Communicated on 4 May 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 20789/14
Galina Fedorovna BLIZNYUK
against Ukraine
lodged on 5 March 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Galina Fedorovna Bliznyuk, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1940 and lives in the town of Dniprodzerzhynsk, Ukraine.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and resulting from official documents contained in the file, may be summarised as follows.
According to the findings of the domestic authorities, on 11 August 2001, the applicant’s thirty-four-year-old son was twice stopped by the traffic police. On each occasion, at 6.30 p.m. and at 7.55 p.m., he was brought to the Dnipropetrovsk City Drug Treatment Centre (Міський наркологічний диспансер м. Дніпропетровська) where he was found to be intoxicated; the alcohol level in his urine when tested was 2.66% and 3.7%, respectively. Both times the applicant was allegedly released following the test. On the second occasion he allegedly refused medical assistance.
The next day at around 7 p.m. the applicant’s son was found dead in his car. It was established that he had died approximately two to four hours earlier.
According to the conclusion of a forensic examination of 13 August 2001, the applicant’s son died of acute ischemic heart disease. His body had scratches on the left leg and it was noted that he had a blood-alcohol level of 3%, which indicated to a high level of intoxication.
In September 2001 the applicant requested that criminal proceedings be instituted following her son’s death. She alleged that he had been ill-treated by police officers and that the responsible medical personnel had failed to provide him with appropriate medical assistance. Moreover, the applicant doubted that her son, who, according to her, had led a healthy life, could have consumed so much alcohol.
During 2001-13 the investigation was terminated and resumed on numerous occasions. It appears from the case-file materials that in 2005-09, during various examinations of the applicant’s complaints against the decisions not to institute criminal proceedings, domestic courts several times pointed out that there had been contradictory evidence in respect of the cause of the applicant’s son’s death and that the investigation had been marked by shortcomings.
In particular, on 7 July 2005, 29 November 2006 and 14 October 2009 the Babushkinskyy District Court noted in its decisions that the conclusion of a forensic examination of 13 August 2001 contradicted another medical conclusion that the death had been caused by an acute heart failure of toxic origin. The court further noted that in order to reconcile those conclusions a complex forensic examination had had to be performed but that had not been done. The same conclusion was reached by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal which quashed the decision of 1 September 2010 to refuse institution of criminal proceedings and remitted the case for additional investigation.
On 30 January 2012 the Dnipropetrovsk City Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant’s son’s death. On 28 August 2012 the Babushkinskyy District Court quashed that decision. The court indicated that in the circumstances of the case without institution of criminal proceedings it was impossible to conclude whether a crime had taken place. In particular, the facts of the case did not exclude that the applicant’s son got intoxicated while being in the hands of the police. Moreover, the administrative offence acts drawn by different police officers with a 45-minutes time lapse were signed by the same witnesses who had to be found and questioned. The applicant’s son’s body also showed signs of internal bleedings the origin of which had not been clarified.
On 24 April 2013 the Dnipropetrovsk City Prosecutor’s Office terminated the criminal proceedings on alleged abuse of power by the traffic police officers for lack of evidence of a crime. It was noted that the applicant’s son’s medical records from civilian hospitals had not been found. However, a post mortem on 14 February 2013 established that the applicant had died as a result of acute ischemic heart disease complicated by an acute blood circulatory disturbance in the myocardium. That conclusion was confirmed by an additional post mortem on 11 April 2013. Several witnesses saw “the driver” (allegedly the applicant’s son) on the morning of 12 August 2001, the day of his death, near the car. The traffic police officers testified that they had stopped the applicant’s son at 6.15 p.m. on 11 August 2001 since he had driven through a red light. It had been established that he had been drunk so he had been informed that he was to be fined and then had been released. Forty-five minutes later other traffic police officers had tried to stop the applicant’s car; as he did not stop they had given chase. When the applicant’s son finally stopped he had refused to leave the car so he had been pulled out of the car by force, handcuffed and brought to a drug treatment centre.
The prosecutor further noted that, at the material time, the traffic police officers had had no legal grounds to seize the car of a drunk driver and therefore they let the applicant drive away. It was impossible to find witnesses to the applicant’s son’s being stopped by the traffic police officers, or those who had been drinking together with the applicant’s son. Two witnesses testified that they had seen the applicant’s son being beaten by police officers, however, they later submitted that since the events in question had taken place long ago, they could no longer remember them clearly. As for the applicant’s son’s internal bleeding, it had a natural cause.
The applicant challenged the prosecutor’s decision in the courts but to no avail.
According to the applicant, at the beginning of 2016 the criminal proceedings instituted for the alleged failure to provide the applicant’s son with medical assistance were still pending.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that her son’s right to life was breached and that there was no effective investigation into his death.
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 Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII, § 104), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy