Published on 19 February 2024

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 11103/18 Viktor Mykolayovych PETRYK against Ukraine lodged on 19 February 2018 communicated on 30 January 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The case concerns the applicant’s complaint under the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 2 of the Convention about the death of his son, P.S., during military service, which was reported as a suicide, as well as the alleged ineffectiveness of the related domestic investigation.

In March 2014, P.S., then at the age of 26, was called up for military service, following the announcement of a special mobilisation by Ukrainian authorities. He was married and had two minor children. His task in the army was repairing vehicles.

On 18 February 2015 P.S. had a brief home leave. He told his family that he would finish his service in about two weeks and would return home. According to the applicant, his son had plans for the future and did not show any signs of depression. The applicant allegedly overheard a telephone conversation between P.S. and the latter’s superiors, during which his son had apparently been threatened.

In the evening on 22 February 2015 the applicant talked with his son by telephone for the last time. P.S. had just returned to his military unit from the active fighting zone. He promised his father to call back after taking a shower. He did not, however, telephone the applicant again.

Shortly after that conversation, P.S.’s fellow soldiers heard a gunshot. They discovered P.S. inside the cabin of the lorry, for which he had been in charge. According to their testimonies, he had a gunshot wound in the area of his left eye, his gun was between his legs, and the lorry cabin was locked from inside. P.S. died on the way to the hospital.

On 23 February 2015 a criminal investigation was launched in respect the incident. It was discontinued for the lack of evidence of a criminal offence on two occasions (on 19 May and 27 June 2015), with both those rulings having been quashed as premature (on 28 May and 28 July 2015, respectively).

The investigation is apparently still pending. Its efficiency has allegedly been undermined by a number of delays and other deficiencies, notably as follows:

- the applicant, who consistently contested the suicide version, was attributed the procedural status of an aggrieved party and was questioned in that capacity in October 2015 (that is, almost ten months after the events);

- an investigative experiment, which was carried out on 17 November 2017 (that is, two years and almost nine months after the events), established that, regard being had to P.S.’s height, the position of his body and the gun, as well as the location of his wound and the bullet trajectory, he could not have possibly shot himself inside the lorry cabin);

- the lorry was inspected for the first time on 30 March 2018 (that is, more than three years after the events) – while having discovered some blood traces on it, the expert was not able to establish whether it belonged to P.S.;

- an internal investigation report issued on 30 August 2019 established that the bone fragment from the body and the bullet shell had been lost, that P.S’s mobile telephone had been stored unsealed for more than a year after the events, and that the gun had been given back to the military unit without its characteristics having been duly recorded. – The investigator concerned was not, however, disciplined, owing to the expiry of the six-month statutory limitation period.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the State discharge its positive obligations under the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention: firstly, to sufficiently protect P.S.’ life, and, secondly, to give a plausible explanation for his death (see Mosendz v. Ukraine , no. 52013/08, §§ 90-95, 17 January 2013, and Nana Muradyan v. Armenia , no. 69517/11, §§ 118-23, 5 April 2022)?

2. 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 the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention (see Mosendz , cited above, §§ 94-95, 97 and 114, and Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 169 ‑ 82, 14 April 2015)?

The Government are also requested to provide copies of all the documents related to the investigation into the death of the applicant’s son, which are not yet in the case file.