Published on 5 February 2024

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 48419/16 Alla Ivanivna MUSINA and Others against Ukraine lodged on 9 August 2016 communicated on 16 January 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The case concerns the applicants’ complaint under the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 2 of the Convention about the suspicious death of their relative, A.M. (the first and the second applicants’ son, the third applicant’s brother and the fourth applicant’s father), while being under the control of the State, and the alleged ineffectiveness of the related domestic investigation.

In April 2014 A.M., then at the age of 40, was called up for military service, following the announcement of a special mobilisation by Ukrainian authorities. On 18 March 2015 he arrived at military unit A-1302 where he was supposed to undergo a demobilisation procedure. In early morning on 28 March 2015 A.M. was found dead in an army tent within the territory of that military unit. He was dressed in civilian clothes, his hands and legs were tied, he had a gag in his mouth and bruises over his body. On the same day a criminal investigation into the incident was launched. The military authorities’ position was that at the time of his death A.M. had no longer been at service and thus the military command lacked power to conduct a criminal investigation into the incident. The investigation was therefore entrusted to the police. According to the applicants, there was no documentary evidence proving that A.M. had been demobilised by the time of his death.

According to the forensic medical expert examination report of 10 April 2015, A.M. died as a result of a coronary failure aggravated by alcohol intoxication. The expert noted that A.M. had sustained minor bodily injuries before his death.

The criminal investigation was discontinued on 27 June 2015 due to the lack of an indication of a crime. On 6 July 2015 that ruling was quashed as premature and unlawful, and the investigation was reopened. On 30 November 2016 the investigator, however, issued another ruling on the investigation termination, with its wording being identical to that of 27 June 2015. On 3 March 2017 that ruling, too, was quashed on similar grounds as before. It appears that on 30 March 2017 the investigation was discontinued again. The case file before the Court as it currently stands does not contain a copy of that ruling.

The first and the second applicants died in 2023 and 2021, respectively. The third and the fourth applicants maintain the application in their own name and as the first and the second applicants’ heirs.

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 A.M.’s life, and, secondly, to give a plausible explanation for his death (see Mosendz v. Ukraine , no. 52013/08, §§ 90-95, 17 January 2013)?

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 A.M.’s demobilisation and the investigation into his death, which are not yet in the case file.