Communicated on 14 January 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 70671/12 Tatian a VERETCA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 24 October 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Tatiana Veretca , is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Chisinau. She is represented before the Court by Mr R. Zadoinov , a lawyer practising in Chisinau.

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

The applicant ’ s late husband, Mr Alexei Veretca , was killed on 28 April 2012. The present application is about the circumstances of his death and the investigation carried out by the Moldovan authorities into those circumstances.

On 27 April 2012 the applicant ’ s husband had a fight with two persons, V.C. and A.R., as a result of which he injured both of them with a knife.

On 28 April 2012 the applicant ’ s husband was contacted by an acquaintance who told hi m that V.C. and A.R. wanted EUR 500 each if he did not want them to lodge a criminal complaint against him. It was also proposed to the applicant ’ s husband to meet both men in front of a restaurant on the edge of a forest later that day in order to give them the money and settle the conflict.

In the evening of the same day the applicant ’ s husband, accompanied by a friend, went to the indicated restaurant where a group of some fifteen persons was waiting for him in the parking lot. According to the applicant, those persons were members of a gang from Orhei and they had been called by V.C. and A.R. in order to kill her husband. When the applicant ’ s husband entered the parking lot with his car, he noted that there was an ambush and attempted to drive away. However, the exit of the parking lot was blocked by another car and some of the attackers started to fire at the applicant ’ s husband from firearms. He was hit by numerous bullets and was beaten up after being apprehended. The applicant ’ s husband died on the spot. His friend was severely beaten up until he lost consciousness.

A criminal investigation was initiated into the circumstances of the case shortly thereafter. According to the applicant, the investigators failed to secure and peruse the video from the restaurant ’ s security cameras and to check the telephone communications between all the suspects from the evening of the crime.

On 30 July 2012 the prosecutor in charge of the case dropped all charges against V.C. and two other suspects on the ground that they had not been involved in the incident but were merely passing by. The applicant was not informed about this decision and found out about it only when the criminal investigation was terminated and the case was referred to a court for trial. She immediately challenged that dec ision and was successful. On 28 August 2012 a hierarchically superior prosecutor quashed that decision, finding that it had been based on a superficial investigation and on an arbitrary assessment of the facts. The applicant was not provided with a copy of this decision.

All three suspects concerned challenged the above decision before an investigating judge. Following a secret hearing behind closed doors on 17 October 2012, to which the applicant was not invited, a judge of the Rascani District Court upheld the appeals lodged by the suspects and ordered the termination of the criminal investigation in respect of the three suspects. The decision of the court was final and could not be challenged.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the investigation into the circumstances of her husband ’ s death was not effective.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Having regard to the State ’ s positive obligations arising in respect of the protection of the right to life (see Ciobanu v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 62578/09 , 24 February 2015 ), was the criminal investigation conducted by the domestic authorities in the present case in compliance with the procedural obligations provided for by Article 2 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to provide the Court with a full copy of the case file.