SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 36024/17 A.G. against Türkiye The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21 January 2025 as a Chamber composed of: Arnfinn Bårdsen , President , Saadet Yüksel, Jovan Ilievski, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Davor Derenčinović, Stéphane Pisani, Juha Mikael Lavapuro , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 April 2017, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, A.G., is a Turkish national who was born in 1985 and lives in Istanbul. The President granted the applicant’s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court). She was represented before the Court by Ms E. Keskin, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their co-agent at the time, Mr H.A. Açıkgül, and Mr A.H. Yazıcı, former Head and Deputy Head, respectively, of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye. The circumstances of the case 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations (a) Criminal complaint against X lodged by a group of thirteen individuals 4. On 14 July 2014 a group of thirteen individuals lodged a criminal complaint with the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office against X, the owner of a yoga centre of which they claimed to have been students. The complainants alleged that, introducing himself as a “professor”, X had established a cult-type structure under the guise of yoga instruction. He had isolated them and drawn them away from their social circles and families. They had been deceived into providing financial support to the centre at X’s suggestion and had been victims of exploitation, both financially and spiritually. They had been forced to open yoga studios using X’s brand name under franchise agreements. In addition to the allegations of fraud, the complainants further alleged that X had committed acts of sexual harassment. (b) Criminal complaint against X lodged by the applicant 5 . On the same day, the applicant also lodged a complaint with the police, raising similar allegations against X to those raised in the group complaint. She submitted, in particular, that she had met X in August 2011 during a yoga festival organised by him in İzmir, where he had introduced himself as a “yoga master” and a “professor”. She had been deeply impressed by him and had remained at the festival for several days. She had later decided to become a yoga instructor herself. During the festival, the participants had practised yoga and played sport during the day and X had preached to them at night. In his preaching, X had described love and loyalty to him, the “master”, as the only way to happiness in the world and had instilled in his students a sense of unconditional obedience to him, thus “hypnotising” them. As a result, the applicant had committed acts that she would never have carried out under normal circumstances, such as lodging false criminal complaints under the instructions of X in an attempt to punish some students who had decided to leave his yoga centre. The applicant had subsequently become a yoga instructor in 2012. She had signed a franchise agreement with X and opened her own yoga studio in İzmir, using X’s brand name. Around the time she had become a yoga instructor, she and X had begun seeing each other frequently. When she went to X’s room at the centre, he was warm towards her and made physical contact with her. While doing so, X would say that he was “opening her chakras”, that he had a scientific purpose, and that such contact was a special yoga technique. 6. During the first of those meetings, which had taken place in X’s room at an unspecified time and place, X, while lying fully naked on the floor, had asked the applicant to massage his neck and then other parts of his body. The applicant had then performed oral sex on X under his psychological influence. Thereafter, each time X came to İzmir or when they met at events or festivals, she had had anal or vaginal intercourse with X, who had told her that in that way they were sharing universal love and creating an energy flow. The applicant claimed that X had hypnotised her and had applied psychological pressure and that, as a result, she had done things that she would not normally do. All those sexual acts had occurred without her will and under X’s command and influence, and as a result of her obedience to him. They had amounted to rape. The last sexual assault on the applicant had taken place in X’s room during the Akçakoca yoga festival in May 2014. Only after she had left the centre had she learned that many women, including minors, had been raped and sexually assaulted by X. Only then had she understood that he had lied to her about his scientific purposes, chakra opening, energy transfer and so on. The applicant alleged that she had been raped numerous times and asked the authorities to prosecute X for that offence. (c) X’s arrest and initial statements regarding the applicant’s allegations 7 . The Istanbul public prosecutor launched an investigation in respect of X on suspicion of fraud, sexual harassment and sexual assault, as well as other offences, and issued instructions for the collection of detailed statements from all the complainants. On 15 July 2014 X’s residence and workplace were searched and X was taken into police custody. 8. On 17 July 2014 X was questioned by a judge in relation to the offence of qualified sexual assault. He stated that a smear campaign was being run against him. The judge granted him conditional bail and banned him from leaving the country. 9. On 19 August 2014 X gave another statement to the Istanbul public prosecutor. He confirmed his earlier statement of 17 July 2014 and, as regards the allegations of sexual assault, argued in general that he had never used a method such as hypnosis, that he did not know how to perform hypnosis in any event, and that yoga had nothing to do with hypnosis. (d) The Istanbul and İzmir public prosecutors’ decisions of 30 September 2014 and 10 March 2015 declining jurisdiction 10 . On 30 September 2014 the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office severed the investigation into the applicant’s allegations from the investigation into the group criminal complaint and issued a decision declining jurisdiction on the grounds that the acts allegedly committed against the applicant had taken place outside its territorial jurisdiction. The prosecutor sent the investigation file to both the İzmir and the Akçakoca public prosecutors’ offices. On 10 March 2015 the İzmir public prosecutor’s office likewise issued a decision declining jurisdiction on the grounds that the alleged acts had occurred outside its jurisdiction and sent the file to the Akçakoca public prosecutor’s office. (e) Investigation by the Akçakoca public prosecutor into the applicant’s allegations 11. On 20 October 2014 the Akçakoca public prosecutor asked the Karşıyaka public prosecutor’s office to take a detailed statement from the applicant, who lived in Karşıyaka, İzmir, in her capacity as the complainant. The interview was to be conducted by female police officers and in the presence of a female lawyer, to be appointed by the Bar Association in accordance with Article 234 §§ 1 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271). In that connection, the Akçakoca public prosecutor requested that questions be put to the applicant with a view to collecting the following information: (i) the address of the festival where she had been sexually assaulted; whether she had consented to sexual intercourse; whether she had had a chance to flee and to save herself, or to phone the police, the gendarmerie or anyone