CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 décembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9EADC58A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE08F62DC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF33A66F3 { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-style:italic } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB76CD870 { width:27.78pt; display:inline-block } .sDD6F64E2 { width:137.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF7DC134C { width:39.46pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sC2E73220 { width:87.22%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s54F1E238 { width:8.26%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .sCC037FAC { width:22.94%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sF61BF5EC { width:22.94%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2F0B4A65 { width:8.26%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s12C0A550 { width:22.94%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB268EDDE { width:8.26%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s816B3540 { width:22.94%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 71667/17 Zdravka KUŠIĆ and Others against Croatia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10   December 2019 as a Chamber composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,   Ksenija Turković,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Jovan Ilievski,   Raffaele Sabato, judges, and Abel Campos, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 September 2017, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented before the Court by Ms S. Čanković, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. 2.     The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 3.     The Government of Serbia did not make use of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention). The circumstances of the case 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.   At around 7 a.m. on 6 February 1992 X. found two dead bodies with gunshot wounds lying by the road near Petrovo Polje. He reported the matter to the Sisak police. 6.     The Sisak police called an investigating judge and a deputy prosecutor to the scene, and at around 9 a.m. an inspection was carried out. It could be established from documents found in the clothes of the deceased that they were N.K. and P.K., the applicants’ relatives. A 7.62 mm calibre cartridge case marked 321-91 was found nearby. The investigating judge noted tyre marks on the road. Photographs and a video-recording were taken of the crime scene. The bodies were transported to Sisak Hospital for examination. 7.     On 7 February 1992 a medical expert carried out an external post-mortem examination of N.K. and P.K., establishing that they had died as a result of gunshot wounds to the head and torso. 8.     On 10 February 1992 the Sisak police filed a criminal complaint against persons unknown with the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office ( Okružno javno tužiteljstvo Sisak ), alleging that N.K. and P.K. had been murdered. 9.     On 25 February 1992 the Sisak police drew up a “work plan”, which included the measures taken to date and measures to be taken in the future. It also contained two possible theories for the death of N.K. and P.K.; the first was that they had been murdered by someone who had known their life circumstances and had wanted to obtain financial gain or revenge, and the second was that they had been murdered by someone from their family. 10.     On 25 May 1992 the Sisak police provided the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office with transcripts of interviews conducted with A., C., B., X., Y. and Y.Y. earlier that month. A., a neighbour of the deceased, stated that on 4 February 1992 five men in camouflage uniforms had come to the K. family home, searched it and then left. The following day two men in camouflage uniforms had come back to the house. B. (who had been living there as a refugee) and D., had been inside at the time. One of the two men had stayed with B. and D. downstairs and had threatened them with a weapon, while the other had gone upstairs and taken N.K. out of the house. P.K. had allegedly been found at his mistress’s house nearby before also being taken away. He added that there had been civil protection guards near the K. family home, but that he did not know who had been on duty that evening. C. (the late N.K.’s brother) stated that B. had called him on the morning of 6 February 1992 and told him that N.K. and P.K. had been taken away by two armed men in camouflage uniforms. C. also stated that in January 1992 his brother N.K. had been taken from his house to Jodno, where he had been ill-treated by men in camouflage uniforms. B. stated that at around 10 p.m. on 4 February 1992 five men in camouflage uniforms had come to the house, spent some time upstairs and then left. When they had left N.K. had told him that it had been the police. They had asked about his son P.K., who had not been at home at the time, and had confiscated their telephone and telephone book. At around 8 p.m. the following evening two armed men in camouflage uniforms had come back to the house. One had gone upstairs and the other had stayed with B. and D. downstairs. B. and D. had noticed that the armed man with them had had a police mark. He had asked them how they could live in a house with Chetniks ( četnici ) who had killed his 6-year-old child. The other man had taken N.K. from upstairs and out of the house. P.K. had not been at home that evening. Meanwhile D. had called the police, but by the time they had arrived the men in camouflage uniforms had already left. X. stated that at 7.15 a.m. on 6 February 1992, on his way from Martinska Ves to Sisak, he had spotted two dead bodies near the road. He had gone to a nearby hunting lodge, where soldiers had been stationed. He had told one of them that there were two dead bodies lying nearby, and the soldier had replied that they were aware of this. X. had then gone to Sisak and reported the matter to the Sisak police, and the officer on duty had told him that he already knew about the murder. Y. and Y.Y. had no direct information of the events. 11.     On 7 January 2003 the Sisak police provided the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office with transcripts of interviews conducted with B., C. and D. on 6 and 7 February 1992, stating that they had been found in the Sisak police archives. The transcripts indicate that on 6 February 1992 C. (the late N.K.’s brother) and D. attended the Sisak police station and reported that at around 8 p.m. on 5 February 1992 two men had come to N.K.’s house and taken him and his son P.K. away. D., who witnessed the event, described one of the individuals as a short chubby man wearing a camouflage uniform and a black hat marked with a Croatian coat of arms, with a missing upper right tooth. D. stated that the two men were probably police officers from the “B.R.” police unit, which B., who had been there with him, had also noticed. The transcripts further indicate that on 7 February 1992 the Sisak police interviewed C. and B. C. stated that he had been informed that on 5 February 1992 two unknown men had taken N.K. and his son P.K. from their house to an unknown destination. B. stated that at around 8 p.m. on 5 February 1992 he and his cousin D. had been inside the K. family home when somebody had knocked on the front door. B. had opened it and two masked men had entered and taken away N.K. and P.K. 12.     On 11 September 2004 the applicants wrote to the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office and the Sisak police, asking whether any action had been taken regarding the death of their relatives. On 21 October 2004 the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office replied that criminal proceedings had not been instituted since the perpetrators were still unknown. The only established facts were that N.K. and P.K. had been taken away from their home on 5 February 1992 and had been found dead the following day. 13.     In February 2005 the applicants wrote to the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia, asking to reach a settlement regarding the payment of damages for the killing of N.K. and P.K. They submitted that the killing had amounted to a terrorist act for which the State was liable. In March 2005 the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia replied that there was no possibility of a settlement. 14.     On 5 October 2006 the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office reclassified the criminal offence against N.K. and P.K. as a war crime against the civilian population. 15.     On 20 November 2006 the first applicant sent a letter to the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office enquiring about the progress of the investigation. She referred to the recent reclassification of the crime committed against N.K. and P.K. as a war crime and asked to reach a settlement regarding the payment of damages. On 20 November 2006 the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office replied that the decision declining to reach a settlement still stood. 16.     On 19 December 2008 the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office prepared a case progress report. It concluded that a war crime had been committed against N.K. and P.K. and that no further measures would be taken until interviews with all the relevant people had taken place. 17.     On 2 January 2009 the Sisak police informed the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office that interviews had been conducted with individuals potentially having knowledge of the criminal offences committed in the Sisak area during 1991 and 1992. With regard to the killing of the applicants’ relatives, the Sisak police confirmed that they had interviewed C. (the late N.K.’s brother) and E., the woman from whose house P.K. had allegedly been taken away on the night of 5 February 1992, but that neither of them had submitted any new relevant information. 18.     On 9 February 2009 the Sisak police informed the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office that a further interview had been conducted with B. on 27 January 2009. In that interview B. stated that since December 1991 he and his wife had been staying in the K. family home as refugees. The K. family were Serbs, but had treated him and his wife very well. In late 1991 N.K. had gone to Serbia for a while, which had raised suspicions about what he was doing. When N.K. had returned to Croatia in January 1992 he had been taken to the police station to appear before the commander, F., and had been released the same day. On the evening of 5 February 1992 several armed men in camouflage uniforms had come to the K. family house and taken away N.K. The men had asked them how they could live with Chetniks who had raped a child. D., who had since died, had also witnessed the event. Two days later he had gone to the police station to give a statement and commander F. had told him that N.K. and P.K. were dead. He further submitted that P.K. had been in an intimate relationship with a woman named E., who might have had more information about his abduction. He had heard that E. had been telling people that the men who had taken away N.K. and P.K. had been stationed in Derma. 