Communicated on 30 June 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 8420/10 Zakiya Gayfullovna LATYPOVA against Russia lodged on 22 January 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Zakiya Gayfullovna Latypova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Kirgiz-Miyaki, the Republic of Bashkortostan.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 22 April 2006 the applicant ’ s cousin, Mr Aritkulov, was found hanged in the living room of his house.

Between 10.30 a.m. and 11.15 a.m. the police conducted inspection of the scene. In the report it was stated, in particular, that a body of Mr Aritkulov had been found hanging on a cord attached to a nail in the ceiling. The body had no other injuries apart from the constriction mark. It was also noted that on the cover of one of the books that were lying on a table in the living room there was the following inscription in Tatar done in pencil addressed to Mr Aritkulov ’ s wife: “Zukhra, farewell, forgive me, all right?”

On 25 April 2006 the prosecutor ’ s office of the Miyakinskiy District of the Republic of Bashkortostan refused to open criminal investigation into Mr Aritkulov ’ s death. The prosecutor had regard to, in particular, the report on the inspection of the scene and Mr Aritkulov ’ s death certificate, according to which he had died of asphyxia caused by squeezing of the neck by a loop. He also referred to statements by two witnesses, Mr T. and Mr M.

According to Mr T., on 22 April 2006 at 9 p.m. [this is likely to be a misprint and Mr T. probably meant 9 a.m.] he came to visit Mr Aritkulov. The door was locked. He then walked towards the kitchen window and shouted Mr Aritkulov ’ s name a couple of times. As nobody answered, he went to the new house which was adjacent to Mr Aritkulov ’ s old house. He approached the living room ’ s window which was closed with shutters, whereas Mr Aritkulov had never used the shutters. Mr T. opened the shutters and saw Mr Aritkulov hanged on a rope. Mr T. ran to Mr Aritkulov ’ s neighbours to tell about what had happened.

Mr M. stated that he was Mr Aritkulov ’ s neighbour. According to him, they had had good relations until the death of Mr Aritkulov ’ s father three years ago. Then Mr Aritkulov started abusing alcoholic drinks and his wife left him. On 22 April 2006 at 8 a.m. Mr M. was working in his vegetable garden when he saw Mr S. leaving Mr Aritkulov ’ s yard. Mr S. often came to have a drink with Mr Aritkulov.

On the basis of the foregoing the prosecutor concluded that there was no indication of a crime having been committed due to the lack of information that Mr Aritkulov had been subjected to any threats or inhuman or degrading treatment.

It is not clear when the applicant was informed about this decision.

According to forensic report no. 43 of 19 May 2006 the cause of Mr Aritkulov ’ s death was mechanical asphyxia caused by hanging on a rope. It also stated that at the moment of his death Mr Aritkulov was in a state of acute alcohol intoxication, his blood alcohol content was 3.20 per mille.

On 3 October 2007 the applicant filed a complaint to the prosecutor ’ s office seeking to set aside the decision of 25 April 2006. She stated, in particular, that the investigation had been superficial as (i) only two persons had been questioned; (b) neither members of Mr Aritkulov ’ s family nor persons with whom he had had alcoholic drinks the night before, including Mr S., had been questioned.

On 31 October 2007 the prosecutor ’ s office of the Miyakinskiy District dismissed her complaint. A brief response sent to the applicant stated that there was no indication of a criminal offence having been committed.

On 13 April 2009 the applicant appealed against the prosecutor ’ s office ’ s decision of 25 April 2006 to a court. She asked to send the case for further investigation alleging that the inquiry conducted had not been thorough. The applicant attached a copy of Mr Aritkulov ’ s application to the prosecutor ’ s office of unspecified date, of which she had apparently gained knowledge in 2008. In the application he stated that his son-in-law Mr R.M. and police officer R. had been threatening him trying to extort money. The applicant also asked to examine whether there might be a connection between Mr Aritkulov ’ s death and Mr G. ’ s conviction in 2005 of trespassing on Mr Aritkulov ’ s house.

On 14 May 2009 the Miyakinskiy District Court rejected the applicant ’ s complaint. It noted, in particular, that Mr G. ’ s conviction was irrelevant for the case and that Mr R.M. had died in February 2008. The court further found that the inquiry conducted by the prosecutor ’ s office had been thorough and all the relevant circumstances had been established.

The applicant appealed. She argued that the investigative authorities failed to examine the possibility of Mr Aritkulov ’ s having been hanged by other persons while being in a state of acute alcohol intoxication. The applicant noted, in particular, that according to the report on the inspection of the scene there was no object that Mr Aritkulov could have stood on so as to hang himself. Furthermore, there were certain discrepancies in the description of the the constriction mark in the report on the inspection of the scene and in the forensic report. The book with an inscription on it was not seized and an examination of handwriting was not conducted either. Moreover, Mr Aritkulov ’ s drinking companions from the night before his death, including Mr S., were not questioned.

On 6 August 2009 the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. The court did not specifically address the applicant ’ s arguments, but briefly stated that the inquiry conducted had been thorough and the decision not to institute a criminal investigation had been lawful.

On 28 December 2009 the applicant applied for supervisory review of the decision of 6 August 2009. The outcome is unclear.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 125 of the 2001 Code of Criminal Procedure sets out the procedure for the judicial examination of complaints. The orders of an investigator or prosecutor refusing to institute criminal proceedings or terminating a case, and other orders and acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to hinder citizens ’ access to justice, may be appealed against to a local district court, which is competent to check the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions.

COMPLAINT

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

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Does the applicant, Mr Aritkulov ’ s cousin, have standing to bring the application before the Court? In particular, is she Mr Aritkulov ’ s heir? Did Mr Aritkulov have other heirs?

2. Has the right to life of Mr Aritkulov, the applicant ’ s relative, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?

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), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

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