Communicated on 11 January 2021 Published on 1 February 2021

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 73865/16 M.Đ. and Others against Serbia lodged on 25 November 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The present case essentially concerns the State ’ s alleged responsibility for failure to protect the life of the applicants ’ husband and father, respectively, who died as a result of what appeared to be a suicide committed while in pre-trial custody, as well as alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death and the alleged responsibility of the authorities for failure to prevent it. The competent courts rejected respectively the applicants ’ civil claim for damages and their further constitutional appeal .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, concerning their complaint about the Serbian authorities ’ alleged failure to protect the life of Mr B. Đ . ,? In particular, can they be considered to have raised that complaint, at least the substance, before the Constitutional Court (see, for example, Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, § 72, 25 March 2014)?

2. Was the right to life of Mr B.Đ. , ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case? Is the respondent State under any obligation to account for his death?

2.1. In particular, is there, in general, an appropriate regulatory framework to protect life and effective safeguards in place to prevent detainees from taking their own lives on account of psychological problems, bullying and attacks by other detainees or other similar grounds? If answered in the affirmative, did Mr B. Đ. benefit from those safeguards? Were the national authorities in the circumstances of the case under any positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to take measures to protect Mr B.Đ. ’ s life, in particular by taking measures aimed at preventing his suicide ( see, for example, Keenan v. the United Kingdom , no. 27229/95, ECHR 2001 ‑ III, Tanrıbilir v. Turkey , no. 21422/93, 16 November 2000; Trubnikov v. Russia , no. 49790/99, 5 July 2005; and Mitić v. Serbia , no. 31963/08, 22 January 2013)?

2.2. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII; Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, ECHR 2007 ‑ II; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom , no. 46477/99, ECHR 2002 ‑ II ), was the investigation following the death of Mr B.Đ. in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

The Government are invited , in particular, to comment on:

- the adequacy of the steps taken to establish the relevant circumstances of the incident and the alleged responsibility of the domestic authorities in that respect; and

- what was the reason for not taking any statement from the cell-mate of Mr B.Đ.?

4. The Government are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their answers to the issues above, and are, in any event, requested to provide copies of all the documents in the investigation case file, including but not limited to (a) the applicant ’ s medical records and other expert reports as regards his health condition and death, (b) a copy from the records of detainees ’ requests for medical assistance at the relevant time for the present case, including the applicant ’ s, if any.