Communicated on 1 September 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 32343/16 J. and o thers against Croatia lodged on 1 June 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms N.J., Mr D.J., Ms M.J. and Mr Z.J., are Croatian nationals and they are all represented before the Court by Mr L. Šušak , a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicants ’ close relative, A , was abducted by the Croatian police on 10 September 1991.

The applicants themselves and through the Community of Serbs, an organisation representing the interests of citizens of Serbian ethnic origin, lodged several criminal complaints, asking the competent Croatian authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the killing of a large number of civilians of Serbian ethnic origin, including A , in 1991 and 1992 in X and the surrounding area.

Criminal proceedings were instituted against B and he was convicted of war crimes against the civilian population in that he , in his capacity as “the commander of police forces in the broader area of X ” and “deputy head of the X Police”, had allowed the killing of persons of Serbian origin and had failed to undertake adequate measures to prevent such killings. However, the killing of A was not included in the charges brought against B , even though the available evidence shows that the last time he was seen alive was in the premises of the X Police.

It appears that the investigation into the killing of A is still ongoing.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under the procedural aspect of Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention that there has been no effective investigation into the killing of their close relative A in 1991, allegedly by members of the Croatian police.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants comply with the six-month rule as regards their complaints under the procedural aspect of Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), has there been an investigation in the present cases by the domestic authorities, in accordance with the requirements under Article 2 of the Convention?

3. Have the relevant authorities complied with their procedural obligation under Article 14 of the Convention to investigate whether there was any motive behind the killing of the applicant ’ s husband that might be related to his Serbian origin (see, mutatis mutandis , Å ečić v. Croatia , no. 40116/02, § 66, ECHR 2007 ‑ VI)?