States’ Due Diligence in the investigation of sexual assault cases. Commentary on the European Court of Human Rights Judgment in case N.Ö. v. Turkey.
In this commentary, we analyze the Judgment issued on January 14, 2025, by the Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of N.Ö. v. Turkey (Application no. 24733/15).
The national proceedings were initiated following a complaint filed by a Turkish citizen (N.Ö.) regarding an alleged sexual assault by her superior nearly two years prior. Despite the complainant’s legal representation providing medical and expert reports supporting her account and requesting essential investigative measures to clarify the facts, the Turkish courts acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence. The central argument of the acquittal ruling focused on the victim’s delay in reporting the incident, which was used to question her credibility. This assessment led to the application to the ECtHR for violation of Article 8 of the ECHR, which forms the core of the judicial decision under discussion. The case examines whether the Turkish State provided an adequate response to the claimant’s allegations and addresses fundamental procedural issues concerning the positive obligations of States in the investigating of sexual violence offenses.
After examining the case, the ECtHR concluded that Article 8 of the Convention had been violated due to the Turkish courts’ failure to conduct an effective procedural investigation, thereby breaching their positive obligations under the Convention. The Court emphasized that the authorities did not use available instruments such as requesting comparative DNA test, examining telephone records from the relevant period, conducting a more thorough analysis of medical reports, or clarifying discrepancies regarding dates and clothing. Had these measures been taken, they could have been decisive in adequately assessing the credibility of the parties involved. Likewise, the Court criticizes the Turkish authorities for resorting to gender stereotypes, particularly by questioning the victim’s credibility due to the delay in reporting the assault. It emphasizes that this assessment ignores the hierarchical workplace context, the fear of retaliation, and documented patterns among victims of sexual violence. According to the ECtHR, this interpretation—based on stereotypical expectations of how victims “should” behave—is incompatible with the context-sensitive approach required by its jurisprudence. The ruling is particularly significant because it explicitly rejects the notion that a delayed complaint inherently undermines credibility and precludes using such delay as an automatic argument for acquittal, emphasizing that there is no standard response model for responding to sexual assault. The case also highlights systemic shortcomings, including reluctance to order potentially invasive tests for suspects, a tendency to replace procedural investigation with moralistic judgments about the victim, and the excessive weight given to the “in dubio pro reo” principle without properly balancing it against the obligation to conduct an active and diligent investigation.
The Court clarifies that for an investigation to be deemed “effective,” it must be “adequate” and “objective,” constituting a requirement of means rather than results. The Court has already held in similar cases that when two diametrically opposed versions exist, a contextualized assessment of the credibility of the statements and verification of all surrounding circumstances are necessary.
Ultimately, this ruling serves as a wake-up call for States that continue to apply rigid evidentiary criteria, out of step with the contemporary understanding of sexual violence. In this way, the decision aligns with the European standard of enhanced protection in these crimes and reaffirms the ECtHR’s tendency to demand effective and context-sensitive investigations, to denounce the use of gender stereotypes in criminal justice, and to focus the analysis on diligence and reasonableness in obtaining and assessing evidence.
Cristina Molins
Internal Investigations Department – Molins Defensa Penal