Communicated on 8 June 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no 62080/09 Lyubov Mikhaylovna VASILYEVA against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Russian nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr R. Akhmetgaliyev , a lawyer practising in Kazan, the Republic of Tatarstan .

A. The circumstances of the cases

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants ’ sons committed suicides during their military service. Having established suicide as the cause of each respective death, the investigators refused to examine whether the domestic authorities had been in any way responsible for failing to prevent those suicides.

1. Application no. 62080/09 Vasilyeva v. Russia

The application was lodged on 5 November 2009 by Ms Lyubov Mikhaylovna Vasilyeva , who was born on 22 August 1960 and lives in Tyrgetuy , Chita Region.

On 28 June 2005 the applicant ’ s son, S.V., was drafted for compulsory military service. On 7 November 2005 he was transferred to military unit no. 05651 based in Sherlovaya Gora, Borzinskiy district, Chita Region. Senior conscripts of that unit, including Ptes. B. and Kh ., began bullying S.V. and other younger conscripts to get money from them. On 13 November 2005 S.V. and two other conscripts, I. and M., left the military unit without authorisation and applied to the military command for protection from “hazing”. They were placed in transitional military unit no. 26001 in Ulan ‑ Ude, the Republic of Buryatia. S.V. saw a psychologist on several occasions, including on 19 November 2005, but did not take any tests.

The military command decided to transfer S.V. and two other conscripts to separate military units. They also disbanded S.V. ’ s former military unit, with all its personnel to be transferred to other military units. Some of those servicemen also arrived at transitional military unit no. 26001. On 30 November 2005 S.V. boarded a train to reach his new military unit in Bratsk, Irkutsk Region. On 2 December 2005 at about 1.30 p.m. the accompanying officer, Major I., found S.V. in the toilet hanging in a noose made from his belt. S.V. had a letter to his family on his person. He explained that he knew what senior conscripts in Bratsk would have done to him for having deserted his military unit and “ratted out” Pte. Kh . and others. S.V. decided to kill himself before his name and honour got sullied.

Later that day a criminal case into the incitement to suicide of S.V. was opened.

On 6 December 2005 I. testified that in military unit no. 05651 they had been bullied by senior conscripts. They had deserted the military unit and called their parents. Their parents had brought them to the Commander-in-Chief of the Siberian Military District, Major-General Kh . The latter had persuaded them not to complain to the military prosecutor ’ s office and promised to transfer them to one of the best military units. While awaiting the transfer, two soldiers from their former military unit had threatened S.V., I. and M. that if they ended up in the same unit again, it would turn out badly for them. The investigation also added to the case file a letter from S.V. to I. with the following text: “... Hold on, [I.], sorry I could not see you before leaving. Don ’ t do anything stupid, we will make it through and meet up! ...”.

According to Major B., the psychologist who had met with S.V., I. and M., the three soldiers had deserted military unit no. 05651 because senior conscripts had not let them sleep for four days and had extorted money from them. He thought that soldiers from thier former military unit could have met S.V. and his friends at the canteen of transitional military unit no. 26001.

On 11 January 2006 forensic experts concluded that S.V. had died from mechanical asphyxia caused by hanging.

On 17 March 2006 four servicemen (Ptes. Ye., V., K. and B.) stated that before their transfer to Bratsk one soldier had told them to inform everyone there that S.V. had been a deserter. On 2 December 2005 they had asked S.V. over breakfast whether the rumour about him was true. S.V. had looked surprised and stopped talking to them.

On 29 March 2006 Pte. Ka . stated that he had told four conscripts going to Bratsk that S.V. had been a deserter “so that they knew with whom they were dealing with”.

On 25 April 2006 experts issued a report on S.V. ’ s psychological state ante mortem . They considered that generally S.V. had not had suicidal tendencies and had even disapproved of suicide, including his own father ’ s in 2000. He had had an acute feeling of justice and responsibility, and had tended to be maximalist and idealistic. The conflict between him and senior conscripts, as well as the subsequent involvement of other people in the conflict, worsened his psychological state. As he had been disappointed and unable to find a solution, S.V. had become depressed and overly sensitive and had begun avoiding contact with the others. The experts believed that the conduct of Ptes. B., Kh . and Ka . had caused S.V. ’ s depression, but had not put his life in danger. At the material time S.V. had not shown signs of suicidal thoughts. His psychological disconnect had increased with physical exertion, social isolation and pressure. It had been further worsened by separation from his friend, I. The experts considered that S.V. had developed a temporary depressive-neurotic disorder of moderate severity which predisposed him towards committing suicide. The experts found no direct link between the hazing and S.V. ’ s suicide.

