Communicated on 10 November 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 7786/15 Lyudmila Ivanovna SELIPETOVA against Russia lodged on 5 February 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Lyudmila Ivanovna Selipetova , is a Russian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Taganrog, the Rostov Region. She is represented before the Court by Ms T.I. Sladkova , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 20 June 2007 the applicant ’ s son, V.S., was called up for compulsory military service. From July 2007 he served in military unit no. 66431 in Vladikavkaz, Republic of North Ossetia. On 7 August 2008 the applicant was informed of her son ’ s death.

1. Initial investigation into the death of V.S.

On 7 August 2008 a criminal investigation into incitement to suicide was opened. An investigator inspected the scene of the incident and questioned V.S. ’ s direct commander, junior sergeant K. The latter stated that on the night of 6 August 2008 their platoon had been deployed to the south exit of the Rokskiy tunnel connecting North and South Ossetia. V.S. took over guard duty at a firing position. Soon afterwards K. and other soldiers heard the sound of a shot. They did not understand from where the sound had come and took cover. About a minute later they heard another shot and ran to the firing position. There they found V.S. sitting in the trench, with blood on his face and holding his rifle vertically in his right hand. The nozzle was directed upwards, about fifty centimetres away from his head. V.S. ’ s hand was close to the trigger and sometime later the rifle went off for a third time. The officers removed the rifle and gave first aid to V.S. He was then placed into a vehicle and taken to seek medical attention but died during transportation. K. described V.S. as a lively, outgoing person who had had no disagreements with other soldiers or with his commanding officers. As far as he was aware, V.S. had no known personal or family issues. His regular medical check-ups had not revealed any injuries. K. believed that V.S. had been in high spirits when he had taken over guard duty and had reassured his commander that he was not just a young conscript.

On 8 August 2008 an expert examined V.S. ’ s body and concluded that he had died from a gunshot to the head. No other bodily injuries were found.

On 27 August 2008 a fingerprint expert issued his report on the case, having found no visible handprints on the rifle.

According to the ballistics report of 1 September 2008 the rifle found at the scene of the incident had been used for firing shots and the shells found there had been fired from that rifle.

On 7 September 2008 an expert issued a post-mortem examination report. He concluded that V.S. had died from a gunshot wound in his head fired at close range and that no other injuries had been discovered. Given the character of the wound, the expert considered it most probable that the nozzle of the rifle had been pointed into the mouth and that V.S. had been able to pull the trigger himself.

2. First decision to terminate the investigation

On 13 March 2009 the criminal investigation was suspended for lack of suspects by a decision that was backdated to 7 October 2008. On 17 March 2009 the suspension decision was quashed. The case remained with the same investigator, A.

The applicant was informed about the investigation into her son ’ s death when she was questioned as a witness on 1 April 2009. She stated that her son had never had any complaints about his military service and that during a phone call with her on 6 August 2008 he sounded normal. On unspecified dates the applicant ’ s husband and neighbours were also questioned.

On 7 April 2009 the case was transferred to a new investigator, M., on account of “numerous violations and delays” attributed to investigator A.

On 20 April 2009 an expert issued a report finding that the blood found on V.S. ’ s rifle and cap most probably belonged to him.

On 22 May 2009 an expert commission issued a report assessing V.S. ’ s psychological state prior to his death. The experts held that V.S. had not suffered from any psychological disorder and had not been affected by any negative circumstances which could have led to suicide.

On 8 June 2009 the criminal case was closed. The investigator relied on the expert reports and witness statements of V.S. ’ s parents and neighbours. He dismissed allegations of possible ill-treatment or murder as unfounded and concluded that V.S. had committed suicide.

3. Second decision to terminate the investigation

On 23 July 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the military authorities about the lack of information regarding the investigation into her son ’ s death. On 25 August 2009 the applicant complained again, asking, inter alia , for information about the decision to terminate the investigation. On 9 September 2009 the military authorities replied to the applicant. The letter stated that V.S. had died as a result of the reckless handling of a weapon. On 11 September 2009 the military prosecution informed the applicant that they had instructed the investigator to re-examine the decision to close the criminal case into her son ’ s death.

