Communicated on 17 January 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 30559/13
Valentina Ivanovna DEVYATKINA
against Russia
lodged on 26 March 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Valentina Ivanovna Devyatkina, is a Russian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Krasnodar.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
During the night of 7 to 8 July 2007 the applicant’s son A. and a certain S.K. were riding A.’s motorcycle when they hit a metal cable stretched across the road. A. was decapitated and died on the spot. S.K. survived.
Following the incident, on 9 July 2007 a forensic medical examination of the applicant’s son’s body was carried out.
On 24 August 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted into A.’s death under Article 109 § 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (negligent infliction of death).
On 28 November 2007 the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings.
Between 24 October 2007 and 13 December 2008 the criminal proceedings were on six occasions suspended for failure to identify an alleged perpetrator and subsequently resumed.
Between 29 December 2008 and 19 November 2011 the criminal proceedings were on five occasions discontinued owing to the absence of constituent elements of a crime and subsequently resumed by the acting head of the investigations department for Krasnodar in view of the failure of the investigating authority to conduct a comprehensive investigation. During this time another medical examination of the A.’s remains was performed on 25 May 2010. A technical expert examination was carried out on 29 June 2011.
Meanwhile, on 20 April 2010 the Prosecutor of the Prikubanskiy administrative circuit issued a demand on elimination of violations of federal law committed in the course of the pre-trial investigation. It was indicated, in particular, that there were undue delays and omissions in the conduct of the investigation, as well as lack of supervision over the course of the investigation by the deputy head of the investigations department for Krasnodar, which resulted in unlawful and unsubstantiated decisions on suspension of the investigation violating the applicant’s right under Article 52 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation to have access to justice. The Prosecutor further noted that, regardless of considerable length of the investigation, the investigating authority had failed to question S.K. and to establish the nature and gravity of damage sustained by him in the accident; to establish whether it had been A. or S.K. who had steered the motorcycle and whether during the accident the motorcycle had its headlights on. Although it followed from the questioning of witnesses L.M., V.M. and A.M. that the metal cable at the origin of the accident could have been put in place by their neighbour I.R. whom they had seen removing the lock from the cable to drive to his house, the latter had not been questioned; it had not been established whether I.R. had a car and whether there had been other witnesses who had seen him removing the cable. The investigating authority had also failed to study A.’s personality closely regardless of the fact that the latter had previously been involved in a road accident. No relevant decision was joined to the case file.
On 25 April 2012 the deputy head of the investigations department for Krasnodar set aside the decision of 19 November 2011 to discontinue the criminal proceedings as unsubstantiated. He indicated that it had been necessary to inform the applicant of the results of the expert examinations; to identify and question the persons who had been drinking alcoholic beverages with A. and S.K. on the evening of 7 July 2007 and who had seen them drive away on A.’s motorcycle; to establish who had been steering the motorcycle; to question S.K. on the circumstances of the accident; to question investigator S., road police officer G. and attesting witnesses present at the accident scene inspection, as well as A.’s relatives, so as to ascertain the way the metal cable had been fixed; to identify and question the two women who had told the applicant at the scene of the accident that the cable had been put in place by I.R.; to conduct confrontation parades between them and I.R.; to identify and question the residents of the area where the accident had taken place so as to verify I.R.’s submissions to the effect that the cable had been put in place by a certain N.B.; to carry out an investigative experiment so as to determine A.’s position on the motorcycle at the moment when he had hit the metal cable; to appoint psychophysiological expert examinations of I.R. and his family members, as well as of S.K.; to identify and question the person responsible for road maintenance so as to ascertain the reason why the part of the road in question had been for an extended period of time blocked by a metal cable; and to carry out other investigative and procedural actions necessary for the examination of all the circumstances of the accident and the assessment of the actions which caused A.’s death.
On 25 May 2012 the criminal proceedings were again discontinued for lack of an event of a crime.
In reply to the applicant’s enquiry, on 5 November 2014 she was informed that on 31 October 2014 the decision of 25 May 2012 was set aside and an additional investigation ordered.
The applicant remains unaware about the subsequent course of the investigation. Her enquiries addressed to various competent domestic authorities remained without reply.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains with reference to Articles 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention about the failure of the domestic authorities to carry out an effective investigation into her son’s death.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002‑I), was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the death of the applicant’s son in breach of Article 2 of the Convention? Was the applicant involved in the procedure to the extent sufficient to safeguard her legitimate interests?
The Government are requested to produce the entire investigation file pertaining to the circumstances in question and to inform the Court of the current state of proceedings in the case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy