Headnotes:
I. The procedural component of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms implies a positive obligation of the state to assess all the circumstances of the case carefully and to provide sufficient and convincing reasons for imposing a suspended sentence for a serious attack on the physical and mental integrity of the victim. This obligation corresponds to the victim's procedural rights.
II. When assessing whether the ordinary courts based their decision to impose a suspended sentence of imprisonment on a careful examination of all the relevant circumstances of the case, the following aspects must be considered in particular: 1) whether the criminal court took into account all the circumstances relevant to the determination of the sentence; 2) whether it committed any irregularities or inconsistencies in the reasoning of the sentence; 3) whether it ignored any of the established circumstances or failed to take them into account in its considerations on the type and severity of the sentence; 4) whether it sufficiently justified the overall result of its consideration of the circumstances relevant to determining the type and severity of the sentence, as well as mitigating and aggravating circumstances; 5) whether there was any omission of essential evidence or irrational factual conclusions or conclusions that are in extreme contradiction with the evidence presented; and, if necessary, 6) whether the considerations of the ordinary court are not completely unreviewable or based on procedurally inadmissible evidence.
III. The interpretation and implementation of positive human rights obligations in practice must respect the principles of a fair trial and other guarantees that limit the scope of possible state action in criminal proceedings. When deciding on the procedural consequences of a violation of the above-mentioned right arising from the procedural component of Article 3 of the Convention, it is necessary to consider primarily the negative obligations of the state associated with the rights of the accused and the constitutional principles that form the basis of these rights: legal certainty, more specifically the principle of the immutability of decisions that have already become final. At a more general level, this concerns the aspect of the principles of the rule of law [Article 1(1) of the Constitution], consisting in the creation of legal certainty for individuals through the fixation of the finality of court decisions in time, particularly in criminal law.
Summary:
I. The complainant had the status of an injured party in criminal proceedings against her stepfather before the ordinary courts. The district court found him guilty of the crime of producing and otherwise handling child pornography, the misdemeanour of abusing a child for producing pornography, and the crime of rape. In brief, he committed criminal offenses by making a video recording between 2019 and 2021 of the then-minor complainant engaging in intimate sexual acts with him. He stored the recording on his cell phone and in his Facebook gallery. From the beginning of 2020 to 2021, he forced the then-minor complainant to have sexual intercourse up to five times a week under threat of publishing their intimate photos or video recordings. He continued his actions until June 2022. The accused pleaded guilty in court. The district court sentenced him to three years' imprisonment and confiscation of property. At the same time, it ordered him to compensate the complainant for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of CZK 300,000 with interest.
The appellate court partially overturned the district court's judgment and ruled that the defendant's prison sentence be suspended for a probationary period of five years, subject to supervision. According to the appellate court, there was a realistic hope that the purpose of the sentence would be achieved without direct imprisonment. The defendant fully admitted his actions and expressed remorse. He is not a violent person, a deviant, or a sexual predator. The defendant has a job, pays his debts to the extent possible, and supports his family, which is fully dependent on him financially. In its decision, the appellate court stated that the initial impulse for sexual contact came from the then-minor complainant. Without this, the criminal offense would most likely not have been committed at all. The appellate court also concluded the psychological harm to the complainant was only minor.
In her constitutional complaint, the complainant argued that the state had failed to fulfil its positive obligation to punish sexual offenses. The appellate court imposed an unreasonably low sentence on the convicted person.
It should be added that, after the constitutional complaint was filed, the Supreme Court ruled on the complaint of the Minister of Justice for violation of the law, upholding it and finding a number of defects in the appellate court's judgment.
II. The Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as "the Court") partially upheld the constitutional complaint and declared the breach of the complainant’s right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in the procedural aspect of the right. The Court, nevertheless, did not overturn the contested judgment and in this extent rejected the petition.
The Court reviewed the case in light of the positive obligations arising from Article 7(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Article 3 of the Convention, i.e., the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment. Although, according to the European Court of Human Rights, the Convention does not require that the perpetrator of a sexual offense serve a prison sentence, courts must base their decision to impose a suspended prison sentence on a careful assessment of all the circumstances of the case and justify it with sufficient and convincing reasons. However, no obligation to conclude criminal proceedings with the conviction of the accused or the imposition of a specific penalty can be inferred from the Convention.
The Court emphasized several aspects that must be considered when assessing whether the ordinary courts based their decision to impose a suspended sentence on a careful examination of all relevant circumstances of the case (already cited above in the headnotes, para. II) and found that the appellate court had failed to meet them.
In accordance with the Supreme Court, the Court concluded that the appellate court failed to fulfil its obligation to carefully justify the imposition of a suspended sentence for sexual offenses and its proceedings were marred by several defects. Without sufficient evidence, the appellate court downplayed some of the consequences of the criminal offense for the complainant, while emphasizing circumstances favourable to the defendant. The appellate court's reasoning that the complainant herself initiated sexual contact with the defendant was unfounded. It exposed the complainant to repeated victimization through stereotypical blame shifting onto the victim and the trivialization of her harm. The Court also agreed with the Supreme Court that the sentence imposed on the defendant was unacceptably lenient.
The Court then assessed whether the finding of a violation of the complainant's rights necessarily entailed the annulment of the contested judgment. Since the ECtHR, as an international court, does not prescribe specific steps for domestic courts, the Court had to derive the procedural consequences from the general principles of the Czech constitutional order. It concluded that the contested judgment could not be annulled.
The Court was guided by the following reasons: 1) the "mere" procedural nature of the positive obligations arising from the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment (this is not a right to a specific result), 2) the concept of criminal procedural relations in Czech criminal and constitutional law (victims in criminal proceedings in any instance of criminal justice do not have the right to seek the annulment of a sentence), 3) the multilateral and multidimensional impact of human rights in the field of punishment and criminal proceedings (the fundamental rights of the accused and the principle of legal certainty must also be taken into account) and 4) the principle of the separation of powers (the setting of state criminal policy is in the hands of the legislative power).
The declaration of a violation of rights has, in itself, significant moral and legal significance. First, it shows that the Court takes the victim's perspective seriously, makes it central to the assessment of the constitutional complaint, identifies the violation of the complainant's rights, and points to the violation of the state's obligations and their originator. Second, it partially compensates for the violation of her rights and may serve as a basis for further compensation for any damage or harm caused by the state. Third, it has more general effects, as it establishes specific principles that general courts will be required to follow when hearing similar cases in the future.
For these reasons, the Court declared that the contested judgement of the appellate court violated aforementioned right of the complainant. At the same time, it rejected her petition to annul the judgement.
The Justice Rapporteur was Tomáš Langášek. Justices Josef Baxa, Lucie Dolanská Bányaiová, Veronika Křesťanová, Kateřina Ronovská a Daniela Zemanová dissented.