CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mai 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 13 May 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 11122/08 Rumiya Mukhamedovna BATTALOVA against Russia lodged on 10 January 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Rumiya Mukhamedovna Battalova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1946 and lives in the village of Nizhniy Odes of the Republic of Komi (“Komi”). The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. At 1.10 a.m. on 15 February 2006 the applicant’s son, Mr B., an acting police officer, was brought by ambulance from his flat to an emergency room of the local hospital with a knife stab wound to the left side of his chest. An hour later he died. On the same date a police officer examined Mr B.’s flat. He collected the knife found at the scene of the incident. However, the experts later established that there were no legible fingerprints on it. It appears that no post mortem examination of the body was ordered at that point. On 15 February 2006 Mr B.’s widow, Ms B., was questioned and submitted the following. In the evening of 14 February 2006 Mr and Ms   B. together with the family friend Ms G. had been consuming alcoholic drinks. Later, when Ms G. had left, the spouses had had a dispute. Mr B. had taken a knife, put it to his chest and while his wife had been looking at him had stabbed himself in the chest and fallen down to the floor his face down. Ms   B. then had turned him on his back; the knife had been inside the chest. Ms   B. also stated that her late husband had had a history of demonstrative suicide attempts when inebriated. On 21 February 2006 Ms B. again was questioned. She submitted that she had not seen her husband stabbing himself and suggested that he had fallen on the knife. On 22 February 2006 Ms K., an investigator of the Sosnogorsk town prosecutor’s office, decided not to open a criminal investigation into Mr   B.’s death for a lack of an event of a crime. She referred to the statement by Ms B. and reasoned that after a domestic fight with his wife Mr B. had wounded himself to commit suicide. On 6 March 2006 forensic experts concluded upon examination of the body that the “wounded body area [was] accessible by [Mr B.’s] own hand”. The applicant’s lawyer complained to the Sosnogorsk town prosecutor (“the town prosecutor”) who quashed his subordinate’s decision on 13   March 2006 and ordered that Mr B.’s wife, her friends and paramedics of the ambulance be questioned and the information that Mr B. had been left ‑ handed be verified. On 17 March 2006 Ms B. was questioned for the third time and stated that she had seen her husband stabbing himself to the chest. Then Mr B. had taken the knife out of the wound with his right hand and fallen on the floor, his face down. On 17 March 2006 Ms K. again decided not to open an investigation. The town prosecutor quashed it on 24 March 2006. Ms K. decided not to open an investigation for the third time on 14 April 2006. On 11 May 2006 the prosecutor of Komi quashed the decision of 14   April 2006 and opened a criminal investigation in case no. 1261013 into the infliction of grave bodily harm resulting in manslaughter punishable under   Article 111   § 4 of the Russian Criminal Code. The case file was transferred to another investigator of the Sosnogorsk town prosecutor’s office, Mr L. On 10 September 2006 Mr L. decided to terminate the investigation in case no. 1261013 for the lack of an event of a crime within the meaning of Article 105 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code (premeditated murder). On 5 October 2006 the town prosecutor quashed the decision of 10   September 2006 because it had been opened under Article 111 § 4 and terminated under Article 105 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code. On 6   October 2006 the proceedings in case no. 1261013 were again terminated. On 9 January 2007 the prosecutor of Komi quashed the decision of 6   October 2006. On 15 February 2007 Mr L. again terminated the investigation in case no.   1261013. The decision was quashed by the prosecutor of Komi on 16   April 2007. On 19 May 2007 the investigator again terminated the investigation; the Komi prosecutor quashed the decision on 19 June 2007. On 15 July 2007 Mr L. once again decided to terminate the investigation. On 15 August 2007 the Sosnogorsk town court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the decision of 15 August 2007. The ruling was not appealed against and became final. The applicant continued to complain to various State agencies. On an unspecified date the investigative authorities decided to look into the matter once again. On 14 February 2008 the Komi Department of the Investigative Committee transferred the case file from Mr L. to the investigative unit located in the town of Ukhta. On 20 March 2008 Mr B.’s body was exhumed and several forensic expert examinations were carried out. On 20 May 2008 the Kortkeros district investigative unit again terminated the investigation in case no. 1261013. They reasoned that the forensic reports had not excluded the possibility of Mr B. stabbing himself and then taking the knife out of the wound and concluded that the death had been a result of a suicide attempt. On 21 October 2008 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia decided that the investigation into Mr B.’s death had been incomplete. On 15 December 2008 the Komi Department of the Investigative Committee quashed the decision to terminate the proceedings in case no.   1261013 for the reason that the investigation had been incomplete. On 19 April 2009 the Sosnogorsk district investigative unit again terminated the investigation. They argued that the discrepancies in Ms B.’s statements could be explained by her poor emotional state in the aftermath of her husband’s death. On 25 May 2009 the Komi Department of the Investigative Committee dismissed the applicant’s complaint against that decision. On 19 April 2011 the Investigative Committee of Russia notified the applicant that the decision of 19 April 2009 to terminate the investigation had been quashed on an unspecified date. On 21 December 2011 the Sosnogorsk district investigative unit terminated the investigation, having established that Mr B. had committed suicide. The applicant appealed against the decision to a court. On 19 April 2012 the Sosnogorsk Town Court quashed the decision of 21 December 2011. It reasoned that discrepancies in Ms B.’s three statements into account indicated that she had possibly tried to come up with a legal defence strategy to avoid criminal prosecution. It also listed a number of investigative measures that had not been taken, including re ‑ enactment of the events capable of demonstrating whether Ms B. could stab a man of her husband’s height to the chest. On 15 June 2012 the Supreme Court of Komi examined an appeal lodged by a prosecutor against the judgment of 19 April 2012, quashed it and remitted the case for a fresh consideration in the first instance. On 10 July 2012 the Sosnogorsk Town Court upheld the decision of 21   December 2011. It remains unclear whether there have been more recent developments in the investigation into Mr B.’s death.   COMPLAINT   The applicant complains about ineffectiveness of the investigation into her son’s violent death. She invokes Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII), was the investigation into the circumstances of the applicant’s son’s death by the domestic authorities compatible with the guarantees of Article 2 of the Convention?