Communicated on 10 November 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 22298/11
Valentina Kondratyevna LUZYANINA
against Russia
lodged on 5 March 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Valentina Kondratyevna Luzyanina, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Severomorsk, the Murmansk Region. She is represented before the Court by Mr V.A. Andreyev, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 12 May 2009 the applicant’s son, K.L., was called up for mandatory military service. He served in military unit no. 55751-2 based in Glebychevo in the Vyborgskiy District of the Leningrad Region.
On 8 December 2009 K.L. was found on a sentry post with a gunshot wound to his head. On the wall the following notes were written: “Ks., I love you”, “Family, forgive me” and “I do not want to live”.
On 11 January 2010, after a pre-investigation inquiry into the circumstances of K.L.’s death, the investigator, Ct S., found no elements of a crime and refused to open a criminal case. He held that K.L. had committed suicide due to problems in his relationship with his girlfriend. The investigator relied on the onsite inspection report, the examination of K.L.’s belongings, the ballistics analysis, statements by K.L.’s girlfriend Ks., the post-mortem report, the expert report on the psychological state of K.L. before his death, and statements by the military personnel. According to the post-mortem report, K.L. had a gunshot wound to the head and a bruise on his right shoulder. Regarding the bruise, two soldiers stated that five days before his death K.L. had fallen down some stairs and had been complaining about a pain in his right shoulder. The investigator also questioned twenty-four servicemen and found no evidence that K.L. had been subjected to bullying. According to the psychological report, K.L. could have had a depressive reaction, probably caused by difficulties with his girlfriend.
The applicant only learnt of the decision of 11 January 2010 refusing to open a criminal case in March 2010. She complained to the military prosecution service that the inquiry had not been thorough and that she had not been involved in it. The applicant pointed out that the investigator had failed to examine her statement that K.L. had been subjected to violence and financial extortion in his military unit. The applicant also pointed to the need to examine fingerprints on the weapon and the handwriting of the notes on the wall. In April and July 2010 the prosecution refused to reconsider the decision of 11 January 2010.
On 5 July 2010 the applicant challenged the decision of 11 January 2010 before a court. She repeated her arguments that the inquiry had not been thorough and that she had not been involved in it. In particular, the investigator had failed to examine her allegations that K.L. had been subjected to violence and financial extortion in his military unit. The applicant also asked that the fingerprints on the weapon and the handwriting of the notes on the wall be examined.
On 20 July 2010 the Vyborg Garrison Military Court found the contested decision lawful. Relying on evidential material from the pre-investigation inquiry the court agreed that K.L. had committed suicide because of problems in his relationship with his girlfriend and not because of alleged bullying. On 9 September 2010 the Leningrad Regional Military Court upheld that judgment on appeal.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the investigation of her son’s death was ineffective.
QUESTION 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; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; and Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 132-33 and 135-36, 24 July 2014), was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case compatible with Article 2 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy