Published on 19 April 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 39384/20 Svetlana Vitalyevna LATYUK against Russia lodged on 27 July 2020 communicated on 31 March 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a conscript ’ s suicide as a result of his ill ‑ treatment by an officer and the refusal of compensation claims brought by the applicant against the State in respect of the officer ’ s actions. As a result of a criminal investigation, the national courts established that officer Kh . had systemically subjected the applicant ’ s son to ill-treatment which had resulted in the latter ’ s depression and the decision to take his own life. Officer Kh . was convicted and ordered to pay to the applicant RUB 1,500,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant ’ s claims for compensation from the State for the actions of officer Kh . had been rejected on the grounds that the latter had not been acting on the orders or in the interests of the State. In the applicant ’ s view, the situation raises issues under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the national authorities in the circumstances of the case under any positive obligation under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention to take measures to prevent or protect from ill-treatment and to protect life, in particular, by taking measures at preventing suicide (see, for instance, Mosendz v. Ukraine , no. 52013/08, §§ 112-113, 17 January 2013; Perevedentsevy v. Russia , no. 39583/05, §§ 90-94, 24 April 2014, and Lyalyakin v. Russia , no. 31305/09, § 70, 12 March 2015)?

2. Given the refusal of compensation claims against the State, did the applicant have effective domestic remedies at her disposal in respect of her complaints under Articles 2 and 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Keenan v. the United Kingdom , no. 27229/95, § 130, ECHR 2001 ‑ III; Poghosyan and Baghdasaryan v. Armenia , no. 22999/06, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2012; and Mirzoyan v. Armenia , no. 57129/10, §§ 78-83, 23 May 2019)?