FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 24328/08 Natalia Petrovna KOZAK against Ukraine lodged on 8 May 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Nataliya Petrovna Kozak , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Vinnytsya , Ukraine .

The circumstances of the case

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

O n 4 September 1999 the applicant ’ s six years ’ old son went missing. On 6 September 1999 his body was found on waste land near a factor y ’ s unfinished construction. According to a forensic medical conclusion, the applicant ’ s son ha d more than ten head wounds, skull fractures , and bruises all over his body. The criminal proceedings into his death had been instituted on the same day.

The case-file materials contain a reference to a confession of 5 July 2003 of a certain B . The latter stated that he had hit the applicant ’ s son with a stone since the latter had been teasing him . B. had been told by “the voice” that th e boy had been “a devil ’ s messenger”. B. has been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

O n 11 August 2003 the Vinnytsya Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office suspended the investigation in the case since “it was impossible to identify who had committed the crime”. The proceedings were resumed on an unidentified date.

The applicant submitted copies of letters sent to her between 2003-2008 by prosecutor ’ s offices of various levels informing her that the investigation was pending . In particular, by letter of 10 January 2004 the General Prosecutor ’ s Office informed the applicant that the investigation was pending and that the Vinnytsya Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office had been informed about the necessity to accelerate the investigation.

On 3 July 2007 B. again confessed to murdering the applicant ’ s son.

On 21 March 2008 the Zamostyanskyy District Court rejected the prosecutor ’ s request for compulsory medical treatment of B. and remitted the case for additional investigation. The court noted that the Vinnytsya Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office and the General Prosecutor ’ s Office had given instructions on the investigation of the case, however, these instructions had not been complied with.

On 18 July 2008 the same court ordered B. ’ s forensic medical examination.

According to a forensic medical conclusion of 16 September 2008, B. had been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and could not understand the consequences of his actions. He needed compulsory medical treatment.

On 1 June 2010 the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal ordered additional investigation in the case. It was noted that the applicant ’ s son had numerous wounds. A stone covered with blood was found near the body. It could have been concluded that the applicant ’ s son ’ s aggressor had also blood stains on his clothes. On 7 September 1999 B. ’ s apartment had been searched and some of his clothes items had been seized, however, they ha d been never examined.

On 28 September 2011 the Zamostyanskyy District Court terminated the proceedings against B. for lack of evidence of his guilt. The court noted that a police officer, M., had testified that in 1999 on an unidentified date, when serving his administrative arrest sentence, B. had pleaded guilty to murdering the applicant ’ s son. The court held that B. ’ s confessions could not serve a basis for establishing his guilt since he was suffering from schizophrenia. Other evidence in support of his guilt was absent. B. clothes had not been examined by an expert since there were no traces on them. Witness L. (B. ’ s stepfather) , who gave evidence in the case, died. Police officers , who testified about B. ’ s guilt , did so referring to B. ’ s words which we re unreliable.

The decision of 28 September 2011 was upheld on 8 December 2011 by the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal. On 15 November 2012 the Higher Specialised Court in Criminal and Civil Matters rejected the prosecutor ’ s appeal in cassation against the above decisions.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains about the lengthy ineffective investigation of her son ’ s murder. She cites Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?