, as determined by the European Court of Human Rights.
Investigating authorities and internal jurisdictions neglected to provide adequate protection to three girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, in separate cases that were brought before the European Court of Human Rights.
In every case reviewed, the domestic investigative authorities and judicial systems proved insufficient in safeguarding three underage girls aged 13, 14, and 16 during the instances in question, as per the European Court of Human Rights.
Investigating authorities and domestic courts were found incapable of providing sufficient protection to three underage girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, in three separate cases, according to the European Court of Human Rights.
Investigative authorities and internal courts were found wanting in their duty to offer adequate protection to three girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, according to the European Court of Human Rights in the examined cases.
Investigating authorities and domestic courts were found to have inadequately protected three minor girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, according to the European Court of Human Rights in each of the three cases.
Authorities and judicial systems in the respective cases fell short in providing sufficient protection for three teenage girls aged 13, 14, and 16 during the occasions in question, according to the European Court of Human Rights.
In all three instances, the local investigating authorities and courts were determined to have insufficiently safeguarded three girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, during the occurrence of the events, according to the European Court of Human Rights.
Investigative authorities and domestic courts fell short in offering sufficient protection to three young girls, ages 13, 14, and 16, as evaluated by the European Court of Human Rights in each of their cases.
Domestic authorities and courts were deemed insufficient in safeguarding three teenage girls, who were respectively 13, 14, and 16 years old during the incidents, by the European Court of Human Rights.
In each of the three instances, domestic investigative bodies and courts neglected to offer sufficient safeguards to three girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, during the respective events, as determined by the European Court of Human Rights.
Investigating authorities and internal jurisdictions were found lacking in their protective measures for three girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, during the instances in question, according to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Investigative authorities and internal courts falling short in protecting 13, 14, and 16-year-old girls during the concerned incidents was deemed insufficient by the European Court of Human Rights in all three cases.
Investigative authorities and domestic courts were found deficient in safeguarding the 13, 14, and 16-year-old girls during the reported incidents, according to the European Court of Human Rights in all three cases.
Investigative authorities and internal courts were found wanting in their duty to safeguard three girls aged 13, 14, and 16 during the reviewed incidents by the European Court of Human Rights.
Investigative authorities and internal courts in Europe were found wanting in their duty to safeguard three underage girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, by the European Court of Human Rights in three separate cases.
Investigative authorities and domestic courts in Europe were deemed inadequate in safeguarding three minors – aged 13, 14, and 16 – during specific incidents, according to the European Court of Human Rights.
In all three cases, the investigating authorities and domestic courts were found to have inadequately safeguarded the 13, 14, and 16-year-old girls during the respective incidents by the European Court of Human Rights.
Investigating authorities and internal jurisdictions were found lacking in their duty to ensure proper protection for three girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, during the respective incidents by the European Court of Human Rights.
In three separate cases, it was determined by the European Court of Human Rights that the authorities and internal justice systems did not effectively shield 13-, 14-, and 16-year-old girls from harm at the time of the incidents.
In three separate cases, the investigative authorities and domestic courts in question fell short in providing adequate protection for three adolescent girls, aged 13, 14, and 16, as ruled by the European Court of Human Rights.

Read also:

    Related

    Latest