On 28 April 2006 the Chita Garrison Military Court sentenced Pte. B. to two years ’ imprisonment suspended for extortion of money from S.V. and other conscripts.

On 5 May 2006 the Chita Garrison Military Court sentenced Pte. Kh . to one year ’ s imprisonment for breach of statutory relationships between military personnel by committing acts of violence towards and the humiliation of S.V. and other conscripts. The applicant was awarded 2,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in non-pecuniary damages.

On 21 June 2006 the criminal case into incitement to suicide was closed for lack of corpus delicti . The decision relied on the records of the on-site examination of S.V. ’ s body, a forensic medical examination report, a psychological report, and physical evidence – S.V. ’ s suicide note, his letter to I., a graphological examination report, the statements of Ptes. I. and M., Ptes. Shch ., B., L., Br., K., Ye., P., Kru ., Pa., G., Ka .; Mrs. O, P., L., Z. and S. (passengers in the same train carriage), Major-General Kh . (the Commander-in-Chief of the Siberian Military District ( командующий Сибирским военным округом )), psychologists Lt. Colonel G. and Major B., Lt. Colonel Sh. (commander of military unit no. 26001), Major I. (the officer accompanying S.V. and four other soldiers to Bratsk), S.V. ’ s mother and brother. The investigator concluded that S.V. had committed suicide to escape the perceived fear of being bullied in the military unit of Bratsk. The next day the investigator sent a copy of the decision to the applicant.

On 4 June 2008 the applicant requested the opening of a criminal case against Major B., Lt. Colonel G. and other unknown persons for the failure to provide proper psychological assistance to her son. She claimed that the failure of the authorities to recognise the psychological state of her son and to provide him with proper assistance had resulted in his suicide. The applicant also blamed the authorities for having allowed servicemen from S.V. ’ s former unit meeting him again at the transitional military unit and disclosing information about his desertion to other military personnel.

On 1 July 2008 the investigator refused to open a criminal case upon the applicant ’ s request. He referred to the decision of 21 June 2006 to close the criminal case into incitement to suicide and the psychological report of 25 April 2006. The investigator repeated that S.V. had committed suicide while being in a temporary state of depression. He found no evidence that the concerned persons had failed to perform their duties or otherwise caused S.V. ’ s suicide.

The applicant contested the refusal of 1 July 2008 before a court. On 12 March 2009 the Chita Garrison Military Court dismissed her complaint. The Garrison Court relied on the witness statements of Major B. and Lt. Colonel G., the psychological report of 25 April 2006 and the decision of 21 June 2006 to close the criminal case, to conclude that S.V. ’ s suicide had not been directly caused by the actions of third persons. The Garrison Court concluded that the concerned persons had complied with their obligations in respect of S.V. On 12 May 2009 the Eastern-Siberian Circuit Military Court upheld the judgment on appeal endorsing the reasoning of the Garrison Court.

2. Application no. 64774/09 Nasibullin v. Russia

The application was lodged on 17 November 2009 by Mr Gennadiy Rasimovich Nasibullin , who was born on 19 November 1961 and lives in Izhevsk, the Republic of Udmurtiya .

On 27 June 2005 the applicant ’ s son, A.N., was drafted for compulsory military service. A.N. served in military unit no. 39986.

The psychological tests that A.N. took before his service assigned him to category “2K” implying “insignificant limitations on taking up combat roles, and garrison and sentry duties”. Two subsequent psychological tests indicated that A.N. was not a suicide risk.

On 8 December 2006 at 1.20 a.m. Warrant Officer F. found A.N. hanging in a noose made from a belt. A doctor, Warrant Officer V., unsuccessfully attempted to resuscitate A.N.