else; whether she had had her mobile phone in her possession; whether she had informed anyone by telephone; whether she had put up resistance; whether she had screamed; and whether she had implicitly given consent; (ii) whether she had been a virgin at the time of the incident; the address and description of the place or house where she had allegedly been raped; the date and time of that incident; whether there had been any witnesses and, if so, a description of them and their full names and phone numbers; (iii) whether she had been physically assaulted or threatened immediately before or after the alleged rape; the reason why she had not gone to the police or the gendarmerie on the day of the incident; whether she had obtained a medical report from the hospital on the day of the incident; a detailed account of the course of events relating to the alleged rape, moment by moment and in chronological order; a description of the clothes (colour and type) that she and the person who had allegedly raped her had been wearing on the day of the incident; and whether she wished to file a criminal complaint; (iv) whether she was pregnant and, if so, whether she wished to to have the baby or to have an abortion; whether she wished to undergo a gynaecological examination; whether she consented to a gynaecological examination; and whether she had any other evidence or whether there had been any other witnesses. 12 . The Akçakoca public prosecutor also instructed the Karşıyaka public prosecutor’s office to conduct its own inquiries with a view to finding witnesses and taking statements from them. In addition, he instructed that the applicant be referred to the nearest branch office of the Forensic Medicine Institute, along with a copy of her statement and all the enclosures, primarily for a gynaecological examination. The public prosecutor requested that the following information be included in the medical report: (i) whether the applicant had been subjected to any sexual assault and, if so, whether that assault had been committed by means of inserting an organ, or other object, into the body, and the time of the assault; (ii) whether the applicant had been physically or mentally incapable of defending herself; (iii) whether the applicant had been subjected to coercion or violence; (iv) whether there was any sign of force used on the applicant’s body as a result of a sexual assault, going beyond the degree of force capable of breaking her resistance; (v) whether there was any impairment to the applicant’s physical or mental health as a result of the offence of sexual assault; (vi) whether the applicant was a virgin; if not, the date on which she had lost her virginity; whether there were any signs of force; whether she was pregnant, and if so, how many weeks pregnant she was; (vii) whether the applicant had the capacity to understand the legal meaning and consequences of the act that had allegedly been committed against her; whether her statements were reliable; and whether orders, indoctrination, hypnosis or psychological pressure could invalidate consent or cause acts to be carried out involuntarily, in view of the applicant’s statements that all sexual acts with X had occurred under his instructions and under the influence of indoctrination (in relation to her allegations that she had done things that she would have never done had she not been under the influence of hypnosis and psychological pressure during the sexual intercourses; that she had not been herself during all the instances of sexual intercourse; that she had simply obeyed his instructions; and that all the instances of sexual intercourse had constituted rape). The public prosecutor also ordered that blood, hair, saliva, nail and sperm samples be taken from the applicant’s body for molecular or genetic analysis if it appeared that there were signs of sexual assault. 13 . In addition, the Akçakoca public prosecutor ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant in connection with the offence of intentional bodily harm under Article 86 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 5237). In view of the possibility that she might face allegations of slander or of making false accusations, the public prosecutor ordered a further forensic medical examination in that regard. He stated that the following information should be included in the report: (i) whether the applicant was mentally ill or had any mental disability and, if so, the nature of any diagnosis; whether she had the capacity to understand the legal meaning and consequences of her actions; whether her ability to control her own actions had been impaired and whether it was necessary to place her under observation in accordance with Article 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) in the event that she was found to be suffering from a mental illness or disability, whether she was able to perform her daily tasks of living or whether she needed constant assistance, protection or care; (iii) whether she posed a risk to others; whether she was addicted to alcohol or narcotics; whether she had a highly dangerous contagious disease; whether she led a vagrant lifestyle; whether she posed a danger to society; whether it was necessary to place her in a suitable institution for her personal protection, treatment, education or rehabilitation or to detain her or impose other restrictions on her. 14 . On 5 November 2014 female police officers took a statement from the applicant, which she said she had prepared with the assistance of her own lawyer. According to her statement, the applicant had been associated with the yoga structure in question between 2011 and 2014. During that period, she had fallen further and further under the influence of X’s indoctrination, and had done whatever he asked, without hesitation. Like his other students with whom he had sexual intercourse, the applicant had believed that the “master” was transferring his sexual energy to her and felt privileged as she believed, like the others, that they were becoming complete in that way. The applicant had been aware that X was having sexual relations with other students, but she had found this normal since she believed such relations to be a special yoga technique. From time to time, she had questioned why he performed sexual acts on her but had then convinced herself that it was wrong to question the “master” and there had be a reason that she did not understand. She did not disclose her doubts to anyone as X had instructed her not to tell anyone about their relationship. The applicant gave three dates in 2013 and 2014 on which she had had sexual relations with X. The applicant said that she had looked up to X as a spiritual guide. Her love and respect for him had been infinite but there had been no romantic relationship between them. Nor had she ever wanted to start a romantic or sexual relationship with him. She had not become pregnant as a result of those sexual relations. Nor had she thought of trying to escape or contacting the police, considering her state of mind at the time. She had not resisted or screamed as she was obeying X’s instructions. She had not been a virgin before she had had sexual intercourse with X and she had not been subjected to physical violence during or after the sexual relationship. She had not contacted the police or the judicial authorities because she had been under his influence. It was only later that she had realised that she had not wished to have a sexual relationship with X and that she had come to believe that she had been raped. The applicant consented to various medical examinations. 