This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Wikipedia contribution. If you're starting a new article, you can develop it here until it's ready to go live. If you're working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the "Publish page" button. (It just means 'save'; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content. Bibliography sandbox

Article Draft

M.C. v Bulgaria

In December 2003, the Court ruled in M.C. v Bulgaria that a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention had occurred. The case discusses the existence of a positive obligation to punish rape and to investigate rape cases. Judge F. Tulkens expressed a concurring opinion in the case. ^{citation needed}

According to the applicant, a 14 year old Bulgarian national, two men raped her on July 31st and August 1st, 1995. ^[1] Bulgarian law enforcement officers, however, could not find sufficient evidence indicating that the applicant was forced into having sex with the two men. ^[1] They closed their investigation. ^[1] The applicant then sued the Bulgarian government for damages at the European Court of Human Rights. ^[1]

The Court ruled that sexual intercourse can be classified as non-consensual even in the absence of physical force if the act took place within coercive circumstances. ^[1] Because Bulgarian national law required that a victim demonstrate physical resistance to sexual advances made onto them, it was deemed by the ECHR as being outdated and out of touch with international norms and standards. ^[1] In short, Bulgaria violated Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. ^[1] Damages were awarded to the applicant. ^[1]

Budina v. Russia

In Budina v. Russia (18 June 2009), the ECtHR exercised a cautious approach to addressing economic and social rights under the ECHR, and highlighted the limits of state obligations under the ECHR regarding social welfare provisions. During the case, Budina argued that her extremely low pension from the Russian state amounted to inhumane and degrading treatment ^[2]. Budina further argued that the Russian government had failed to meet the following obligations as outlined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation:

1. Articles 7 ^[3] and 39 ^[4]: Establishing the state's duty to ensure social security and a dignified standard of living for its citizens.
2. Article 39 ^[4]: Guaranteeing social security in old age.
3. Article 2 ^[3] and Article 45 ^[4]: Highlighting the state's role in protecting human dignity and ensuring that individuals can exercise their rights. Budina’s argument implicitly suggested that her low pension undermined her dignity and failed to protect her adequately as mandated by these specific provisions.

Despite such claims, the ECtHR found Budina’s case to be inadmissible ^[2]. Although it agreed that the pension was indeed low, the ECtHR maintained that it was not severe enough to constitute inhumane or degrading treatment under Article 3. Nevertheless, the ECtHR acknowledged that extreme poverty could, in fact, raise questions of concern under Article 3.

This decision highlights the ECtHR’s caution in maintaining limits on state social welfare obligations in primarily economic and social contexts. Consequently, it is a significant reference point for understanding how the ECtHR might approach future claims related to economic and social rights, especially a growing support for legal combat against job displacement due to automation and inadequate state support ^[5].

Article body

References