Later that day a criminal investigation into incitement to suicide was initiated. Report of A.N. ’ s body inspection revealed a strangulation line on the neck and no other injuries. The on-site inspection found no traces of a fight or of dragging of a body on the snow. On 9 December 2006 experts performed a forensic medical examination of A.N. ’ s body. On 15 December 2006 another expert examined A.N. ’ s body upon his parents ’ request.

The investigator questioned a number of witnesses. The doctor, Warrant Officer V., stated that on 7 December 2006 she had checked A.N. ’ s health and he had had no injuries. During the resuscitation attempt she also saw no injuries other than the marks of the belt on his neck.

Ptes. K. and I. stated that A.N. had been negatively affected by a break ‑ up with his girlfriend.

Lt. Colonel T., the military unit ’ s psychologist, stated that he had had regular discussions with A.N. prior to his taking up sentry duties. According to Lt. Colonel T., A.N. had had no complaints and had shown no signs of depression.

Lt. Colonel Z., the vice-commander of the military unit in charge of education, noted that on several occasions he had asked A.N. about his situation at home, but the latter had denied having any problems. Lt. Colonel Z. thought that A.N. had been keeping something back.

On 9 January 2007 the experts concluded that A.N. had died from mechanical asphyxia caused by hanging. On 15 January 2007 a second expert report commissioned by A.N. ’ s parents was issued. According to that report A.N. had twenty stab wounds on his chest and stomach, and a bruise on the right forearm which had been caused between two and seventy-two hours before his death.

On 30 January 2007 the psychologists held in their report that A.N. had been suffering from a temporary adjustment disorder for nine months before his death.

On 7 February 2007 the investigator issued a document on measures to be taken by the military command to eliminate the factors which had contributed to A.N. ’ s suicide. He considered that A.N. ’ s senior officers had failed to properly evaluate A.N. ’ s personality and psychological state and to take any preventive measures.

On 8 February 2007 the investigator closed the criminal case. On 15 June 2007 that decision was set aside and the investigator was instructed to address the differences between the two forensic reports.

On 23 July 2007 a third forensic medical examination was performed. The ensuing report confirmed the findings of the first forensic report and suggested that the stab wounds had been caused by the formaldehyde injections given to preserve A.N. ’ s body until his funeral.

On 2 August 2007 the criminal case was closed for the second time. The decision relied on the records of the on-site inspection, the inspection of A.N. ’ s body, the forensic examination reports, the psychological report, the report of the graphological examination of A.N. ’ s correspondence, the statements of Warrant Officers F., K. and V., Lt. Colonel Z., Major F. (a senior officer responsible for social work and the prevention of crimes), Lt. Colonel L. (commander of the military unit), Lt. Colonel T. (a psychologist with the military unit), K., Ptes. M., K., P., Mi. and sixteen other soldiers from A.N. ’ s division, A.N. ’ s parents and four childhood friends.

As for the inconsistency between the first and second forensic reports, the investigator dismissed the assertion that there had been twenty stab wounds on A.N. ’ s body. He relied on the witness statement of the doctor, Warrant Officer V., who had seen no injuries except for the strangulation line while delivering first aid to A.N. She suspected that the stab wounds could have resulted from the formaldehyde injections which had been made into A.N. ’ s body before its transportation to his home town. Lt. Colonel Z. and Pte. M. made similar statements. The investigator also questioned the expert who had prepared the first forensic report of 9 January 2007. She confirmed the absence of stab wounds during her examination of the body. The investigator further interrogated the pathologist who had confirmed having injected the corpse with formaldehyde mixed with vodka to ensure the preservation of the deceased ’ s body during transportation. The investigator lastly talked to the expert who had drawn up the second forensic report. The latter admitted that he had made a mistake in respect of the post-mortem puncture wounds. The investigator also referred to the third forensic report of 23 April 2007. He concluded that A.N. had committed suicide because of the break-up of his relationship, the subsequent temporary adjustment disorder and prolonged depression.

On 28 April 2008 the applicant requested that a criminal case be opened against the commanding officers and the psychologists of military unit no. 39986 who for nine months had failed to recognise A.N. ’ s suicidal tendencies and to provide him with proper assistance.

