The European Court of Human Rights has condemned the Republic of Cyprus and the Deputy Attorney General for their handling of a rape case involving a politician, awarding €35,470 in compensation to the victim after finding violations of the Convention on Human Rights.
The ECHR ruled that Cyprus authorities subjected complainant N.T., a Cypriot national born in 1992 who lives in Larnaca, to secondary victimisation through sexist victim-blaming attitudes when they suspended criminal proceedings against her alleged attacker in 2021.
Lawyer Leto Cariolou, representing the complainant, told Philenews that police and the Law Office must reconsider their understanding of rape following the ECHR ruling. The court found that authorities subjected the applicant to secondary victimisation, which constitutes discrimination against her.
“Lack of consent is sufficient. The victim often freezes and does not react. Rape does not mean screaming and physical injuries,” Cariolou stated. She emphasised that the ECHR deemed the definition of rape used in this specific case impermissible.
“The complainant suffered. She was raped by someone she had previously fallen in love with, something that was deemed inconceivable by police and the Deputy Attorney General,” Cariolou noted.
Case background and political implications
N.T. reported to police in 2021 that she had been raped ten years earlier when she was 18 years old by a schoolfriend, A.T., who had since become a politician. The allegations made headlines and forced the politician to withdraw his candidacy from the DISY ballot for parliamentary elections.
Police immediately opened an investigation and indicted the alleged perpetrator. However, the Deputy Attorney General, who until 2020 had served as Minister of Defence in the DISY-led government, ultimately decided to discontinue criminal proceedings based on alleged inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements and her admission that she had “liked” A.T. and had perhaps sent him “wrong signals”.
Court findings on systemic failures
The ECHR specifically criticised the Deputy Attorney General’s conclusion as “selective, with a victim-blaming stance” that exposed the applicant to secondary victimisation through guilt-inducing, moralising and sexist stereotypes. The court noted that authorities gave disproportionate emphasis to the complainant’s emotional expression towards the accused whilst failing to consider basic elements that might indicate absence of consent.
The court emphasised that the assessment of the applicant’s credibility was influenced by the fact that she had expressed ambivalence and emotional attachment to the accused, an element that was not evaluated through the prism of psychological violence and trauma effects.
Particular emphasis was placed on the lack of specialised psychological assessment of the applicant, as well as the failure to substantially weigh conflicting testimonies. The court condemned the lack of effort to establish facts accurately and noted that critical parameters, such as the victim’s age at the time of the alleged rape and her emotional relationship with the accused, were sidelined.
Broader pattern of discrimination
The ECHR judgment highlighted that the Deputy Attorney General’s decision was “permeated with gender-based discrimination and sexism.” The court referenced GREVIO findings about “unbridled prejudices and patriarchal attitudes among police officers” and sexist, misogynistic attitudes towards female victims of sexual violence from certain prosecutors who appeared to have “inadequate understanding of rape evidence.”
The court also deemed “extremely problematic” the Deputy Attorney General’s refusal to grant the applicant access to the case file without providing justification. This denial, according to the ECHR, limited the applicant’s effective participation in proceedings and her ability to seek effective remedy.
Compensation and legal precedent
The court awarded €35,470 in total compensation, comprising €20,000 in damages and €15,470 in legal costs, after finding violations of articles 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention on Human Rights.
Cariolou expressed pride in her client’s struggle, noting that she managed to establish in Cyprus case law “a definition of rape based on the absence of consent” – something the lawyer described as self-evident.
“I am proud of N.T.’s struggle, as she managed to create in Cyprus case law – the self-evident – a definition of rape based on the absence of consent,” Cariolou stated.
Repeat violations highlight systemic issues
This marks the second time within months that the ECHR has ruled against Cyprus over rape case handling. On February 27, 2025, the court delivered judgment in X v. Cyprus, concerning the investigation into an alleged gang-rape of a young British woman in Ayia Napa in July 2019.
In that case, the 19-year-old British woman reported being gang-raped by 12 Israeli tourists but later retracted her statement after hours of police questioning without legal representation. She was charged with “public mischief” and received a suspended sentence, though her conviction was overturned by Cyprus’s Supreme Court in 2022. The ECHR found that “certain biases concerning women in Cyprus” had prevented effective protection of women’s rights as victims of gender-based violence.
Following the binding ECHR decision, Cariolou stated that Cyprus must implement reforms: “We expect to see an end to the unchecked powers of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General.”
Cariolou noted that the case establishes precedent requiring Cyprus authorities to base rape definitions on absence of consent rather than previous narrow interpretations that demanded evidence of physical resistance or injury.
Read more:
