Communicated on 17 June 2019

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 18637/16 Nadezhda Konstantinovna NEZBUDEYEVA against Russia lodged on 23 March 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Nadezhda Konstantinovna Nezbudeyeva , is a Russian national, who was born in 1937 and lives in the town of Kotovo , the Volgograd Region. She is represented before the Court by Ms D.S. Pigoleva , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant had a son, Mr A. A. Nezbudeyev , who was born on 16 April 1968.

At around 6 p.m. on 5 May 2008 he was apprehended by the traffic police officers Po. And Ch., as he had been trying to steal plate numbers of someone else ’ s car and also because he had been drunk. The applicant eye ‑ witnessed the event, as it took place next to her house. The applicant ’ s son was placed in Mr Po ’ s personal car and transported to a nearby hospital, where he was placed in a convoy compartment of a police van UAZ-31514.

It appears that thereafter the policemen responded to an urgent call to apprehend one F. After their return, they placed F. in the same compartment as the applicant ’ s son and moved off to the Kotovskiy District Department of the Interior of the Volgograd Region. Up on arrival, they realised that the applicant ’ s son was dead. The subsequent expert examination of the corpse identified that the applicant ’ s son had died of alcohol intoxication and choked to death on his own vomit. The policemen then left off to a nearby forest and disposed of his body. They later staged the discovery of the body to hide the exact circumstances of death of the applicant ’ s son.

The events of 5 May 2008 were subject of multiple preliminary inquiries and eventually criminal investigation was brought which lasted between April 2012 and April 2013. The proceedings against most of the police crew were discontinued for the lack of evidence of a crime. Post-mortem examinations of the corpse resulted in forensics reports dated 30 June 2008 and 23 April 2012 which established that the death had resulted from “alcohol intoxication complicated by the mechanical asphyxiation by [vomit]”.

On 4 April 2014 officer T., who was the senior officer in charge of the operations on that day, was accused of having inflicted death through negligence under Article 293-2 of the Criminal Code of Russia.

Thereafter the Kotovskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region on two occasions, on 17 September 2013 and 23 June 2014, acquitted officer T. for the lack of evidence of a crime. The court noted, among other things, that the criminal case against T. was too weak, given that actual official duties of T. had not been properly defined in writing and that the investigation failed to prove the death of the applicant ’ s son could be avoided had he received proper medical assistance.

On 12 January 2015 an investigator recommenced proceedings in respect of other officers involved, including officers Po. and Ch., but to no avail. On 27 February 2015 the proceedings were discontinued, as the investigator considered that the answer to the question whether the death of the applicant ’ s son could be avoided had he received proper medical assistance was too speculative.

This decision was upheld at first instance and on appeal by the respective decisions of 15 July 2015 and 23 September 2015.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention that the negligent behaviour of the police resulted in her son ’ s death and that the authorities failed properly to investigate the events and to punish those responsible.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Is the death of the applicant ’ s son in police custody imputable to the State within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention?

2. Was Article 2 of the Convention complied with in the present case? In particular, did the State display sufficient diligence and care in respect of a person in its custody?

3. Did the authorities comply with the requirements of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention? Did they conduct an effective and prompt investigation into the circumstances of death of the applicant ’ s son?