On 26 June 2008 an investigator refused to grant the applicant ’ s request. He found no evidence that the commanding officers and the psychologists of the military unit had failed to comply with their duties in respect of A.N. He relied on the witness statements of the military unit ’ s psychologists and the psychological report of 30 January 2007. According to the unit ’ s psychologists, A.N. underwent tests with good results and was declared to be without risk of suicide. He had no permanent disorders and showed no signs of depression (that is to say, talking about suicide, giving his belongings away, suicide-related drawings, web search of the means of suicide, and so forth). Owing to these circumstances A.N. was not deemed to require additional attention. One of the psychologists wrote to A.N. ’ s parents asking them to fill in a form seeking information about their son ’ s personality, but never received the form back. Neither A.N., nor his friends, ever mentioned his girlfriend problems to any of the commanding officers or the psychologists.

The applicant contested the refusal before a court. On 30 March 2009 the 101 Garrison Military Court rejected his action. The Garrison Court found that the commanding officers and the psychologists had properly monitored A.N. ’ s psychological state; that he had taken all the necessary tests; and that he had shown good results and presented no suicide risk. Prior to every time he had taken up sentry duty, the commanding officers and the psychologists had also assessed A.N. ’ s psychological state; he had revealed no suicidal tendencies. On 18 May 2009 the 3 Circuit Military Court upheld the judgment on appeal endorsing the reasoning of the Garrison Court.

3. Application no. 25835/10 Pavlova v. Russia

The application was lodged on 23 April 2010 by Ms Valentina Vladimirovna Pavlova, who was born on 3 September 1969 and lives in Chita.

In 2006 the applicant ’ s son of seventeen years, A.P., applied to enter the academy of the Federal Security Guard Service in Orel ( Федеральная служба охраны – hereinafter, “the FSO” ). From 28 June to 6 July 2006 an admission committee examined A.P. ’ s intellectual, professional and psychological abilities. A.P. showed impulsiveness and independence which could have caused problems at the initial stage of his adaptation to the new community.

On 1 August 2006 A.P. became a cadet at the FSO Academy. During the first two years of education, A.P. was to live in the barracks of military unit no. 93872.

On 18 October 2006 at about 9.30 p.m. A.P. fell from a window on the third floor of the barracks. Later that day a criminal case into incitement to suicide was opened. On 27 October 2006 at 11.30 p.m. A.P. died.

On 28 October 2006 a forensic medical expert examined A.P. ’ s body. He held that the injuries to A.P. ’ s head, chest, stomach, liver, lungs and brain had caused his death.

On 28 November 2006 an expert prepared a report on A.P. ’ s psychological state ante mortem . She concluded that A.P. had had an adjustment disorder in the form of a bout of depression. In particular, A.P. had been affected by his new environment and problems with his studies. His suicide had not been caused by the actions of third persons.

On 12 December 2006 the criminal case was closed for lack of corpus delicti . The decision relied on the records of the on-site inspection, a forensic medical examination report, a psychological report, the statements of cadets and officers, A.P. ’ s parents and school friends. According to the witnesses, about two weeks before the incident A.P. had become more distant and silent, fidgety and distracted. He had begun worrying a lot about his marks. The investigator thus concluded that A.P. ’ s death had resulted from his own actions.

On 4 June 2008 the applicant requested that a criminal case be opened against the commanding officers and the psychologists of military unit no. 93872 for their failure to recognise A.P. ’ s suicidal tendencies and to provide him with proper assistance.

On 15 July 2008 that request was refused. The investigator relied on the findings of the decision of 12 December 2006. He also considered that the military authorities had taken all required steps regarding the psychological wellbeing of cadets, including A.P.

The applicant contested the refusal before a court. On 25 June 2009 the Bryansk Garrison Military Court rejected her complaint. The Garrison Court found sufficient evidence that the military authorities had taken the necessary steps to ensure the psychological wellbeing of cadets, including A.P. On 3 November 2009 the Moscow Regional Military Court upheld the judgment on appeal endorsing the reasoning of the Garrison Court.

4. Application no. 69450/10 Khabirov v. Russia

The application was lodged on 12 November 2010 by Mr Saitgaray Mingareyevich Khabirov , who was born on 27 November 1956 and lives in Kazan, the Republic of Tatarstan .

