80 GENDER PERSPECTIVES ON TORTURE: Law and Practice protection of persons’ sexual autonomy, noting that an overly rigid approach to the investigation of sexual violence may leave certain forms of rape unpunished and compromise this protection of sexual autonomy.132 The Court therefore found that the State had violated its positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention.133 In one of its most recent cases, I.C. v. Romania, in which a twelve-year-old girl with an intellec­ tual disability was raped by a group of six adult men, the Court considered that investigations of cases involving women and girls in a heightened state of vulnerability require increased dil­ igence.134 The Court wrote that “the authorities put undue emphasis on the absence of proof of resistance from the applicant and they failed to take a context-sensitive approach in the current case”135 and that “the investigation of the applicant’s case fell short of the requirements inherent in the States’ positive obligations to apply effectively a criminal-law system punishing all forms of rape and sexual abuse.”136 Similar conclusions were reached in the cases of P.M. v. Bulgaria,137 I.G. v. Moldova,138 M. et al. v. Italy and Bulgaria and D.J. v. Croatia,139, where private-actors committed rape, and the ECtHR found violations of procedural requirements under Article 3 of the ECHR.140 As an example, the Court in the last case, affirmed that: “Even though the scope of the State’s positive obligations might differ between cases where treatment contrary to Article 3 has been inflicted through the involvement of State agents and cases where violence has been inflicted by private individuals, the require­ ments as to an official investigation are similar. For the investigation to be regarded as “effective”, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and to the identification and punishment of those responsible. This is not an 132 ECtHR M.C. v. Bulgaria, op. cit.: “165. Moreover, the development of law and practice in that area reflects the evolution of societies towards effective equality and respect for each individual’s sexual autonomy. 166. In the light of the above, the Court is persuaded that any rigid approach to the prosecution of sexual offences, such as requiring proof of physical resistance in all circumstances, risks leaving certain types of rape unpunished and thus jeopardising the effective protection of the individual’s sexual autonomy. In accordance with contemporary standards and trends in that area, the member States’ positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention must be seen as requiring the penalisation and effective prosecution of any nonconsensual sexual act, including in the absence of physical resistance by the victim.” 133 Ibid., paras. 182, 183, and 185. 134 ECtHR, I.C. v. Romania, Application No. 36934/08, paras. 55-56. 135 Ibid., para. 58. 136 Ibid., para. 60. 137 In this case, the complainant was raped when she was thirteen years old. Bulgarian authorities took over fifteen years to complete their investigation of the rape, and the complainant did not have access to a remedy to address the State’s failure to prosecute her attackers. Criminal proceedings were launched by the authorities but with many delays, which in the end prevented any liability because of the expired limitation period. The Court, taking into account the age of the victim at the time of the facts, found that the State had violated Article 3 of the Convention as the authorities failed to investigate and punish the rape committed by a private actor on one of its citizens. ECtHR, P.M. v. Bulgaria, Application No. 49669/07, Judgment of January 24, 2012. 138 The complainant was raped by her grandmother’s neighbor when she was fourteen years old. She complained that the authorities had not effectively investigated her case. The ECtHR found that the State had not fulfilled its positive obligations to effectively investigate and punish all forms of rape and sexual violence. The court found that there had been a violation of the procedure requirements of Article 3, as the obligation to investigate had not been fulfilled. It notably stressed that “the allegation that a rape victim was under the influence of alcohol or other circumstances concerning the victim’s behaviour or personality cannot dispense the authorities from the obligation to effectively investigate”. ECtHR, I.G. v. Moldova, Application No. 53519/07, Judgment of May 15, 2012. See also M. et al. v. Italy and Bulgaria, Application No. 40020/03, Judgment of July 31, 2012. 139 ECtHR D.J. v. Croatia, Application No. 42418/10, 9 October 2012, paras. 83-104. 140 Women´s Link Worldwide y Clínica Jurídica por la Justicia Social de la Universidad de Valencia. Amicus Curiae ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Caso 11.157. Espinoza v. Perú, para. 45. 2014