CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 mars 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 73 March 2005 Gongadze v. Ukraine (dec.) - 34056/02 Decision 22.3.2005 [Section II] Article 2 Positive obligations Death of a political journalist, allegedly as a result of a forced disappearance and failure of the authorities to protect his life, and effectiveness of the investigation: admissible   The applicant is the wife of a deceased journalist, who was well know for his political independence and denunciation of corruption cases. The applicant’s husband disappeared in September 2000 under circumstances which have to date not yet been established by the Ukrainian authorities. The body of an unidentified person was found on 8 November 2000 and a first forensic examination concluded that the time of the death corresponded to that of the applicant’s husband. A few days later some relatives recognised the body as that of the disappeared journalist. However, all documents relating to the first forensic examination were confiscated, and the authorities announced that contrary to the first findings, the body which had been discovered had been buried for two years. The applicant’s request to be recognised as civil party and to participate in the identification of the body was refused for a long time. A new forensic examination of the body was organised. Despite the views of Russian and American specialists who participated in the examination and concluded that it was highly probable that the body found was that of the missing journalist, the Prosecutor General announced that it was not. It could not be confirmed as there were witnesses who had seen him alive after his disappearance. In February 2001, the Prosecutor General’s office informed the applicant that on the basis of additional evidence it could now be confirmed that the body found was that of her husband. In May 2001, the authorities announced that the applicant’s husband had presumably been murdered by two drug-users, hence the crime was not politically motivated. The applicant filed a complaint for negligence in the investigation, but the claim was not registered and later could not be found. In November 2002 a prosecutor involved in the case was arrested and charged with negligence in the investigation. In October 2003 an official of the Ministry of the Interior was arrested on suspicion of involvement in the disappearance. The case is still pending. Admissible under Articles 2, 3 and 13. The Government’s Preliminary Objection (complaints under Articles 2 and 3 were out of time): Although criminal proceedings were still pending, the applicant alleged delays and deficiencies in such proceedings. The Court decided to join the objection to the merits.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes