FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 40525/05 Nikolay Viktorovich VOLKOGONOV and Igor Nikolayevich VOLKOGONOV against Ukraine lodged on 29 October 2005

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The first applicant, Mr Nikolay Viktorovich Volkogonov , and the second applicant, Igor Nikolayevich Volkogonov , are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1991 respectively and live in Molodyozhnoye .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. First episode

On 17 January 2001 at 9 p.m. police officer S. accompanied by another police officer, Z. and, a private person, P. entered into the first applicant ’ s house and claimed that he should appear before a civil court. The first applicant asked officer S. to present the authority to act on the court ’ s behalf, to stop disturbing his family and to leave his home. In reply officer S. several times punched the first applicant in face and chest.

The same day the first applicant called an ambulance. The doctor diagnosed the first applicant with hypertension. According to the first applicant they also recorded head concussion and bruises on his face. According to the case-file materials, in particular the decisions of the domestic courts, the doctor of ambulance could not recollect seeing any injuries on the applicant ’ s face during that visit.

On 18 January 2001 the first applicant ’ s wife wrote a complaint to the Simferopol District Prosecutor ’ s Office (the SDPO) requesting to investigate the allegedly unlawful actions of officer S.

On 19 January 2001 the first applicant underwent forensic medical examination which found two bruises, one on his right shoulder and another near his left eye. These injuries were classified as minor bodily injuries.

On 2 February 2001 the SDPO refused to institute criminal proceedings against officer S. The first applicant complained to the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the Crimea Prosecutor ’ s Office), which quashed the above decision on 7 March 2001.

On 20 March 2001 the SDPO again refused to instituted criminal proceedings against officer S. and this decision was quashed by the Simferopol Central District Court (the District Court) on 25 February 2002.

Between April 2002 and August 2005 the prosecutor eleven times refused to institute criminal proceedings against officer S. and all these decisions were quashed by the higher prosecutors or the court.

On 13 January 2003 the first applicant lodged a civil claim in the Simferopol Zheleznodorozhny District Court against the Simferopol District Police Department seeking compensation of non-pecuniary damage caused by the unlawful actions of officer S. According to the applicant the claim remained unexamined.

On 20 December 2003 police officer S. died in a traffic accident.

On 8 September 2005 the SDPO refused again to institute criminal proceedings against officer S. for lack of corpus delicti in his actions.

On 22 March 2006 the District Court quashed the decision of the SDPO.

On 27 April 2006 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the Crimea Court of Appeal) overruled the decision of the first-instance court and rejected the first applicant ’ s complaint. It noted that the investigator conducted all necessary activities and the first applicant ’ s complaints were unsubstantiated. The court noted that it had not been established that officer S. inflicted any bodily harm on the first applicant. It also noted that the doctor, who had seen the first applicant on 17 April 2001, could not confirm any bodily injuries and such injuries - bruises on soft tissues of the applicant ’ s face - had been recorded only on 19 April 2001. The court noted that police officer S. had been invited to the house by the first applicant ’ s mother who wanted the first applicant to be summoned to the civil proceedings concerning division of property after the death of the applicant ’ s father. The first applicant ’ s mother also denied any violence by officer S. towards the applicant. Furthermore, officer S. had died and therefore it was impossible to question him additionally. There were no independent witnesses who would confirm the infliction of bodily harm on the first applicant.

On 26 June 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court.

2. Second episode

On 25 October 2005 Mrs V, who was the wife of the first applicant and the mother of the second applicant, died in a traffic accident.

On 29 December 2005 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings.

After several complaints by the first applicant, criminal proceedings were instituted on 16 March 2006.

According to the first applicant, in April 2006 the second applicant was admitted to a psychiatric hospital as a result of sufferings experienced by him.

Between 2006 and 2009 the criminal case was closed and reopened on several occasions.

On 29 April 2009 the Kievskiy District Court of Simferopol quashed the decision of the Crimea Police Department to close the criminal case concerning the death of Mrs V. and indicated that the investigators had failed to follow the instructions previously given to them when the case had been returned for further investigation.

According to the latest information available (August 2011), the proceedings are still pending.

COMPLAINTS

The first applicant complains under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention that on 17 January 2001 police officer S. came to his home and beat him and the domestic authorities failed to investigate this incident. He further complains under Article 6 § 1 that the domestic courts failed to examine his civil claim against the police, by which he sought compensation for the actions of police officer S.

Both applicants complain under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention that the domestic authorities have failed to investigate the death of their next of kin with a due diligence. Protractions in the investigation have caused them serious moral suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

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 by the domestic authorities into the death of Mrs V., the wife of the first applicant and the mother of the second applicant, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?