Communicated on 4 January 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 64300/16 Myasnik HAKOBYAN against Georgia lodged on 1 October 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Myasnik Hakobyan, is a Russian national who was born in Georgia in 1935 and lives in Yerevan.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

3. On 26 July 2015 the applicant ’ s son, Mr S.H., a citizen of the Russian Federation, was murdered near the village of Aragva in the Akhalkalaki municipality in Georgia.

4. On an unspecified date a criminal investigation was opened under Article 108 (premeditated murder) of the Criminal Code.

5. On an unspecified date a separate investigation was opened concerning the incident under Articles 376 (failure to report a crime) and 335(1) (assault on the police) of the Criminal Code and three persons were arrested as suspects.

6. The applicant requested that he be granted victim status and given access to the case file on 16 October, 6 November, and 10 December 2015, indicating that he had learned about the proceedings against the three suspects from the media. He further claimed that rather than it having simply been a failure to report the crime, the three suspects had actually been accomplices in the murder of his son and requested that the charges against them be reclassified.

7. On 27 October 2015 the regional prosecutor ’ s office rejected the applicant ’ s request to be granted access to the case materials and to be informed of the progress of the court proceedings in the case on the grounds that he had not been granted victim status.

8. On 15 December 2015 the Office of the Chief Prosecutor forwarded the applicant ’ s letter dated 10 December 2015 to the regional prosecutor ’ s office.

9. On 7 January 2016 the applicant was granted victim status in relation to the investigation under Article 108 (premeditated murder) of the Criminal Code. The criminal case file allegedly included information concerning the alleged perpetrators of the crime. The applicant ’ s requests that the investigation be pursued were allegedly rejected on the grounds of lack of sufficient evidence.

10. The investigation into the matter is still pending.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of his son ’ s death.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, §§ 298 ‑ 306, ECHR 2011 (extracts)) , was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Were the two investigations capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the crime in question?

(b) Was the applicant involved in the investigation to the extent necessary to safeguard his legitimate interests?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to submit a copy of the criminal case files concerning both investigations.