On 23 June 2005 the applicant ’ s son, R.Kh ., was drafted for compulsory military service. The psychological examination performed before R. Kh . ’ s was drafted concluded that he was fully fit for military service. R.Kh . attended training in military unit no. 50661 based in Saratov. While there R.Kh . attempted to jump out of a window in his barracks, distressed by the news from his grandmother about her poor harvest. Some other soldiers pulled him away from the window. From 21 November 2005 R.Kh . continued his service in military unit no. 61964 based in Totskoye , Orenburg Region. Upon his arrival there R.Kh . sat psychological tests which revealed that he was a suicide risk. In particular, he admitted having considered suicide on one occasion. The psychologist of the military unit decided that R.Kh . required monitoring and individual psychological sessions.

On 22 November 2005 R.Kh . left the military unit without authorisation. He was later found and brought back to the unit. On 27 November 2005 R.Kh . again deserted. The following day police arrested him on a train. Upon R. Kh . ’ s return to the unit a psychologist interviewed him. The cadet explained that he did not want to continue serving in the army as everything there irritated and depressed him. He stated that if he were not dismissed from the army, he would leave the unit again. He also complained about frequent headaches. The psychologist suggested R.Kh . undergo an examination in a military hospital and the latter agreed. It appears that at that time the psychologist was or became aware that R.Kh . had previously attempted to commit suicide.

On 14 December 2005 doctors examined R.Kh . and recommended that he should not be given sentry duties or have access to weapons. On 20 December 2005 R.Kh . was transferred to the psychiatric department of the military hospital. He was diagnosed as having an adjustment disorder.

On 19 January 2006 a military medical committee examined R.Kh . and declared him fit for military service with insignificant limitations. On 22 January 2006 R.Kh . had a breakdown and the hospital doctors decided to resubmit his case to the military medical committee seeking his discharge from the army. On the same day at 11 p.m. R.Kh . attempted to hang himself causing brain damage, leaving him in a coma. He remained in the military hospital until 6 March 2006 and was then transferred to the Samara Military Medical Institute. Following a request by the applicant, on 25 April 2006 R.Kh . was brought to the Kazan Garrison Military Hospital. On 6 June 2006 the applicant asked to take his son home. On 1 April 2007 R.Kh . died in the hospital in Kirovskiy district, Kazan.

On 3 February 2006 an investigator decided not to open a criminal case into alleged incitement to suicide. The investigator held that R.Kh . had attempted suicide because of his serious psychological disorder and that no actions of third persons had caused the attempted suicide. On 2 June 2006 the refusal of 3 February 2006 was set aside for failure to indicate the motives of R. Kh . ’ s actions. On 26 June 2006 the investigator again refused to open the case on the same grounds. On 12 July 2006 the refusal of 26 June 2006 was set aside for the failure to obtain a report on the psychological state of R.Kh . prior to his suicide attempt and to thoroughly assess the circumstances of his suicidal actions.

On 6 December 2006 the investigator decided not to initiate the criminal case for lack of corpus delicti . The decision relied on the report of the head of the psychiatric department of the hospital on R. Kh . ’ s suicide attempt, the report of 22 September 2006 on the psychological state of R.Kh ., the statements of Sen. Lt. S. (the unit ’ s psychologist), Pte. K., Jun. Sergeant V., Major K. (the medical assistant of the unit) and other personnel of the military unit.

On 16 July 2008 the applicant requested that a criminal case be opened against the commanding officers and the psychologists of military unit no. 50661 for their failure to recognise A.P. ’ s suicidal tendencies and to provide him with proper assistance.

On 25 July 2008 an investigator refused to grant the applicant ’ s request for lack of corpus delicti . The applicant challenged the refusal before a court. On 6 March 2009 the Saratov Garrison Military Court terminated the proceedings because by that time the prosecution had set aside the refusal of 25 July 2008.

On 4 April 2009 the investigator again refused to initiate the criminal case. The applicant applied to a court. The prosecution quashed the second refusal again and on 31 August 2009 the Saratov Garrison Military Court terminated the proceedings.

On 29 September 2009 the investigator for the third time refused to open a criminal case upon the applicant ’ s request for lack of corpus delicti .

