Communicated on 3 March 2014
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 24385/10
Yevdokiya Ivanovna ANDREYEVA
against Ukraine
lodged on 16 April 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Yevdokiya Ivanovna Andreyeva, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1935 and lives in the town of Snizhne, Ukraine.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant states that in January 2004 her son was arrested and detained by the police. On 14 January 2004 the applicant’s son was found hanged in the applicant’s barn. The official reason of his death was a suicide by hanging.
On 11 February 2004, following a forensic medical examination, the expert concluded that the applicant’s death had been caused by pulling of the rope loop possibly by the applicant’s son’s body weight. The body had no other injuries.
Following additional forensic medical examination of 23 March 2006, it was concluded that the applicant’s son’s death occurred between 7 p.m. of 13 January 2004 and 5 a.m. 14 January 2004. Two more examinations were performed (one performed on an unidentified date by the Main Forensic Medical Examination Bureau – see below). The experts concluded that the applicant’s son’s body had numerous fractures but they all had been inflicted after the applicant’s son’s death possibly during the exhumation of the body.
Further information about investigation of the applicant’s son’s death between January 2004 and August 2008 is absent.
Between 20 August 2008 and September 2013 several decisions not to institute criminal proceedings following the applicant’s son’s death were adopted. All of them were quashed by higher prosecutor’s offices or by courts because of shortcomings in the investigation.
By letter of 11 March 2009 the Snizhne Town Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that it had been decided to perform additional forensic medical examination and the case file materials had been transferred to the Main Forensic Medical Examination Bureau. The Bureau’s conclusion was expected by November 2010.
On 14 November 2011 one of the decisions not to institute criminal proceedings was quashed by the General Prosecutor’s Office. It was noted that the applicant’s allegations that her son had been arrested by the police had not been checked, police officers and forensic experts had not been questioned, other possible versions of the applicant’s son’s death had not been checked (murder due to jealousy).
After a series of further refusals to institute criminal proceedings and subsequent quashing of these decisions, on 22 July 2013 another decision not to institute criminal proceedings was adopted. It was noted that already in December 2011 it had been impossible to check whether the applicant’s son had been indeed arrested by the police in 2004 since all relevant documents had been already destroyed.
On 10 September 2013 the Snizhnyanskyy Town Court upheld the decision of 22 July 2013.
However, it appears that on 30 September 2013 another decision not to institute criminal proceedings was taken. The applicant appealed against it to the court and the proceedings are still pending.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that her son was tortured and killed by the police. She also complains about ineffective investigation following her son’s death. In particular, she was not properly informed about the course of investigation. The applicant invokes Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant’s son’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
3. Has the applicant’s son been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
4. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
The Government is requested to submit all documents related to the applicant’s son’s arrest in January 2004.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy