FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 52577/15
Danica TODOROVIĆ and Nikola TODOROVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 June 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Kristina Pardalos, President,
Ksenija Turković,
Tim Eicke, judges,
and Abel Campos, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 October 2015,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants, Ms Danica Todorović and Mr Nikola Todorović, are Croatian nationals, who were born in 1954 and 1973 respectively and live in Sisak. They were represented before the Court by Mr L. Šušak, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
2. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background to the case
4. The villages of Blinjski Kut and of Kinjačka are situated next to each other, near the town of Sisak. In the spring of 1991 the armed conflict in Croatia began. Several villages near Sisak, including Blinjski Kut and Kinjačka, were soon occupied by Serbian paramilitary forces.
5. According to the Government, on 22 August 1991 Croatian forces carried out a military operation codenamed “Night Guard”, in which they attempted to regain control from Serbian paramilitary forces over several villages in the Sisak area, including Blinjski Kut.
6. According to the applicants, on 22 August 1991 the Croatian army carried out ethnic cleansing in seven villages with Serbian population, in the Sisak area. Sixteen civilians, all of Serb ethnic origin, were killed, allegedly by Croatian soldiers. After that the remaining people of Serb ethnic origin, including their families, found shelter in Kinjačka and only returned to Blinjski Kut to feed their cattle. In the applicants’ submission, on 23 September 1991 N.T., the applicants’ respective husband and father, was captured and killed by the Croatian army, together with two other people.
2. Investigation
7. On unspecified dates the Croatian authorities commenced inquiries into the killing of people in the Sisak area during the armed conflict. On 12 February 2003, when the Sisak police interviewed Lj.Ɖ., they learned that several civilians of Serb ethnic origin, but not N.T., had been killed in 1991 in Blinjski Kut. Further interviews with inhabitants of the village revealed that N.T. was also among those killed in 1991.
8. Between 5 December 2004 and 14 October 2010 the police interviewed a number of potential witnesses, most of them inhabitants of Blinjski Kut and Kinjačka. Their statements revealed that on 10 September N.T., M.Č. and M.Š., had gone to Kinjačka to feed their cattle and had been killed by unknown persons, possibly Croatian soldiers, who had called out to them from a near-by cornfield. On 23 September 1991 the remains of the three men who had disappeared on 10 September 1991 had been found on the road in Blinjski Kut.
9. On 17 November 2005 the grave of N.T. was excavated by the police.
10. On 13 December 2005 the Sisak police informed the Department of Terrorism and War Crimes that they had established that N.T. had not been a member of the Serbian paramilitary formations, and had been unarmed and wearing civilian clothes when killed. The police had further established that the Croatian forces had held their position near a shop at a bend on the road, and the demarcation line had run east over the railway tracks. The Serbian paramilitary forces had held positions on the line between Blinjska Greda, Bestrma and Kinjačka. They had been as close as 400 to 500 metres to where the Croatian army had been positioned in Blinjski Kut. They had kept their positions until the spring of 1992, when UNPROFOR forces had arrived.
11. On 21 December 2005 the Sisak-Moslavina Police Department sent the above-mentioned report to the Sisak State Attorney’s Office.
12. On 2 June 2006 the applicants’ representative lodged a criminal complaint with the Sisak State Attorney’s Office against I.K, V.C., K.V. and M.Šu. alleging, inter alia, that they were members of the Croatian army formations which on 22 August 1991 had carried out a military operation in several villages in the Sisak area, including Blinjski Kut, in which a number of civilians had been killed. The complaint was dismissed on 11 December 2006 by the Sisak State Attorney’s Office. There was no mention of the events of 10 September 1991.
13. On 4 September 2009 the Sisak State Attorney’s Office informed the Sisak-Moslavina Police Department that their report of 21 December 2005 (see paragraph 11 above) was being treated as a criminal complaint against unknown perpetrators in respect of the killing of N.T., M.Č. and M.Š., which was classed as a war crime against the civilian population.
14. On 24 September 2015 the Sisak State Attorney’s Office asked the police for further information and instructed them to carry out further interviews and establish which unit of the Croatian army had been stationed in Blinjski Kut and Komarevo in the period between mid-September and mid-October 1991. The police were also asked to identify several members of the Croatian army mentioned by witnesses (Z.Š., Ž.B. and M.S.) and interview them.
15. On 29 October 2015 the Sisak police asked the Ministry of Defence for information about the Croatian army formations present in Blinjski Kut and Komarevo between mid-September and mid-October 1991. They also asked for the names of their members and commanders as well as information about the formations in which Z.Š., Ž.B. and M.S. had served.
16. On 23 November 2015 the Sisak State Attorney’s Office obtained a copy of a case file relating to a civil claim for damages brought by the applicant (see paragraph 29 below).
17. On 26 November 2015 the Sisak police informed the Criminal Police Service (Služba kriminalističke policije) that Z.Š. had died and that they had identified sixteen people with the name Ž.B.
18. On 26 February 2016 the police interviewed S.P., who said that he had been a member of the Serbian paramilitary forces in Kinjačka but had no knowledge about the killing of N.T.
19. On 7 April 2016 the police interviewed Ž.B., who said that he had been a member of 57th Battalion of the Croatian army and had served as a courier between Sisak and Pola. He had no knowledge about the killing of N.T. The commander of his unit had first been M.C. and later S.G., who had died in 1995.
20. On 19 April 2016 the Sisak State Attorney’s Office asked again the Ministry of Defence for information about the Croatian army formations present in Blinjski Kut and Komarevo between mid-September and mid-October 1991, the names of its members and commanders, as well as information about the units in which Ž.B., Z.Š. and M.S. had served.
3. Criminal complaints against F.G.
(a) First criminal complaint from 2007
21. On 27 April 2007 the Serbian Community in Croatia (Zajednica Srba u Republici Hrvatskoj) lodged a criminal complaint with the Sisak State Attorney’s Office against F.G., a former Prime Minister of Croatia who had also been the President of the Crisis Command of the Republic of Croatia and the main coordinator between the Sisak Crisis Command and the Crisis Command of the Croatian government, as well as against several other high-ranking State officials, including Ɖ.B. and V.M., alleging that they had committed war crimes against the civilian population in the Sisak area. It was alleged that over 600 people had been killed in the Sisak area. N.T.’s name did not appear on the list of victims.
22. On 26 July 2007 the Sisak State Attorney’s Office dismissed the above complaint in respect of F.G. on the grounds that the government had taken all measures within its competence aimed at the prevention and prosecution of offences related to the war in Croatia and had at its session of 4 February 1992 adopted conclusions aimed at, inter alia, the protection of human rights and freedoms and enforcement of the rule of law.
23. On 20 June 2011 the Sisak-Moslavina Police Department lodged a criminal complaint against Đ.B., V.M. and D.B., alleging that they had committed war crimes against the civilian population. Đ.B. died during the proceedings. On 9 December 2013 the Osijek County Court found V.M. guilty of committing war crimes against the civilian population in that, in his capacity as “commander of police forces in the Sisak and Banovina areas” and “deputy head of the Sisak police”, he had allowed the killings of individuals of Serb ethnicity and had failed to take adequate measures to prevent such killings. On 10 June 2014 the judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on appeal, and V.M. was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. N.T. was not named as a victim of the crimes for which V.M. was found guilty. D.B. was acquitted for lack of evidence.
(b) Second criminal complaint from 2012
24. In April 2012 the Serbian Community of Croatia lodged a fresh criminal complaint with the Osijek State Attorney’s Office against F.G., alleging that he had committed war crimes against the civilian population. It was alleged that he, in his capacity as Prime Minister, the President of the Crisis Command of the Republic of Croatia and the main coordinator between the Sisak Crisis Command and the Crisis Command of the Croatian government, together with other high-ranking Croatian officials in that period, was responsible for the killing of 130 people of Serb ethnicity in the Sisak area, including the killing of N.T. It was also alleged that the Croatian authorities had carried out ethnic cleansing in 185 villages in Western Slavonia with a Serbian population. N.T.’s name appeared on the list of victims.
25. On 5 June 2012 the case was transferred to the Zagreb State Attorney’s Office.
26. On 11 December 2015 the Zagreb State Attorney’s Office dismissed the criminal complaint against F.G. on the grounds that the government had taken all measures within its competence aimed at the prevention of criminal offences, and requested that all criminal proceedings against perpetrators of crimes related to the war be carried out promptly, irrespective of their ethnicity. There was no indication that F.G. had planned or ordered the carrying out of any acts which could be classified as a war crime, or that he had known that war crimes had been committed in the Sisak area against people of Serb ethnicity. As regards the killing of N.T, it was stated that the investigation into it was ongoing. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“[Following] the criminal complaint against F.G. ... the archives of the government of the Republic of Croatia were consulted, namely records from government sessions. These records show, in so far as relevant, the following: [the government] condemned all violations against democratic political institutions, all violations of the principles of the rule of law, and in particular violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms, irrespective of people’s ethnic, religious or other background; the Ministry of Interior was obliged to carry out all actions aimed at the identification of perpetrators of criminal offences and institute the relevant proceedings before the competent prosecutors; the criminal prosecution authorities were obliged to inform the government of the Republic of Croatia of incorrect [actions] and abuse of powers and to institute the relevant proceedings within their authority; violations of the rights and freedoms of citizens had to be addressed through administrative and judicial proceedings in accordance with the Constitution and the law. [The records] also show that the government of the Republic of Croatia knew that some crimes had been committed by members of the Croatian armed forces and that the perpetrators had been processed, and the government insisted that such individuals, without any distinction as to those in the enemy forces, be detained and that investigations and court proceedings be instituted against them because they had placed grave blame on the democratic order of the Republic of Croatia. On several occasions the government, at its sessions, asked for reports from the competent authorities on the violations of human rights and requested that investigations and other proceedings be expedited so as to shed light on the criminal offences and punish the perpetrators and to prevent the further occurrence of such offences. In order to ensure the functioning of the rule of law, the government of the Republic of Croatia enacted numerous measures such as: returning the police from defence [duties] to their regular duties which contributed to the better protection of citizens from all forms of ill-treatment; formation of the military police units which ensured the control of the movements of armed persons; cases where there was a reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed were processed with additional efforts. After carrying out the relevant enquiries in this case, it has been assessed that in the period concerned – which was the period of the strongest armed aggression on the Republic of Croatia [which carried] an exceptional burden as regards refugees and displaced persons – the government of the Republic of Croatia had taken all [measures] within its competence and authority aimed at prevention of criminal offences. Therefore, since the allegations from the criminal complaint had not been confirmed, it has been assessed that there was no reasonable suspicion which could serve as the factual basis for instituting criminal proceedings, which is why the criminal complaint against F.G. and others was dismissed by a decision of 26 July 2007.
...
Having analysed all the information gathered, it has been assessed that there was no reasonable suspicion that F.G. had committed ... war crimes against the civilian population under Article 120 of the Criminal Code or any other criminal offence liable to State-assisted prosecution.
The criminal offence of war crimes against the civilian population under Article 120 § 1 of the Criminal Code is committed, inter alia, where a person, in violation of the rules of international law during war, armed conflict or occupation, orders: an attack on the civilian population, a settlement, or individual civilians resulting in death, serious bodily harm or serious detriment to the health of individuals; an attack directed against the civilian population without a choice of target; that the civilian population be killed, tortured or treated inhumanly or that serious suffering or injury to the body or health be inflicted; or that [the civilian population] be displaced or resettled; or that measures of intimidation and terror be used, hostages taken, unlawful deportation in concentration camps or other unlawful detention be applied; or any other acts described [in that Article] which could qualify as war crimes; or an individual who commits any of the above acts.
The criminal offence of war crimes under command responsibility is committed where a person, in his capacity as commander, intentionally omits to undertake actions he is supposed to undertake in order to prevent the committing of a war crime by his subordinates in the military or police hierarchy.
...
The [results of the] enquiries carried out show that there is no indication that F.G. had in the critical period planned or ordered that any of the acts which could be characterised as a war crime be committed, or that he knew that war crimes against the Serb ethnic population had been committed in the Sisak area and had not undertaken anything to prevent such acts or [prevent] punishment of the perpetrators. The enquiries show that certain information about the criminal offences in Sisak and other towns in Croatia at the detriment of persons of Serb ethnicity had reached the government of the Republic of Croatia. Upon such information the government of the Republic of Croatia, headed by F.G. as Prime Minister, reacted with scope and manner within its competence, that is to say it informed the then President of Croatia about this information, as well as the other State bodies responsible for prosecuting the perpetrators of criminal offences, held meetings at which all unlawful acts towards civilians were condemned in the strictest manner, and informed international organisations of the information it had received, which appears from the documents gathered ... primarily the records of the government’s sessions and observations sent to international humanitarian organisations such as Helsinki Watch. It is to be noted that the [circumstances of the] war crimes committed at the detriment of civilians in Sisak were systematically covered by then heads of the Sisak police so that the [circumstances] were revealed much later, during the criminal proceedings against V.M. and others.
...”
(c) Third criminal complaint from 2016
27. On 1 February 2016 M.B. and P.B., who were represented by the same lawyer as the applicants, lodged their own criminal complaint with the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office against F.G. and I.B., a former President of the Sisak Crisis Headquarters. They alleged that F.G. and I.B., in their capacity as commanders, had ordered an attack on the civilian population in the wider Sisak area in which 130 persons had been killed, including N.T.
28. The complaint was dismissed on 6 June 2016 by an investigation judge of the Zagreb County Court. That decision was quashed on 8 December 2016 by a three-judge panel of the same court and the case was remitted for further investigation.
4. Civil Proceedings
29. On 23 May 2005 the applicants lodged a claim for damages with the State Attorney’s Office in connection with the killing of N.T, but it was dismissed.
30. On 20 September 2005 the applicants brought a civil action in the Sisak Municipal Court, seeking damages in connection with N.T.’s death.
31. On 10 November 2008 the first-instance court dismissed the applicants’ claim holding that the statutory limitation period had expired. This judgment was upheld by the Sisak County Court on 2 September 2010 and the Supreme Court on 16 April 2014.
32. The applicants’ subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 31 March 2015.
COMPLAINTS
33. The applicants complained under Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention that their relative N.T. had been killed because of his Serb ethnicity and of insufficiencies in the investigation into his killing.
THE LAW
Article 2 of the Convention
34. The applicants complained of insufficiencies in the investigation into the killing of N.T. They also claimed that he had been killed because of his Serb ethnicity and that the national authorities had failed to investigate that factor. The applicants relied on Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under Article 2 of the Convention alone (compare Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 31, 12 January 2016; Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia, no. 72152/13, § 52, 6 September 2016; Borojević and Others v. Croatia, no. 70273/11, § 32, 4 April 2017; M. and Others v. Croatia, no. 50175/12, § 52, 2 May 2017; Trivkanović v. Croatia, no. 12986/13, § 43, 6 July 2017; and Zdjelar and Others v. Croatia, no. 80960/12, § 51, 6 July 2017) which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.
...”
1. The parties’ arguments
35. The Government argued that the application had not been lodged with the six-month time-limit. They contended that the six-month period could not be linked either to the civil proceedings or to the criminal investigation concerning the allegations in respect of F.G., since those allegations concerned the military operation codenamed “Night Guard” and not the killing of N.T. The applicants had not shown any interest in the investigation into the killing of N.T.
36. The applicants made no comment.
2. The Court’s assessment
37. The relevant general principles concerning the six-month time-limit are set out in the case of Milić v. Croatia (no. 38766/15, §§ 25-30, 25 January 2018). These principles also show that an action for damages, either to provide redress for the death or for the breach of official duties during the investigation, was not capable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any findings as to the identity of the perpetrators and less still of establishing their responsibility. Therefore, the relevant domestic remedy for the applicants’ complaint, which would have had the potential to offer adequate redress, was a criminal investigation.
(a) As regards the investigation into the allegations concerning F.G.
38. Even assuming that in relation to criminal complaints initiated by the Serbian Community of Croatia and M.B. and P.B., the applicants can satisfy the Court that they are the “victims” of the violation alleged within the terms of Article 34 of the Convention, the Court considers that this part of their application is inadmissible for the reasons set out below.
(i) First criminal complaint from 2007
39. The Court notes that the Sisak State Attorney’s Office dismissed the first criminal complaint on 26 July 2007. After that, there was no “ongoing investigation” in the traditional sense, since no further steps had been taken. The compliance with the six-month rule in respect of that complaint is to be assessed separately (compare Amine Güzel v. Turkey, no. 41844/09, § 32, 17 September 2013).
40. In April 2012, many years after the above-mentioned proceedings had been concluded, the Serbian Community of Croatia lodged a fresh criminal complaint with the Osijek State Attorney’s Office against F.G., alleging that he had committed war crimes against the civilian population and was responsible for the killing of 130 people of Serb ethnicity in the Sisak area, including the killing of N.T. The institution of a fresh investigation led to a decision of 11 December 2015 by the Zagreb State Attorney’s Office dismissing the criminal complaint against F.G. on the grounds that the government had taken all measures within its competence aimed at the prevention of criminal offences, and requested that all criminal proceedings against perpetrators of crimes related to the war be carried out promptly, irrespective of their ethnicity.
41. A further criminal complaint against F.G. was lodged in 2016, alleging his responsibility for the killing of a number of people, including N.T. The related investigation is still pending.
42. It would be wrong to see the revival of the procedural obligation incumbent on Croatia under Article 2 following a fresh criminal complaint as a continuation of the original obligation to investigate, bringing with it the consequence that the State may be taxed with culpable delays going back many years. Attaching retroactive effect in this way is likely to discourage governments from taking any voluntary steps that might give rise to the revival of the procedural obligation under Article 2 in the first place (compare Harrison and others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 44301/13, 44679/13 and 44384/13, § 58, 25 March 2014, and Mileusnić and Mileusnić-Espenheim v. Croatia, no. 66953/09, § 51, 19 February 2015).
43. Therefore, in so far as the applicants complained about the deficiencies in the investigation following the first criminal complaint from 2007, the Court notes that it ended in July 2007, whereas the application was lodged with the Court on 19 October 2015.
44. Accordingly, this complaint has been lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
(ii) Second and third criminal complaints from 2012 and 2016
45. M.B. and P.B., who were represented by the same lawyer as the applicants, lodged their own criminal complaint on 1 February 2016 against F.G. and I.B., a former President of the Sisak Crisis Headquarters, concerning allegations of command responsibility for the killing of persons of Serb ethnicity in the wider Sisak area, including the killing of N.T. The Court notes that the national authorities first declined to institute an investigation, but that decision was subsequently quashed by the Zagreb County Court on 8 December 2016 and the investigation is still pending.
46. Accordingly, this part of the application is premature and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
(b) As regards the investigation concerning the command responsibility of the forces present in the area at the critical time or the individual responsibility of the perpetrators
(i) Period before 24 September 2015
47. The Court notes that the police investigation commenced in 2003 (see paragraph 7 above). The applicants lodged their application with the Court on 19 October 2015, about twenty-four years after N.T.’s death. The investigation was still formally ongoing when the application was lodged (contrast Utsmiyeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 31179/11, § 34, 26 August 2014, and Kukavica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 79768/12, § 27, 2 June 2015).
48. The investigation was at a standstill between October 2005 and 11 September 2015 (see paragraphs 8 and 14 above). The question therefore arises whether the applicants should have concluded in that period that the ineffectiveness of the investigation required them to lodge their application with the Court.
49. The above-mentioned period of inactivity in the investigation amounted to almost five years. The Court considers that any lack of awareness on the part of the applicants that the investigation had become ineffective, despite such a significant lull in the proceedings, was attributable to their own negligence (see, for example, Fındık and Kartal v. Turkey (decs.), nos. 33898/11 and 35798/11, § 15, 9 October 2012).
50. The case at issue concerns a case of violent death. In applying the six-month time-limit for lodging an application in such cases, the following periods between the last relevant procedural step on the part of the national authorities and lodging the applications with the Court have been considered too lengthy: in the cases of Radičanin v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 75504/12, § 29, 19 May 2015) and Grubić v. Croatia it was over nine years ((dec.), no. 56094/12, § 24, 9 June 2015); in Aydın and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005) it was about seven years; and in Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002) it was about six years. In other cases it ranged from three and a half years to one year and eight months (in Gojević‑Zrnić and Mančić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5676/13, § 31, 17 March 2015) and Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 38587/97, 29 January 2002) it was three and a half years; in Finozhenok v. Russia ((dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011) it was three years; in Deari and Others v. the Former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia ((dec.), no. 54415/09, § 49, 6 March 2012) it was two and a half years; in Elsanova v. Russia ((dec.), no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005) it was two years; and in Gusar v. the Republic of Moldova and Romania ((dec.), no. 37204/02, § 17, 30 April 2013) it was one year and eight months.
51. The Court observes that the applicants, as the wife and children of the victim of the violations claimed, could be expected to display due diligence and take whatever initiative necessary to inform themselves of any progress in the investigation of their husband’s/father’s killing. The absence of any activity in the investigation of such a serious crime for such a significant length of time should have prompted them to draw the appropriate conclusions (see, for example, Açış v. Turkey, no. 7050/05, § 42, 1 February 2011).
52. In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicants have not convincingly shown that advances of some sort were being made that justified their more than nine years of inactivity. The investigation came to a standstill in October 2005, well before the date of their application to the Court on 19 October 2015 (compare Finozhenok, cited above). The Court finds that after the investigation came to a standstill the applicants ought to have concluded long before lodging their application, and certainly more than six months before that time, that the investigation was ineffective.
53. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the part of the present application which refers to the investigation before September 2015 must be rejected for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (compare Opačić and Godić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 38882/13, § 30, 26 January 2016; Obajdin v. Croatia, no. 39468/13, §§ 34 and 35, 4 July 2017; and Milić, cited above, §§ 36 and 37).
(ii) Period after 24 September 2015
54. As to the steps taken after 24 September 2015, the Court reiterates that where information purportedly casting new light on the circumstances of a death comes into the public domain, a new obligation to investigate the death may arise (see Hackett v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34698/04, 10 May 2005; Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, §§ 66-67, 27 November 2007; Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009; Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, § 60, 13 October 2009; and Harrison and Others, cited above, § 51). It cannot be the case that any assertion or allegation can trigger a fresh investigative obligation under Article 2 of the Convention. Nonetheless, given the fundamental importance of this provision, the State authorities must be sensitive to any information or material which has the potential either to undermine the conclusions of an earlier investigation or to allow an earlier inconclusive investigation to be pursued further (see Brecknell, cited above, § 70).
55. As to the present case, the Court notes that in September 2015 the Sisak State Attorney’s Office asked the police for further information and instructed them to carry out further interviews and establish which unit of the Croatian army had been stationed in Blinjski Kut and Komarevo in the period between mid-September and mid-October 1991. The police were also asked to identify several members of the Croatian army mentioned by witnesses (Z.Š., Ž.B. and M.S.) and interview them (see paragraph 14 above). That certainly amounted to important fresh evidence.
56. Having regard to the measures taken so far by the authorities of the respondent State and to the fact that this investigation is still pending, the Court considers that this part of the application must be regarded as premature and inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. If the applicants become dissatisfied with the progress being made or, upon the conclusion of the investigation, are not content with the outcome, it remains open to them to lodge a further application with the Court (see, by way of comparison, Harrison and Others, cited above, § 59, and Z and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 57812/13, § 46, 21 April 2015).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 July 2018.
Abel CamposKristina Pardalos
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy