CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 août 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 19 September 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 58506/19 Valentin IVANOV against Romania lodged on 31 October 2019 communicated on 31 August 2022 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns the death of the applicant’s son who was found dead from two gunshot wounds on 20 August 2016, while at an isolated farm, where he was working as a guard. Criminal proceedings were initiated immediately after the incident, with several witnesses being heard. An autopsy report and a chemical expert report as well as an on-site inspection and a reconstruction of the scene were carried out in the first six months after the incident. The prosecutor’s office concluded that the applicant’s son had accidentally shot himself and decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings. The applicant appealed, arguing in particular that the investigation into his son’s death had not been effective. He argued that the authorities had focused on the hypothesis of an accident, without carrying out a detailed and impartial analysis of all of the evidence, especially a person’s testimony, eventually withdrawn, who claimed to have directly witnessed the applicant’s son being shot by an individual after an altercation; he had provided a detailed description of the facts and the name of the perpetrator. The applicant’s complaint against these findings was rejected by final decision of 4   April 2019 (notified on 9 May 2019) of the Tulcea County Court. Under Articles 2 and 6, the applicant complained about the lack of an effective investigation carried out into the death of his son, who he claims was murdered.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the domestic authorities’ investigation into the applicant’s son’s death in compliance with the State’s procedural obligations under Article   2 of the Convention (see   Sarbyanova-Pashaliyska and Pashaliyska v.   Bulgaria , no.   3524/14, §§ 35-38, 12 January 2017, Tsalikidis and Others v.   Greece , no.   73974/14, §§ 83-90, 16 November 2017, and Danciu and Others v.   Romania , no. 48395/16, §§ 76-79, 12 May 2020)?