Published on 3 May 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 7621/19 Nana OGHLISHVILI against Georgia lodged on 29 January 2019 communicated on 14 April 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns allegations under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the respondent State ’ s failure to undertake operational preventive measures aimed at protection of the life of the applicant ’ s daughter, E.N., from incidents of domestic violence allegedly perpetrated against her by members of the latter ’ s enlarged household (husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law), and the failure to investigate E.N. ’ s death.

In particular, on 12 October 2017 E.N. reported to the local police that she had been physically assaulted by her husband and mother-in-law. A criminal case was opened under Article 126 (1) of the Criminal Code (infliction of less serious bodily injuries) on the same day, but, according to the applicant, no protective measures were applied with respect to her daughter.

It is not clear from the available case materials whether it was on 12 October 2017 when the domestic authorities were notified about the relevant domestic violence allegations for the first time or whether there had existed previous notifications as well.

On 18 October 2017 E.N. was found hanged at home. The discovery was reported to the police by her brother-in-law. A criminal case was opened under Article 115 of the Criminal Code (bringing to suicide) on the same day, but, according to the applicant, the investigation has been ongoing in its early stage, without any conclusive findings about the exact circumstances surrounding her daughter ’ s death, up to date.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have there been violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in the present case?

1.1. In particular, were the law-enforcement authorities sufficiently aware of the danger posed to the life of the applicant ’ s daughter on the grounds of the allegations of domestic violence? In the affirmative, did those authorities comply with their positive obligation to take all necessary steps to protect the life of the applicant ’ s daughter, as required by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Opuz v. Turkey , no. 33401/02, §§ 128-130, ECHR 2009, and Halime Kılıç v. Turkey , no. 63034/11, §§ 91 and 102, 28 June 2016)?

1.2. Having regard to their procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, taken separately and in conjunction with Article 13, did the investigative authorities conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the death of the applicant ’ s daughter?