Posted by ccld201
24 July 2025In 2011, the Council of Europe adopted an important human rights treaty, the Istanbul Convention, which is based on the understanding that violence against women is part of a wider pattern of structural gender discrimination and inequality. Despite this, numerous judgments before the European Court of Human Rights continue to highlight the national authoritiesâ failure to investigate and prosecute violence against women inflicted by former partners.[1] Equally concerning are the complaints concerning the failure of authorities to investigate and prosecute adult men for sexual abuse and rape of teenage girls. These complaints highlight that violence against girls and women is deeply rooted in the social and cultural structures, norms and values that govern societies, and this will change if far-reaching changes in public attitudes occur in this respect.
One way for the Court to challenge the prevalent narrative is to frame complaints concerning violence against women in terms of human dignity. While the Court has consistently emphasised the advancement of gender equality as âa major goal in the member States of the Council of Europeâ,[2] the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not explicitly mention the terms âgender equalityâ or âhuman dignityâ. Therefore, the Court uses these concepts as interpretive principles in its judgments that shape the development of the human rights within democratic societies in Europe.[3]
Although the Court frequently highlights the Stateâs positive obligation under Articles 3 ECHR (Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment) and Article 8 ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life) to safeguard women and girlsâ physical integrity, to date it has not made explicit reference to human dignity in cases concerning violence against women. In contrast, judgments concerning human dignity typically focus on the use of the police force, police interrogation, pre-trial detention, or treatment of inmates during imprisonment.
The Link between Human Dignity and Integrity
A handful of recent judgments could be seen as a promising attempt to acknowledge that human dignity is important in the context of gender equality. In AE v Bulgaria (2023), the Court summarised the conditions when ill-treatment can be considered âdegradingâ for the purposes of Article 3 ECHR. The judgment consolidates earlier jurisprudence considering the nature of humiliating and debasing treatment. First, the ill-treatment must arouse âfeelings of fear, anguish and inferiorityâ capable of humiliating and debasing the individual.[4] Second, the treatment must humiliate or debase the victim in their own eyes. Third, the treatment must show a lack of respect for, or diminish, human dignity.
In FM and Others v Russia (2024), the Court recognised that human trafficking threatens the human dignity and fundamental freedoms of the victims and is not âcompatible with a democratic society and the values expounded in the Conventionâ.[5] Therefore, Russiaâs failure to investigate the claims of trafficking and forced labour left the four Kazak and Turkmenistan national applicants to deal with their traumatic experiences by themselves, offered no opportunity to seek compensation against damages suffered, and let the traffickers carry on operating without the authoritiesâ inference.[6]
In contrast, in KM v North Macedonia (2025), the Court referred to âthe right to human dignity and psychological integrityâ when finding a violation of Article 3. The emphasis of the link between ill-treatment and human dignity is logical as the case concerned the authoritiesâ failure to prosecute an adult man for a sexual assault of a teenage girl in her family home. Therefore, the Court yet again re-emphasised the obligation of the State to institute effective investigation and criminal prosecution against perpetrators of sexual violence against minors. Positively, in Gevorgyan v Armenia (2025) the Court has also recognised that treatment can be considered âdegradingâ without evidence of actual bodily injury. Although the case concerns the use of force by police officers, the Court noted that â[a]ny conduct by law-enforcement officers vis-Ă -vis an individual which diminishes human dignity constitutes a violation of Article 3â.[7]
Better Protection through an Intersectional Approach
It has been argued that situations where discrimination or violence occurs on the basis of multiple grounds operating separately or interacting with each other at the same time,[8] often affects women but not exclusively.[9] Establishing that women belonging to minoritised or diasporic groups experience intersectional discrimination would allow the Court to recognise that, for instance, racialised womenâs experiences of gender discrimination are inseparable from their experiences of racial discrimination because these experiences occur simultaneously.[10] While there are only a handful of cases where the Court has considered discrimination on more than one ground listed in Article 14 ECHR, which is the main discrimination provision within the Convention, Allouche v France (2024) is a welcome addition. The case concerned the failure of the French authorities to prosecute misogynistic and anti-Semitist hate crimes aimed at a Jewish woman. Ms Allouche received dozens of offensive and aggressive emails after she ignored the romantic advances of a man she had met in a bar. The judgment is particularly important for the development of the body of case law where the Court recognises that women belonging to minoritised and diasporic groups experience distinct types of discrimination compared to men who belong to the same groups.
Conclusion
To fully embrace fundamental human rights codified in the Convention and complementary international and European human rights instruments, the Court needs and move away from inconsistent references to human dignity. Adopting an intersectional approach is the first major step towards a more progressive understanding of the rights of women and minoritised and diasporic groups. Positively, the Court increasingly recognises that racial insults and homophobic remarks are an aggravating factor when considering the instance of illâtreatment in the light of Article 3 ECHR.[11] It has also noted that Article 8 ECHR protects the right to obtain gender recognition without compromising oneâs bodily integrity.[12] However, not emphasising the clear link between human dignity and physical integrity in cases concerning physical and sexual violence, unless the victim is a minor, continues to be problematic.
Dr Sanna Elfving is Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Lincoln. Her research interests are in the broad area of European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights. Her publications include Gender and the Court of Justice of the European Union (Routledge 2018); Gender and the European Court of Human Rights (Routledge 2025) and several journal articles and book chapters. Sanna is an elected Convenor of the EU and Competition Law subject section of the Society of Legal Scholars (2023-2026).
[1] Sanna Elfving, European Court of Human Rights and Gender (Routledge 2025).
[2] See eg Beeler v Switzerland App no 78630/12 (ECtHR, 11 October 2022), para 109.
[3] Corina Heri, âDeference, Dignity and ‘Theoretical Crisis’: Justifying ECtHR Rights Between Prudence and Protectionâ (2024) 24(1) Human Rights Law Review 1, 13 https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad032.
[4] AE v Bulgaria App no 53891/20 (ECtHR, 23 May 2023), para 90. The case focused on the authoritiesâ inadequate response to a motherâs complaints concerning a 15-year-old girl, who claimed to be in a relationship with a 23-year-old man. Social services had identified the girl to be at risk of becoming a victim of human trafficking or sexual exploitation.
[5] FM and others v Russia App no 71671/16 and 40190/18 (ECtHR, 10 December 2024), para 239.
[6] ibid para 330.
[7] Gevorgyan v Armenia App no 231/16 (ECtHR, 22 May 2025), para 50.
[8] See eg KimberlĂ© Crenshaw, âDemarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politicsâ (1989) U Chicago L Forum 139.
[9] Svitlana Karvatska, Ivan Toronchuk, and Alyona Manyk, âGender Equality Principle: Application in ECtHRâs Practiceâ (2021) 9 Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty Section Law 83, 86.
[10] Ratna Kapur, âThe Tragedy of Victimisation Rhetoric: Resurrecting the âNativeâ Subject in International/Postcolonial Feminist Legal Politicsâ (2002) 15 Harvard Human Rights Journal 1, 8.
[11] Hanovs v Latvia App no 40861/22 (ECtHR, 18 July 2024), para 41.
[12] YY v Turkey App no 14793/08 (ECtHR, 10 March 2015); AP, Garçon and Nicot v France App nos 79885/12 and others (ECtHR, 6 April 2017).