15. On the same day, the İzmir branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute carried out a gynaecological and physical examination of the applicant. The resulting report showed an old rupture of the hymen, the characteristics of which indicated that it had occurred at a time earlier than the past ten days. No medical evidence of anal penetration by an organ or other object was observed. However, given the applicant’s age and physical development, anal sex could have taken place without leaving any signs if there had been no physical resistance as a result of consent, factors such as threats or the use of lubricants. Besides, owing to the time which had elapsed since the incident, it was possible that any sign of injury that might have been observed at the time of the incident would have already disappeared without trace. It was not possible to collect swab samples owing to the passing of time since the incident. No traumatic lesions were observed on the applicant’s body. It was also pointed out that the report dealing with the question of pregnancy would need to be obtained from a gynaecology and obstetrics clinic, and that the report on the question of a potential deterioration in mental health, the applicant’s mental capacity to defend herself, and other related issues would need to be obtained from the psychiatric unit of a fully equipped hospital, as those questions required a detailed psychiatric examination. 16 . On 6 November 2014 the applicant was examined by the Forensic Board for Adults at the Ege University Faculty of Medicine, composed of five doctors specialised in the fields of forensic medicine and psychiatry. According to the report issued on 21 November 2014 following the examination, the applicant claimed to have been subjected to numerous sexual assaults between 2011 and 2014. Referring to the report of 5 November 2014 of the İzmir branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute, the Ege University doctors indicated that it was medically impossible to say when the alleged sexual assaults had taken place because any samples collected and examined in that connection would not be able to provide objective scientific evidence which could be matched against the alleged perpetrator, owing to the lapse of time since the alleged incidents. They also noted that, according to a blood analysis carried out at the İzmir Public Health Laboratory, the applicant was not pregnant and did not have any infectious diseases. In addition, the report concluded that the applicant had been capable of defending herself both physically and mentally. She had no injuries or other potential after-effects to be assessed from the standpoint of the offence of intentional bodily harm. There were no signs of battery or coercion on her body. The applicant was not mentally ill and did not suffer from a mental disability. She was not addicted to alcohol or narcotics, did not lead a vagrant lifestyle, and did not endanger the safety of others or pose a danger to society. She had received occasional psychiatric treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the alleged sexual assaults occuring over a long period. However, as of the date of the examination, she did not have any permanent mental disorder. The applicant was aware of the legal meaning and consequences of the acts that had allegedly been committed against her. Nevertheless, the practice of yoga and the instructive relationship inherent in that and other similar disciplines involved a mentor-apprentice dynamic and the phenomena of transference and counter-transference that might arise within such relationships could affect the individual’s ability to behave properly. Mentors/instructors needed to be aware of those phenomena and to take measures to prevent the development of certain emotions towards them as objects of transference within such a relationship, as those emotions were hard to control. Thus, in such cases, it became easier for people to be influenced or encouraged to take part in potentially unwanted acts without control. The doctors concluded that, in their view, the applicant had been under such an influence and that this situation could have invalidated her consent. 17 . On 30 April 2015 a certain Y made a statement in relation to the applicant’s allegations and stated that X had indoctrinated both her and the applicant with the idea that he had supernatural powers, that he was the only one who could break the cycle of birth and death (karma) and that they could only become complete with his energy. As his students, they did whatever he told them to do. In his books and sermons, X portrayed sexuality as an energy transfer from the “master”. Moreover, Y had witnessed X calling the applicant into his room at the centre on numerous occasions to give him a massage. The applicant had then gone into X’s room and stayed there for hours, and had always been red in the face when she came out. Since X had perpetrated acts of harassment and violence towards many other people, Y believed that the incidents complained of by the applicant were true. 18. On 5 May 2015 X’s lawyer provided the Akçakoca public prosecutor’s office with a copy of a decision by the Ankara public prosecutor not to prosecute in relation to similar allegations made against X. The Ankara public prosecutor had concluded that sexual relations between X and the woman bringing the complaint had been consensual. On 25 and 29 June 2015 the lawyer requested that a number of people be heard as witnesses. 19. In July 2015, five other former students of X made statements to the police regarding the nature of the relationship between him and the applicant. They all claimed that the applicant had appeared happy and comfortable in X’s presence at social events and that she herself had initiated physical contact with him. Some reported witnessing the applicant telling X that she loved and missed him, and giving X massages on her own initiative. Other witnesses contended that the applicant had a strong character and would not have given in to manipulation. Some of them also noted that there had been a campaign against X, and that Y had already told them that she would be taking over X’s brand. Those witnesses stated that Y, the applicant and another person were administrators at the yoga centre in question and had their own studios under X’s brand name in different towns. They submitted that X had not used hypnosis or other similar techniques to convince his entourage to carry out any acts against their will and that only legitimate yoga techniques were used at the centre. 20 . On 7 August 2015, on the instructions of the public prosecutor, X made a detailed statement in which he contended that the applicant’s allegations against him about his use of chakra opening, hypnosis, indoctrination, authority, psychological influence, preaching and so on were completely fabricated and part of a smear campaign against him. The registered yoga brand he owned had recently become a leading global brand. As such, all the accusations against him had been made with an ulterior motive on the part of Y, the applicant and the other administrator at the centre, who were seeking to take over his brand and drive him out of the country. X noted that there were financial issues at stake. He further stated that a certain intimacy had developed between the applicant and him, and that it was the applicant who had wished to have physical contact with him. X claimed that he and the applicant had seen each other and had consensual relationship during a festival held in May 2014. The applicant was a self-confident, assured person with a university degree, an income and a career. Her argument that during their several years of friendship she had been under his influence to such an extent that her consent had been invalidated, but she had then come to her senses within the space of just fifteen days, was entirely unreasonable. In conclusion, X maintained that he was not guilty. 