CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mars 2019

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 4 March 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 49139/11 Vera Bembeyevna KICHIKOVA against Russia lodged on 2 June 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Vera Bembeyevna Kichikova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Yashkul, a village in the Republic of Kalmykiya. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 26 August 2009 at 5.10 p.m. the applicant’s daughter D. (aged 23   years old) went home from her work in the correctional colony IK-2 of the Republic of Kalmykiya. When after 6 p.m. she had still not arrived at home, which normally took her about ten minutes, her relatives started to worry and to look for her. When their attempts to find D. had yielded no result, they asked the IK-2 administration to organise a search. The search lasted until late at night and was resumed in the morning of 27   August 2009. On the same day, following the applicant’s request, criminal proceedings were instituted into D.’s disappearance under Article 105   §   1 of the Criminal Code (murder). On 28 August 2009 at 10.30 a.m. D.’s body was found in the garbage hole on the territory adjacent to IK-2 with signs of violent death. On the same day an on-site inspection was carried out and a post-mortem examination of D.’s body was ordered. The post-mortem examination established that D. had died of massive blood loss 24 to 48 hours prior to her body’s examination in the morgue, that is in the period between 6 p.m. on 26 August and 6 p.m. on 27 August 2009 (reports nos.   365 and 39 of 9   October 2009 and 10 June 2010 respectively). On 29 August 2009 G. and K. serving their sentences in IK-2 were involved in the proceedings as suspects. They both gave statements of surrender and confession. On 31 August 2009 the applicant’s husband was granted victim status in the proceedings. On 10 February 2010 the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. On an unspecified date the case file was transferred to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kalmykiya for a jury trial. On 24 August 2010 the jury delivered a verdict finding G. and K. not guilty in having murdered D. in the absence of the event of the crime. On 27 September 2010 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kalmykiya accepted the verdict and acquitted G. and K. On 18 November 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia (“the Supreme Court”) upheld the acquittal on appeal. Between December 2010 and February 2011 the applicant repeatedly applied to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation Prosecutor’s Office for the Republic of Kalmykiya seeking to have the investigation into the death of D. resumed, in vain. On 6 July 2011 the Presidium of the Supreme Court granted the Prosecutor General’s request for supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 27   September 2010 and the appeal decision of 18   November 2010 and remitted the case for a retrial. On 5 August 2011 the case was submitted to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kalmykiya for retrial. The case file contains no further documents regarding those proceedings. It appears, however, that on an unspecified date the investigation into the death of D. was resumed. On 13   August 2015 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify those responsible for D.’s death. The case file contains no further information as to the subsequent course of the investigation other than the fact that on November 2018 the proceedings were still suspended. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains, with reference to Articles 2, 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention, about the failure of the domestic authorities to carry out an effective investigation into the death of her daughter. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the investigation in respect of the applicant’s daughter’s death comply with the requirements under Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, was that investigation conducted promptly and free of deficiencies capable of undermining the authorities’ ability to establish the circumstances of the victim’s death and the identity of those responsible (see Mazepa and Others v. Russia , no. 15086/07, §   69, 17   July 2018, with further references)?   The Government are requested to produce the entire investigation file pertaining to the circumstances in question and to inform the Court of the current state of proceedings in the case.