On 15 October 2009 the applicant submitted a request to be granted victim status in the criminal investigation and to be provided with copies of the records of the onsite inspection and the examination of the body, as well as the documents ordering expert examinations and expert reports.

On 30 October 2009 the decision of 8 June 2009 to close the investigation was quashed as incomplete and unfounded. In particular, with the exception of one witness, no other soldiers had been questioned, none of V.S. ’ s medical records had been examined, and the exact place of death had not been determined.

On 11 January 2010 investigator M. resumed the investigation. On 21 January 2010 the applicant was granted victim status.

On 11 February 2010 the criminal case was closed again. The decision essentially reproduced the text of the earlier decision of 8 June 2009.

4. Third decision to terminate the investigation

On 27 April 2010 the applicant was provided with access to the materials on the case file. Following her complaint, the criminal case was re-opened on 15 October 2010 on the grounds that investigator M. had failed to comply with the instruction to rectify deficiencies in his investigation. On 27 October 2010 investigator M. resumed the case.

On 2 and 3 November 2010 investigator M. inspected the records pertaining to the military personnel of military unit no. 66431 in order to identify the individuals who had served alongside V.S. On 10, 12 and 15 November 2010 he questioned three soldiers who had been on guard duty at other firing positions on 6 August 2008. All described the events in question in a manner similar to K. None of the witnesses could suggest any reason for suicide.

On 23 November 2010 experts issued an additional report on the psychological state of V.S. before his death. They again found no factors which might explain his suicide.

On 25 November 2010 the case was closed again. The decision mainly repeated the earlier decisions to terminate the investigation, with additional references to the three witness statements and the second psychological report. Given the lack of any evidence suggesting ill-treatment or murder, investigator M. again concluded that V.S. had committed suicide.

5. Fourth decision to terminate the investigation

The applicant learnt about the decision of 25 November 2010 in February 2011. In May 2011 she studied the case file materials. The applicant contested the decision to terminate the investigation before a court. On 12 November 2012 the investigating authorities quashed the decision of 25 November 2010. The investigator was instructed to provide the applicant with information about the orders for the expert examinations and expert reports. On 13 November 2012 the Vladikavkaz Garrison Military Court closed the proceedings on the grounds that by that date the contested decision had been quashed.

On 16 January 2013 the investigation was resumed. On 7 and 8 February 2013 two more witnesses were questioned. Their statements essentially repeated K. ’ s description of the events.

The applicant was given the opportunity to examine the orders for the expert examinations and the expert reports. On 16 February 2013 the case was closed again, with the same conclusion. The decision to terminate the investigation relied on the same evidence, with the addition of the two witness statements.

6. Fifth decision to terminate the investigation

The applicant was not informed about the decision of 16 February 2013 closing the case. She learnt about it on an unspecified date and contested it before a court. On 14 April 2014 the Vladikavkaz Garrison Military Court rejected her complaint. On 19 June 2014 the North Caucasian Military Circuit Court, acting on appeal, remitted the case for a fresh examination. On 7 July 2014 the court proceedings were terminated on the grounds that on the same date the investigating authorities had quashed the contested decision.

On 7 August 2014 the criminal case was closed again on the same grounds with reference to the same evidence.

On an unspecified date the applicant contested the decision closing the case before a court. On 20 February 2015 the proceedings were terminated on the grounds that by that date the investigating authorities had already quashed the contested decision.

7. Compensation for unreasonable length of the investigation

On 16 January 2015 the North Caucasian Military Circuit Court partially granted the applicant ’ s complaint about the delays in the investigation and awarded her 100,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (about 1,300 euros (EUR)). On 8 April 2015 the award was upheld on appeal.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention about ineffective investigation of her son ’ s death.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I and Beker v. Turkey , no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42 , 24 March 2009), was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case compatible with Article 2 of the Convention?