Communicated on 25 August 2020 Published on 14 September 2020

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 33583/14 Valentina DROVORUB against the Republic of Moldova and Russia lodged on 30 April 2014

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

On 11 December 2012 the applicant ’ s son was arrested by the authorities of the self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transnistria ” (the “MRT”). During his detention his mother complained about her son ’ s ill-treatment, notably that his ear drum had been punctured, but the prosecutor rejected the complaint as unfounded. On 1 November 2013 the applicant ’ s son died in prison. The applicant ’ s request to obtain copies of the autopsy and other medical documents was rejected.

The application concerns the alleged breach of Articles 2 and 3 on account of the insufficient medical assistance provided to the applicant ’ s son while in detention in a “MRT” prison, followed by his death. It also concerns the quality of the investigation, the allegedly inhuman conditions of detention, as well as the insufficient remedies in respect of the applicant ’ s grievances.

The applicant complains that the “MRT” authorities ’ failure to offer her son adequate medical assistance during his detention resulted in his death, in breach of the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention. She also complains that the investigation into her son ’ s death was inefficient and in breach of the procedural requirement of the same provision.

She also complains that her son ’ s unlawful detention constituted treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, his detention in inhuman conditions was also in breach of the aforementioned provision.

The applicant finally complains under Article 13 of the Convention that she did not have any effective remedy in respect of her other complaints.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

As to the admissibility

1. Did the applicant come within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova and/or the Russian Federation within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as interpreted by the Court, inter alia, in the cases of Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], (no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII), Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia [ GC] (nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 102-123, 19 October 2012; and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, ECHR 2016) on account of the circumstances of the present case?

In that connection, bearing in mind that up until now the Grand Chamber ’ s conclusions have generally been based on a lack of convincing and new information from the Governments concerned, the Court again invites the latter to reply to the question whether there has been any development following the period under consideration in the case of Mozer – that is, after July 2010 – which might have an effect on their respective responsibilities. In this context, the Governments, in particular the Government of Russia, are asked:

a) to provide the Court with any tangible information and any relevant argument capable of establishing that, since July 2010, Russia has no longer been exercising effective control and/or decisive influence over the authorities of the self-proclaimed Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria (the “MRT”),

b) to express their opinion – with supporting documents and referring specifically to the rules governing the courts ’ structure and to the existing body of case-law – on the question whether, since that date, the “MRT” courts, including the Constitutional Court set up on 12 June 2002, can be regarded as independent and impartial and deemed to have become part of a judicial system operating on a constitutional and legal basis reflecting a judicial tradition that conforms to the Convention and respects the rule of law. In order to answer this question, the Court invites the Governments concerned, particularly Russia, to use, as appropriate, the diplomatic channels and means available to them for the purposes of gathering the required information from the Transdniestrian judicial authorities and to communicate it to the Court.

As to the merits

2. Has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in the present case (see Virgiliu T ănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 133-186, 25 June 2019 )? In particular:

(a) was the applicant ’ s son ’ s death the result of inadequate medical treatment in prison?

(b) has there been an effective investigation into his death?

3. Can the applicant complain of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of her son (see Mozer , cited above, §§ 172-184)? If so, do the facts of the case reveal a breach of that provision? In particular:

(a) was the applicant ’ s son held in inhuman conditions of detention?

(b) was he given the medical treatment necessary for his condition?

4. Has there been a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention (see Mozer , cited above, §§ 202-218)?