CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Communicated on 10 July 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 38650/18 Albina GAIDUKEVICH against Georgia lodged on 9 August 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure of the relevant domestic authorities to protect the applicant’s daughter, A.M., from domestic violence that culminated in the latter’s death. On various dates between 2013 and 2016 A.M. filed sixteen complaints against her partner, G.K. Three restraining orders were issued against him, but he was never charged with a criminal offence. On 19 February 2017 A.M. was found dead in his apartment. On 9 February 2018 G.K. was convicted for inducement to suicide. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the State authorities complied with their positive obligation to take appropriate steps to safeguard the life of the applicant’s daughter as required by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, given in particular that they were aware of her allegations of domestic violence (see, for example, Opuz v. Turkey , no. 33401/02 , §§ 128-130, ECHR 2009, and Halime Kılıç v.   Turkey , no. 63034/11 , §§ 91 ‑ 102, 28 June 2016).   2.     Having regard to its procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, did the investigative authorities conduct an effective and adequate investigation into the circumstances of A.M.’s death? In that connection,   (a)     Has the State adequately reacted to the relevant domestic authorities’ alleged failure to protect the life of the applicant’s daughter (compare with Halime Kılıç v. Turkey , no.   63034/11, § 101, 28 June 2016)?   (b)     Was the criminal prosecution of G.K., conducted adequately? Reference is being made in particular to the applicant’s allegation that the authorities had overlooked the history of repeated violence against A.M. and had failed to elucidate the exact circumstances of her death.   3.     Did the applicant’s daughter suffer discrimination on the ground of her sex, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, in relation to the manner with which the relevant domestic authorities reacted to her complaints on domestic violence and ultimately to her death (see, Talpis v. Italy , no. 41237/14, §§ 141-149, 2 March 2017; see also, Opuz , cited above, §§ 183-202, and Halime Kılıç , cited above, §§   112 ‑ 122)?