Communicated on 8 April 2014
FIRST SECTION
Applications nos 12992/13 and 38878/13
Nirvana REPAC against Croatia
and Ružica PERIĆ against Croatia
lodged on 19 January 2013 and 31 May 2013 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant in the first case, Mr Nirvana Repac, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Zagreb. She is represented before the Court by Mr D. Jovanić, a lawyer practising in Rijeka.
The applicant in the second case, Ms Ružica Perić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1938 and lives in Kistanje. She is represented before the Court by Mr L. Šušak, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background to the cases
In 1991 the Homeland war escalated in Croatia. A part of Croatia was occupied by separatist Serbian forces. On a part of the occupied territories the so called “Serbian Independent Region Krajina” (hereinafter “the Krajina”) was formed. During the summer of 1995 Croatian authorities announced a military action “Storm” with aim to regain control of “Krajina”. The action started on 5 August.
2. Killing of the applicants’ close relatives
(a) Application no. 12992/13
Between 8 and 11 August 1995 the applicant’s father Jovo Repac was killed in Donji Srb, a village on the territory of “Krajina”. His body was burned.
On an unspecified date the applicant and her siblings lodged a criminal complaint with the Zadar State Attorney’s Office in connection with the death of Jovo Repac and alleged that he had been killed by Croatian soldiers. They classified the offence as a war crime against the civilian population.
(b) Application no. 38878/13
On 11 August 1995 the applicant’s father Marko Štrbac was killed in Kistanje, also on the territory of “Krajina”.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention of the killing of their close relatives. They also complaint that the criminal law mechanisms as applied in the cases concerning the killings of their close relatives have not met the standards of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.
They complain that their relatives were killed solely because of their Serbian origin and that, contrary to their procedural obligations under Article 14 of the Convention, the relevant authorities have failed to investigate the possibility of such a motive for their death.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the manner in which the criminal law mechanisms have been applied in the present cases by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
2. Have the relevant authorities complied with their procedural obligation under Article 14 of the Convention to investigate whether there was any motive behind killings of the applicants’ close relatives that might be related to their Serbian origin (see, mutatis mutandis, Šečić v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, § 66, ECHR 2007‑VI)?
The Government are invited to submit copies of all case files and other documents concerning the killing of the applicants’ respective fathers.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy