FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15167/25
Z.P. against Bosnia and Herzegovina
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 26 May 2026 as a Committee composed of:
Anja Seibert-Fohr, President,
Faris Vehabović,
Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The present applications concern domestic violence resulting in the death of N.H. in 2023. The applicants are the daughter, an aunt and a cousin of N.H. Seven days prior to the incident, N.H. reported to the police that her partner, N.S., had assaulted her and had threatened to kill both her and their daughter. She also requested protective measures, but the competent court dismissed her request. The last days of her life, N.H. was hiding in the home of her aunt together with her daughter. Over the course of that period, she repeatedly informed the police of continued threats made by N.S. Once N.S. located N.H., he forcibly entered the home of N.H.’s aunt armed with a firearm, shot N.H.’s cousin in the leg, abducted N.H. and their daughter (who was ten months old at the time), and then killed N.H. in the presence of their daughter. The killing was livestreamed on Instagram by N.S. After the killing, N.S. went on to commit further violent acts, resulting in additional fatalities and injuries, before taking his own life.
The applicants complained under Articles 2, 3 and 14 of the Convention that the authorities had failed to take necessary measures to protect N.H. from domestic violence, which resulted in her death, and to protect them from harassment and violence to which they were personally subjected during the incident in question.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The general principles concerning the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies were restated in Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 21881/20, §§ 138-46, 27 November 2023). In particular, States are dispensed from answering before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system. Those who wish to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court as concerns complaints against a State are thus obliged to use first the remedies provided by the domestic legal system. To be effective, a remedy must be capable of remedying directly the state of affairs complained of and must offer reasonable prospects of success. However, the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust that avenue of redress.
In respect of substantive complaints of failure of the State to take adequate positive measures to protect persons from the acts of others, the possibility of obtaining compensation will generally, and in normal circumstances, constitute an adequate and sufficient remedy (see E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, § 110, 26 November 2002, and Branko Tomašić and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, § 38, 15 January 2009). Furthermore, the Court has already held that an appeal to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina is, in principle, an effective domestic remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Mirazović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 13628/03, 16 May 2006). The applicants neither have used any of those remedies nor have shown that they were for any reason inadequate or ineffective in this particular case. The Court notes that the Constitutional Court is currently not in full composition and that it has a large number of cases (more than 7,000, as stated by the applicants), but this, in itself, does not absolve the applicants from the obligation to use that remedy.
Lastly, the applicants have not submitted any evidence that there existed an administrative practice consisting of a repetition of acts incompatible with the Convention and official tolerance by the State authorities so as to make any domestic remedies futile or ineffective (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 67, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑IV).
The applications must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 June 2026.
Simeon Petrovski Anja Seibert-Fohr
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of cases
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Representative
1.
15167/25
Z.P. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
30/04/2025
Zikreta IBRAHIMOVIĆ
2.
15178/25
L.S. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
10/05/2025
3.
15182/25
N.P. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
07/05/2025