21 . On 13 August 2015 X’s lawyer filed defence pleadings with the public prosecutor’s office, enclosing several supporting documents, including expert reports dated 1 and 31 July 2015 by professors and associate professors of forensic medicine and psychiatry from Dokuz Eylül and Celal Bayar Universities. The reports addressed the report dated 21 November 2014 issued by the Ege University Faculty of Medicine (see paragraph 16 above) and other documents provided to the experts by X, such as witness statements. The reports concluded that there were no signs of influence, hypnosis or other psychological pressure on the applicant and nothing to show that she had acted unconsciously and involuntarily. Both reports drew attention to the fact that the alleged acts had continued over the course of several years and that there was nothing to support the allegation that the applicant had been hypnotised or had been under any other psychological influence during that time. One of the reports noted that there was no medical evidence showing the existence of transference or counter-transference, phenomena which might be observed during psychoanalysis or other such therapy. Both reports emphasised that the applicant was not a minor and did not suffer from any mental disability which could have invalidated her consent. The reports concluded that there was no evidence to show that sexual relations had taken place without the applicant’s consent. 22 . On 8 September 2015 the Akçakoca public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute X for the offences of sexual assault and unlawful deprivation of liberty. The public prosecutor noted that the applicant had made her complaint a long time after the alleged incidents had taken place and her testimony was based on abstract allegations. The reports issued by the İzmir Forensic Medicine Institute and Ege University did not refer to any evidence of sexual assault and according to those reports, the applicant had not been a virgin. The reports and other material submitted by X showed that there was no scientific or legal evidence to support the applicant’s allegations, which were likewise not supported by witness statements. The public prosecutor concluded that there was no objective evidence or any statements by impartial witnesses in the case file that could justify instituting criminal proceedings against X, and that the applicant’s allegations had remained abstract in nature. The public prosecutor further noted that other public prosecutors conducting investigations in respect of X had also given decisions not to prosecute. 23 . On 30 September 2015 the applicant lodged an objection against the decision of 8 September 2015. She stated that she had not argued that X had hypnotised her but had complained that he had put psychological pressure on her and had influenced her to the point of invalidating her self-control. She also claimed that the contents of the report of 21 November 2014 and the statement made by Y had been disregarded. In addition, she argued that criminal proceedings against X were pending before the Istanbul Assize Court and another set of proceedings against him in relation to statements he had made about the Prophet Muhammad were pending before the Ankara Criminal Court. 24 . In response to the applicant’s objection, X submitted that the applicant had accused him of using hypnosis in her statement of 14 July 2014 and that the public prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute him had been in line with the law and the material in the case file. He added that only one complaint, lodged by Y, was being pursued and that all other complaints against him had been dismissed. 25. On 26 October 2015 the Düzce Magistrate’s Court dismissed the applicant’s objection. It considered that an adequate investigation had been conducted into her allegations. In that connection, the court found that all relevant evidence had been collected and that the applicant’s objection was not of such a nature as to change the conclusion reached by the public prosecutor. Decision of the Constitutional Court 26. On 16 December 2015 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court alleging a breach of her right to a fair trial on account of the outcome of the criminal investigation carried out into her allegations. She claimed that she had been forced to have sexual relations with X under his undue influence and that the Akçakoca public prosecutor’s office and the Düzce Magistrate’s Court had failed to carry out an adequate investigation into her complaints. They had adopted a patriarchal approach and had not taken into account the Ege University report of 21 November 2014 in their assessment of the circumstances of the case. 27 . On 6 January 2017 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s individual application as manifestly ill-founded. Firstly, the court considered that the applicant’s complaint should be examined from the standpoint of Article 17 of the Constitution, as it concerned an allegation of a lack of an effective investigation within the scope of the right to the protection and development of one’s physical and spiritual existence. It considered that an assessment should be made as to whether the authorities had fulfilled their positive obligation to investigate the applicant’s allegations. In that connection, the Constitutional Court observed that an investigation had been launched immediately into the applicant’s allegations, even though the criminal complaint had not been lodged until sometime after the events in question. Within the scope of that investigation, the İzmir Forensic Medicine Institute and Ege University had issued reports, statements had been taken from the suspect, and the forensic medicine and psychiatry departments of both Dokuz Eylül University and Celal Bayar University had been asked to provide expert opinions. The investigating authorities had concluded that there was no scientific or legal evidence in support of the applicant’s claims and no concrete or objective evidence, traces or signs or impartial witness statements which could be considered sufficient to initiate a public prosecution. The Constitutional Court further observed that the investigation, which had been instigated without delay, had been completed within a reasonable time; that the applicant’s claims had been subjected to an adequate examination, and that she could have access to the investigation documents and had participated in the process. The Constitutional Court concluded that the investigation into the applicant’s allegations had not fallen short of the requirements of the positive obligation to carry out an investigation. Medical report of 28 March 2016 28. On 28 March 2016, at the applicant’s request, two professors and a specialist from the Forensic Medicine Department of the Istanbul University Faculty of Medicine examined the applicant and issued a report. According to the report, a physical examination of the applicant did not reveal any injuries and would have been unlikely to do so, owing to the passage of time since the events in question. However, her psychological examination revealed that she was suffering from mild post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the sexual activity undertaken as a part of “sexual enlightenment training”, which had been presented to her as a requirement of her training in the philosophy of yoga. The symptoms of that disorder had been suppressed by means of denial and avoidance. The applicant’s statements had been consistent and reliable. She was suffering from emotional distress as a result of her experiences. Against that background, the psychological trauma symptoms identified were consistent with the applicant’s story that she had been sexually abused by a man she knew. The report concluded that the symptoms in question were not life-threatening but had caused a deterioration in the applicant’s health and perceptual capacity that could not be treated with simple medical intervention. The report was based on the medical examination of the applicant and the psychological examination report issued by the psychologist. In addition, the report of the Ege University Faculty of Medicine dated 21 November 2014 and the applicant’s statements made in 2014 were taken into account. Criminal proceedings initiated against X further to the complaint by Y 29. On 17 December 2015 the Istanbul Assize Court acquitted X in criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of allegations made by Y, who had made witness statements in favour of the applicant during the investigation into the applicant’s allegations and who had made similar allegations against X (see paragraphs 17, 20, 23 and 24 above). The Assize Court noted that Y was a university graduate with a master’s degree and that when she had first made a statement about her relationship with X, she had said that she did not accept that his conduct amounted to rape and that had she believed otherwise, she would have lodged a complaint against him as she was not an ignorant person. The court also noted that Y had stated that she had lived with X for a few days a week for five years and that she had claimed that she had been subjected to violence during those years, but that she had not been able to make those allegations at the time. Y had contended that she had only realised that she had been subjected to violence after a friend had told her that what she had experienced was not normal. The Assize Court found her explanation for her inactivity during those years to be contrary to the normal course of life given her profile. The Assize Court also noted that although some witnesses had reported seeing bruises on Y’s body, and although medical reports had noted that her body was tender in certain places, those injuries could have occurred during sports activities or in the course of everyday life. The court noted that there were no signs of sexual violence on her body and that she had not stated that sexual intercourse with X had taken place without her consent. 30. On 25 December 2019 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Relevant domestic law Constitution 31. The relevant provisions of the Constitution read as follows: Article 17 “... Everyone has the right to life and the right to protect and improve his or her physical and spiritual existence. ...” Article 129 “Civil servants and other public officials are obliged to carry out their duties with loyalty to the Constitution and the laws. ...” Criminal Code 32 . The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code (Law no. 5237), as in force at the material time, read as follows: Article 102 Sexual assault “(1) Any person who violates the physical integrity of another person, by means of sexual conduct, shall be sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment for a term of between two and seven years, upon a complaint by the victim. (2) Where the act is committed by means of inserting an organ, or other object, into the body, the offender shall be sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment for a term of between seven and twelve years. If the act is committed against the offender’s spouse, investigation and prosecution shall be subject to a complaint by the victim. (3) The penalty to be imposed shall be increased by half if the offence is committed: (a) against a person who is physically or mentally incapable of defending himself or herself; (b) by misusing the influence derived from a position of public office or an employment relationship; (c) against a person who is related by blood or marriage, including the third degree; (d) with the use of weapons or by more than one person. (4) If, during the commission of the offence, force is used beyond that which is necessary to break the resistance of the victim, the person shall also be punished for the offence of intentional injury. (5) If the victim’s physical or mental health is impaired as a result of the offence, imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years shall be imposed. (6) Where the victim enters a vegetative state or dies as a result of the offence, a penalty of aggravated life imprisonment shall be imposed.” Article 109 Deprivation of liberty “(1) A person who unlawfully deprives another person of the freedom to go to or stay in a particular place shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of between one and five years. (2) A person who uses force, threats or fraud to commit the offence or during the commission of the offence shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of between two and seven years. (3) If the offence is committed under the following circumstances, the penalty to be imposed in accordance with the above paragraphs shall be doubled: ... (f) against a child or a person who is physically or mentally incapable of defending himself or herself. (4) If the offence causes significant economic loss to the victim, a judicial fine of up to one thousand days shall be imposed. (5) If the offence is committed for sexual purposes, the penalties to be imposed under the preceding paragraphs shall be increased by half. ...” Code of Criminal Procedure 33. The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271), as in force at the material time, read as follows: Article 8 The notion of connection “(1) Where a person is accused of more than one offence, or where several persons are accused of a single offence, there shall be a presumption of connection. (2) After the commission of an offence, assisting the offender, and destroying, concealing, or tampering with evidence shall be presumed to be related offences.” Article 9 § 1 Joining and institution of cases “(1) Where each of the connected offences falls within the jurisdiction of a different court, a single set of proceedings for all the connected offences may be brought before a court at a higher level of jurisdiction. ...” Article 12 §§ 1 and 2 The court with jurisdiction “(l) The court having jurisdiction over the area where the offence was committed shall have the authority to hear the case. (2) That authority shall belong to the court having jurisdiction over the area where the last act took place in the case of attempted offences, where interruption occurred in the case of continuous offences, and where the latest offence was committed in the case of successive offences. ...” Article 67 § 6 Expert reports, expert opinions “... (6) The public prosecutor, the intervening party and his or her legal representative, the suspect or the accused and their defence counsel or legal representatives may obtain a scientific opinion from an expert in relation to the events which are the subject of the proceedings, or for assessment in [a separate] expert report or on the subject of the expert report. An extension of time may not be requested for this reason alone.” Article 172 § 2 Decision not to prosecute “... (2) Following a decision not to prosecute, no criminal proceedings can be initiated in respect of the same act, unless new evidence emerges. ...” Relevant domestic practice 34 . On 3 October 2012 the Fourteenth Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation delivered a decision (no. 2012/9412) whereby it quashed a decision of the first-instance court acquitting the accused, an alleged leader of a religious order, of sexually related offences. The accused person in question had been criminally charged for having had oral, vaginal and anal sex with his victims, both men and women, on the pretext that oral sex was a form of worship, and that intercourse would bring them closer to God. Having regard, in particular, to the fact that men had brought their wives and fiancées to have sex with the accused, the Fourteenth Criminal Division considered that he had obtained the victims’ consent through deception and manipulation and by abusing their religious beliefs, and that he should therefore have been convicted. 35. In another decision dated 19 December 2016 (no. 2016/8588), the Fourteenth Criminal Division decided that the accused should be acquitted of the charges against him on account of the fact that the victims, who had had sexual intercourse with him, had given their consent. In that case, the accused, who had presented himself as having religious titles, had lived together with seven women, one of whom was his official wife. He had performed religious marriages with the other women. The Fourteenth Criminal Division concluded that there was no indication that the five complainants had not consented to sexual relations with the accused or that the accused had used violence or coercion against them. One member of the Fourteenth Criminal Division dissented, noting that the accused had presented the sexual acts as religious requirements and as a way of allowing his victims to raise their spiritual status. That member considered that the accused’s actions had constituted deception and had invalidated the victims’ consent. 36 . In another decision dated 11 February 2021 (no. 2021/1125), the Fourteenth Criminal Division quashed a judgment convicting the accused, a man who presented himself as a religious scholar, of the sexual assault of three adult men. The Court of Cassation held that the accused had not used coercion or threats during the relevant acts of oral and anal sexual intercourse and that all parties had given consent to those acts. The court noted that the statements of the accused, which had had the purpose of gaining the respect and trust of his victims, had not been of a deceptive nature. One member of the court dissented. He noted that the fact that the accused had had sexual intercourse with the victims and had convinced them that he would transfer wisdom through those acts should be regarded as deception, invalidating the victims’ consent. Relevant international framework 37. Information on the relevant international legal framework can be found in S.M. v. Croatia ([GC], no. 60561/14, § 125, 25 June 2020); M.C. v. Bulgaria (no. 39272/98, §§ 101 and 108, ECHR 2003-XII); Luca v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 55351/17, § 51, 17 October 2023); X v. Greece (no. 38588/21, §§ 27-28 and 30-31, 13 February 2024); and Z v. the Czech Republic (no. 37782/21, §§ 29-32, 20 June 2024). COMPLAINT 38. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into her allegations. In that regard, she claimed that the Akçakoca public prosecutor and the Düzce Magistrate’s Court had adopted a formulaic approach to her allegations. They had failed to assess the nature of her relationship with X, who had abused his authority as a yoga instructor. The authorities had failed to take into account the report of the Ege University Faculty of Medicine of 21 November 2014 which corroborated her allegations. The applicant submitted that X had brainwashed many women, drawing them away from their social circles and families and isolating them. He had made them believe that he had superhuman powers and that they should do his bidding. 39. It is settled in the Court’s case-law that rape and serious sexual assault amount to treatment falling within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention. Since those offences typically implicate fundamental values and essential aspects of “private life”, the Court has also examined cases relating to the obligation to investigate cases of rape and sexual assault under Article 8 of the Convention (see X v. Greece , cited above, § 65, and Y v. Bulgaria, no. 41990/18, §§ 63-64, 20 February 2020 and the cases cited therein). 40. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see, Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 110-26, 20 March 2018 and Grosam v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 19750/13, § 90, 1 June 2023) considers that the applic ant’s complaint falls to be examined under the procedural limb of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention (see X v. Greece , cited above, § 63, and Y v. Bulgaria, cited above, §§ 63-64). The relevant parts of those provisions read as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 8 § 1 “Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life ...” THE LAW The parties’ submissions 41 . The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies because she had not submitted the report dated 28 March 2016 to the domestic authorities. Noting that that report had been obtained after the termination of the investigation into the applicant’s allegations, they submitted that the applicant could have sent it to the Constitutional Court within the context of her individual application or lodged a new criminal complaint with the public prosecutor’s office on the basis of that new piece of evidence, in accordance with Article 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 42. The Government maintained that the investigation into the applicant’s complaint had been thorough and effective, in accordance with the applicable criminal law and procedures. In particular, they pointed out that the investigative authorities had responded to the applicant’s allegations promptly and had taken measures to protect her rights, such as having her statements taken by female police officers and giving her access to the investigation file on the same footing as X. The domestic authorities had, moreover, conducted all the necessary examinations speedily, in particular those of a medical nature. 43. The Government contended that under domestic law, the joinder of investigations was at the discretion of public prosecutors and that the investigation into the applicant’s allegations had been conducted separately from the group complaint since the public prosecutors had not considered it necessary to conduct those investigations together. In that connection, the Government emphasised that the applicant had not objected to the decision of the Istanbul public prosecutor to disjoin the investigation of her complaints from the investigation into the other complainants’ allegations (see paragraph 10 above). 44. The Government further observed that the investigating authorities had adopted a sensitive approach to the applicant’s claims of psychological pressure and had taken several steps to determine whether she had consented to the sexual relations in question. The applicant had undergone gynaecological and psychological examinations. The public prosecutor had attempted to determine whether she had the capacity to understand the consequences of her actions and had heard several witnesses with a view to assessing whether she had been coerced to any relation. 45. Lastly, the Government noted that the Constitutional Court had also reviewed the domestic authorities’ decisions and had concluded that the investigation had satisfied the requirements of the positive obligation to implement an effective criminal-law mechanism for the protection of the right to the protection and development of one’s physical and spiritual existence. The Government expressed the view that there was no reason to depart from the conclusion reached by the Constitutional Court. 46 . The applicant submitted in response that the report of 28 March 2016 had been included in the case file that she had submitted to the domestic court. She further reiterated her complaint that X had not been tried or convicted as a result of the patriarchal approach of the judiciary despite her complaints and the medical reports supporting the veracity of her allegations. The Court’s assessment 47. As regards the Government’s submission that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies, the Court observes that, while the applicant has responded to that argument, she has not specified to which court she submitted the report of 28 March 2016. Nor has she provided any evidence of such submission. In particular, there is no document in the case file demonstrating that she made additional submissions to the Constitutional Court after she lodged her individual application with that court in 2015. Furthermore, she has not responded to the Government’s submission that she could have lodged a new criminal complaint with the prosecuting authorities, or to the question whether such a remedy could be considered effective in addressing her Convention grievances. 48 . Nevertheless, the Court considers it unnecessary to determine whether the applicant should be considered to have complied with the requirement to exhaust the domestic remedies since, in its view, the application is inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded for the reasons set out below (see, for a similar approach, Nakhmanovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 55669/00, 28 October 2004; Baranska v. Poland (dec.), no. 46863/09, 16 December 2014; Olsoy v. Turkey (dec.), no. 75468/10, 26 May 2015; and M.A. and Others v. Latvia (dec.), no. 25564/18, § 44, 29 March 2022). 49 . The Court reiterates that the obligation of the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill-treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals. On that basis, States have a positive obligation inherent in Article 3 of the Convention to enact criminal-law provisions that effectively punish rape and serious sexual assault and to apply them in practice through effective investigation and prosecution (see M.C. v. Bulgaria , no. 39272/98, §§ 149-53, ECHR 2003-XII,; M.N. v. Bulgaria , no. 3832/06, §§ 35-38, 27 November 2012; and X v. Greece , cited above, § 66). 50. Furthermore, the Court has already held that the concept of private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention includes a person’s physical and psychological integrity (see, for example, A and B v. Croatia , no. 7144/15, § 106, 20 June 2019). Even though the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities, there may in addition be positive obligations inherent in effective “respect” for private life, and these obligations may involve the adoption of measures within the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see, for example, Isaković Vidović v. Serbi a, no. 41694/07, § 58, 1 July 2014). While the choice of the means to secure compliance with Article 8 in the sphere of protection against acts of individuals is in principle within the State’s margin of appreciation, effective deterrence against serious acts such as rape and serious sexual assault, where fundamental values and essential aspects of private life are at stake, requires efficient criminal-law provisions. The Court has not excluded the possibility that the State’s positive obligation under Article 8 to safeguard the individual’s physical integrity may extend to questions relating to the effectiveness of a criminal investigation (see M.C. , cited above, §§ 150 and 152, and X v. Greece , cited above, § 67). That positive obligation further requires the criminalisation and effective prosecution of all non-consensual sexual acts (see E.G. v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 37882/13, § 39, 13 April 2021 with further references). 51 . In order to be effective, the investigation must be sufficiently thorough and objective. The authorities must take the reasonable measures available to them to obtain evidence relating to the offence in question such as by taking witness statements, obtaining expert reports, and gathering forensic evidence. Any investigation should, in principle, be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and to the identification and – if appropriate – punishment of those responsible for an offence. This is not an obligation of result but of means. Whilst this requirement does not impose an obligation for all prosecutions to result in conviction, or indeed in a particular sentence, the national authorities must not be prepared to allow physical or psychological suffering to go unpunished. A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is also implicit in this context. On the other hand, it is not the Court’s role to interfere with the lines of inquiry pursued by the national authorities unless they have manifestly failed to take into account relevant elements or are arbitrary. However, a failure to pursue an obvious line of inquiry can decisively undermine the effectiveness of an investigation (see S.Z. v. Bulgaria , no. 29263/12, § 50, 3 March 2015 , and X v. Greece , cited above, § 69 and the cases cited therein). 52 . Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes at the outset that the applicant did not complain that the allegations against X had been the subject of separate investigations conducted by different public prosecutors. The applicant’s complaint and her subsequent submissions were limited to her complaint about the effectiveness of the investigation on account of the failure of the Akçakoca public prosecutor and the Düzce Magistrate’s Court to assess the nature of her relationship with X, who she alleged had abused his authority as a yoga instructor, or to take into consideration the medical report of 21 November 2014. The applicant claimed that the failures in question had occurred as a result of the patriarchal approach of those authorities. However, when notice of the application was given to the Government, a question concerning that issue was put to them and they made detailed submissions on that point. The Court’s examination of the investigation will therefore cover all relevant issues, including those it has raised of its own motion. 53. The Court considers that its task in the present case is to examine whether the national authorities ensured that the criminal-law provisions were applied in practice by conducting an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of rape, taking into account, in particular, her claims concerning the circumstances which allegedly invalidated her consent to the sexual acts in question. 54 . In this connection, the Court observes that the Istanbul, İzmir and Akçakoca public prosecutors immediately initiated investigations and began to examine the applicant’s complaints and those of the other complainants (see paragraph 7 above). Ultimately, the Akçakoca public prosecutor, the public prosecutor having jurisdiction over the area where the last alleged rape of the applicant had taken place, continued the investigation. The other two public prosecutors issued decisions declining jurisdiction (see paragraph 10 above). As submitted by the Government, the Court observes that there is no evidence in the case file before it to show that the applicant appealed against those decisions. Nor has the applicant responded to the Government’s submission in that regard. In view of the nature of sexual assaults in general and of the specific offences allegedly committed by X in the context of the particular type of relationship described by the applicant, the Court considers that the authorities’ decision that the Akçakoca public prosecutor should conduct the investigation into the applicant’s complaints separately from the other investigations cannot be construed as arbitrary or as a failure of the State authorities to fulfil their positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In any event, as has already been mentioned above, the applicant has not made any express complaint in this regard. 55. The Court further observes that the Akçakoca public prosecutor gave instructions for very detailed examinations of the applicant to be carried out in order to obtain any physical or psychological evidence of the alleged sexual assaults (see paragraphs 12 and 13 above). Although the Court notes with concern that some of the questions put by the public prosecutor (see paragraph 13 above), the respective examination by the Forensic Board of Adults at the Ege University Faculty of Medicine and findings by the public prosecutor (see paragraph 22), were admittedly not of such a nature as to shed light on her allegations (see C v. Romania , no. 47358/20, § 83, 30 August 2022), it also observes that the applicant did not complain domestically or before the Court under Articles 3 and 8 about secondary victimisation as such (for the general principles, see X v. Greece , cited above, § 68). In any event, the Court is not concerned with alleged errors or isolated omissions in the investigation, and it cannot replace the domestic authorities in the assessment of the facts of the case (see M.C. , cited above, § 168, and X v. Greece , cited above, § 71). The Court considers that the Akçakoca public prosecutor made efforts to obtain and secure all relevant evidence. 56. The Court notes that the report issued by the Forensic Board for Adults at the Ege University Faculty of Medicine on 21 November 2014, at the request of the public prosecutor, acknowledged the mentor-apprentice dynamic between X and the applicant. The doctors concluded that the applicant had been under the influence of X and that that situation could have invalidated her consent. However, the report did not definitively conclude that the applicant’s claims were substantiated. In that connection, it is crucial to note the findings of the two other academic committees, from Dokuz Eylül and Celal Bayar Universities, which examined the contents of the investigation file even though those doctors did not personally examine the applicant. Those committees disagreed with the findings of the report dated 21 November 2014 and concluded that there was nothing to show that the sexual relations in question had taken place without the applicant’s consent (paragraph 21 above). In the decision not to bring criminal proceedings, the public prosecutor noted that the applicant had made her complaint a long time after the alleged incidents had taken place (see paragraph 22 above). In this connection, the Court notes the importance of a context-sensitive assessment which would require the domestic authorities to consider the relevance of the timing of the complaint within the context of other evidence in the case file was made. The Court observes in this regard that while the public prosecutor noted that the complaint had been lodged with a delay, he nevertheless considered all the medical reports available to him and concluded that there was no evidence to support the applicant’s claim that her consent had been invalidated. There is nothing in the case file before the Court to show that the Akçakoca public prosecutor’s decision contradicted the Court of Cassation’s case-law on the role and validity of consent or the notion of deception (see paragraphs 34 and 36 above). What is more, the Constitutional Court, after a thorough examination of the investigative steps taken by the public prosecutor in obtaining and assessing the scientific evidence, concluded that the investigation had not fallen short of the requirements of the positive obligation to carry out an investigation (see paragraph 27 above). Indeed, the public prosecutor and subsequently the Magistrate’s Court appear to have taken into account scientific considerations regarding hypnosis in assessing the applicant’s claim that she had been raped under hypnosis and the applicant’s intellectual capacity and level of education in assessing her claims regarding indoctrination and psychological pressure (compare Z v. the Czech Republic , cited above, § 57). The Court is therefore led to conclude that the content of the medical reports in the investigation file was not such as to suggest that the Akçakoca public prosecutor or the Düzce Magistrate’s Court failed to pursue an obvious line of inquiry or acted arbitrarily in deciding not to bring criminal proceedings against X (see S.Z. , cited above, § 50; Y v. Bulgaria , cited above, § 82; and X v. Greece , cited above, § 69, cited in paragraph 51 above). 57. The Court further notes that the investigating authorities obtained detailed statements from the applicant and X. Several witnesses who had been suggested to the authorities by both the applicant and X were also heard. The Court observes that the majority of the witnesses did not corroborate the applicant’s allegations that X had made his apprentices believe that he possessed superhuman powers and that through certain methods, such as hypnosis and indoctrination, he had made them act in accordance with his will. Moreover, although the applicant claimed that X had abused his authority as a yoga mentor by overriding her will and having sexual relations with him without her consent, the Court cannot but note that the applicant herself claimed before the domestic authorities that the sexual relations in question had begun after she had completed her training as a yoga instructor and had opened a branch of X’s yoga centre in İzmir in 2012 (see paragraphs 5 and 14 above). 58. Finally, although the report of 28 March 2016 appears to support the applicant’s allegations, that report was not brought to the attention of the investigating authorities, as submitted by the Government and not countered by the applicant with any relevant evidence. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that those authorities, which were never given the opportunity to examine the findings in the report in question, conducted an incomplete investigation or came to inaccurate or arbitrary conclusions. 59. In sum, the Court considers that the fact that the public prosecutor, in his decision of 8 September 2015, decided not to bring criminal proceedings against X cannot be interpreted as a failure to carry out an effective investigation. The documents in the investigation file and the public prosecutor’s decision demonstrate that he did carry out an investigation into the applicant’s allegations of rape and, in doing so, examined the circumstances which allegedly invalidated her consent to the sexual relations in question. 60 . In view of the above, the Court concludes that there is no indication that the authorities have failed to fulfil their positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. Accordingly, the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 13 February 2025. Hasan Bakırcı Arnfinn Bårdsen Registrar President