5. Application no. 51185/11 Nevostrueva v. Russia

The application was lodged on 6 August 2011 by Ms Tatyana Aleksandrovna Nevostrueva , who was born on 5 May 1963 and lives in Igra , the Republic of Udmurtiya .

On 22 November 2003 the applicant ’ s son, D.N., was drafted for compulsory military service. D.N. attended training in military unit no. 64845. From 21 January 2004 he served in military unit no. 31963 based in Bikin , Khabarovsk Region. On 19 August 2004 D.N. signed a contract to serve for another three years. On 21 August 2004 a psychologist with the unit declared D.N. ready for military service, seeing him as a steady person and a low suicide risk.

On 26 December 2005 D.N. sat several psychological tests with good results, including the test on stress resistance.

On 12 January 2006 D.N. was assigned sentry duties. Before commencing he visited a psychologist with the unit. On 13 January 2006 at about 5.15 p.m. D.N. shot himself in the head with a Kalshnikov rifle. Later the same day a criminal case into incitement to suicide was opened.

On 6 February 2006 a medical-forensic expert concluded in his report that D.N. had died from bullet wounds to the neck and head.

The report of 13 March 2006 on D.N. ’ s psychological state ante mortem indicated that D.N. had had tacit situational neurotic depression.

On 13 March 2006 the investigator closed the criminal case for lack of corpus delicti . The decision relied on the record of the on-site inspection, the forensic medical examination report, the psychological report, the witness statements of Ptes. M., K., T. and eighteen others. According to the witnesses, D.N. was a steady, open-hearted and respected person. Certain witnesses remembered that D.N. had complained about how hard military service had been and had talked about his plans to go on a leave. One witness suspected that D.N. had been worrying about the loss of some of his personal documents. Another witness believed that D.N. had attempted to hang himself before his transfer to military unit no. 31963 because of bullying in his previous unit.

A doctor testified that D.N. had had no injuries or any health complaints during the medical check-up before his taking up sentry duties.

A psychologist with the unit stated that she had held a relaxation meeting with the soldiers assigned to sentry duties. She had put some relaxing music on and led exercises intended to remove psychological and muscle stress and to raise the morale of the group. No one had had any complaints. All the soldiers had looked well and calm and she had had no reason to prohibit anyone from taking up those duties. The psychologist admitted that she had not known D.N. well and could not describe his personality.

Another psychologist who had met with and tested D.N. had evaluated him as an even-tempered and diligent person who had posed no risk of suicide. On 26 December 2005 D.N. had successfully passed a test on the ability to handle stress. During an individual session on 12 January 2006 D.N. had denied having had bad news from home or conflicts with other soldiers. He had been cheerful and vivacious.

With reference to the psychological report of 13 March 2006 the investigator concluded that D.N. had not suffered from any permanent or temporary mental disorders. He further suggested that D.N. could have suffered a bout of depression probably caused by the loss of some of his personal documents.

On 10 May 2008 the applicant requested that a criminal case be opened against the commanding officers and the psychologists of military unit no. 31963 for their failure to detect D.N. ’ s suicidal tendencies and to provide him with proper psychological assistance.

On 26 June 2008 an investigator refused to grant the applicant ’ s request. The investigator considered that the responsible officers had not had a possibility to timely detect suicidal tendencies in D.N. and had complied with their obligations to monitor the soldiers ’ mental health.

On 3 October 2008 the applicant complained to a court that she had received no information about the outcome of the requested investigation. On 28 October 2008 the Krasnorechensk Garrison Military Court found unlawful the investigator ’ s failure to inform the applicant of the decision of 26 June 2008.

On 19 February 2009 the applicant challenged the lawfulness of the decision of 26 June 2008 before a court. On 16 March 2009 the Krasnorechensk Garrison Military Court set aside the decision of 26 June 2008 on the grounds that the investigator had failed to examine the information about D.N. ’ s first suicide attempt.

On 27 March 2009 the investigator for the second time refused to open the criminal case for lack of corpus delicti . As for the first suicide attempt, the investigator found that that information had not been available to the authorities before D.N. ’ s death. On 22 October 2009 the applicant contested that decision before a court. On 10 November 2009 the military prosecution set aside as premature and unfounded the decision of 27 March 2009 and on 16 November 2009 the Krasnorechensk Garrison Military Court terminated the court proceedings in respect of that decision.

On 20 November 2009 the investigator refused to open the criminal case for lack of corpus delicti for the third time.

On an unspecified date the applicant complained to a court that she had not received any information about the outcome of the requested investigation. On 4 March 2011 the Krasnorechensk Garrison Military Court found unlawful the military authorities ’ failure to inform the applicant about the decision of 20 November 2009.

On 1 April 2011 the applicant contested the refusal of 20 November 2011 via the courts. On 22 April 2011 the military prosecution set aside as premature and unfounded the decision of 20 November 2011 and on 25 April 2011 the Krasnorechensk Garrison Military Court terminated the court proceedings against that decision.

On 1 July 2011 the investigator refused to open the criminal case for lack of corpus delicti for the fourth time.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The Statute of Military Service of the Russian Federation, adopted by Presidential Decree no. 2140 on 14 December 1993 (in force until 1 January 2008), provided that the commander of a military unit bore personal responsibility before the State for all aspects of the life and functioning of the unit, its subdivisions and each serviceman (clause 30). The military commander of the unit was responsible for constantly maintaining strict military discipline and high standards with regard to the morale and psychological wellbeing of the personnel under his or her command (clause 76). The military commander was required to thoroughly study the personnel under his or her command by way of personal communication, to be familiar with the personal and psychological features of his or her subordinates and to be engaged in their daily training (clause 81).

The Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation adopted a number of internal documents (Directive of the Ministry of Defence Д -18 of 31 July 1996 “Measures to Prevent Suicide in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation”; “Guidance on Psychological Work in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation” introduced by a 1997 Decree of the Ministry of Defence; Decree of the Ministry of Defence no. 440 “The System of Work of Officers and Authorities of the Department for the Preservation and Strengthening of the Psychological State of the Servicemen of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation” of 25 September 1998; Decree of the Ministry of Defence no. 50 of 26 January 2000 “Introduction and Guidance on Professional Psychological Screening in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation”) which required the authorities to perform a psychological assessment of a person before his or her admission to the armed forces, after each transfer and every month. Further, a psychologist must approve (or not) a person taking up duties involving weapons following each assignment to such duties.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that the State failed to protect the lives of their sons. In particular, the commanding officers and the psychologists of the respective military units failed to recognise the suicidal tendencies of the applicants ’ sons and to provide them with proper assistance. The applicants also complain that the authorities rejected their requests to investigate the failure of the commanding officers and the psychologists of the respective military units to take steps to safeguard the lives of their sons.

QUESTIONS

1. Having regard to the special position of conscripts, did the Government meet their obligation to protect the applicants ’ sons ’ lives (see Kılınç and Others v. Turkey , no. 40145/98, § 41, 7 June 2005; Beker v. Turkey , no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, §§ 91, 92 and 98, 17 January 2013; Perevedentsevy v. Russia , no. 39583/05, §§ 93-94, 24 April 2014; and Tikhonova v. Russia , no. 13596/05, § 68, 30 April 2014)?

Has the State established an efficient system of psychological assessment and assistance to prevent the suicide of military servicemen in the armed forces (see Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia , no. 22490/05, 19 December 2013; Perevedentsevy and Tikhonova , both cited above)? Did the State know or should it have known about the existence of a real and immediate risk to the lives of the applicants ’ sons? If so, what steps did the domestic authorities undertake to prevent that risk?

In reply to these questions the parties are requested to submit any relevant general information, including legislation, internal rules and regulations concerning prevention of suicides in the army, as well as recent statistics on such incidents.

2. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 132, ECHR 2014, and Shumkova v. Russia , no. 9296/06, § 109, 14 February 2012 with further references), were the investigations by the domestic authorities in the present cases compatible with Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, once the cause of deaths had been established as suicide, did the investigations ascertain all the circumstances in which the incidents had taken place, including the preventive aspect of the events?

APPENDIX

1. 62080/09 VASILYEVA v. Russia

2. 64774/09 NASIBULLIN v. Russia

3. 25835/10 PAVLOVA v. Russia

4. 69450/10 KHABIROV v. Russia

5. 51185/11 NEVOSTRUYEVA v. Russia