19.     On 16 February 2010 the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office submitted a case progress report to the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia ( Državno odvjetništvo Republike Hrvatske ). 20.     Sometime after, the case concerning the killing of N.K. and P.K. was transferred to the Osijek County State Attorney’s Office ( Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Osijeku ), which indicted V.M., Đ.B. and D.B. before the Osijek County Court ( Županijski sud u Osijeku ) for war crimes against the civilian population committed in the Sisak area during 1991 and 1992. 21.     On 29 January 2014, after the criminal proceedings against V.M., Đ.B. and D.B. ended, the Osijek County State Attorney’s Office returned cases to the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office that had been transferred to it but excluded from the criminal proceedings. The case concerning the killing of N.K. and P.K. was among those returned. 22.     On 25 July 2016 the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office requested the War Crimes Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs ( Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova, Uprava kriminalističke policije, Služba ratnih zločina ) to take further action regarding the killing of N.K. and P.K., and specifically to interview A. again. 23.     On 9 August 2016 the Sisak police interviewed G., a neighbour of the late N.K. and P.K. She reported that she had heard that in late 1991 N.K. had gone to Banovina to kill Croats. 24.     On 22 September 2016 the Sisak police interviewed H., another neighbour, who was at the relevant time also a member of the local civil protection. He reported that when the war had started N.K. had frequently left Sisak, and that on one occasion he had seen him in a video-recording showing him to have been fighting for the Serbian side. Several days before being taken away N.K. had told him that he had been receiving threats by telephone. H. denied witnessing N.K. and P.K. being taken away. That night B. had come to his house to tell him that unknown men wearing camouflage police uniforms had taken away P.K. He had then gone to the K. family home with B. to check the situation, but P.K. had not been there. He had heard from someone that P.K. had been taken away in an orange or brick-coloured van. 25.     In September and November 2016 the Sisak police interviewed I. and J. 26.     On 11 November 2016 the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office took statements from X. and E. X., who discovered the bodies of N.K. and P.K. in February 1992, had no new relevant information. E., the woman from whose house P.K. had allegedly been taken away in February 1992, stated that P.K. had never been in her house and that she had no information about his abduction. She was then presented with a transcript of her statement given to the police in 2008. She had stated that two individuals in camouflage uniforms had come to her house and taken away P.K., but that since her small child had started crying she could not hear what they were saying to P.K. and did not know why they had taken him away. E. denied giving such a statement to the police in 2008, repeating that P.K. had never been in her house. 27.     On 7 February 2017 the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office asked that a police officer, P., be interviewed. 28.     On 2 March 2017 P. stated that a military unit had been stationed in the hunting lodge near to where the bodies had been found, but that he did not know which one. 29.     On 13 July 2017 the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office asked the police to establish which military unit had been stationed in the hunting lodge. 30.     On 9 August 2017 the police informed the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office that interviews had been conducted with K., L., Lj, M., N., none of whom knew which military unit had been stationed in the hunting lodge. 31.     On 21 July 2017 the Sisak police asked the Ministry of Defence ( Ministarstvo obrane Republike Hrvatske ) to confirm which military unit had been stationed in the hunting lodge near to where the bodies of N.K. and P.K. had been found. On 5 September 2017 it replied that no Croatian army unit had been stationed in that hunting lodge. 32.     On 20 February 2018 the Sisak County State Attorney Office asked the police to interview G., H., O., R., S., Š. and T. in order to gather further information about the killing of N.K. and P.K. 33.     On 11 May 2018 the Sisak police reported that interviews had taken place with G., O., S., Š. and T., who had had no relevant information about the killing. H. and R. could not be interviewed because they had since died. 34.     On 18 March 2019 it was decided that six war crimes investigations, including the investigation into the killing of N.K. and P.K., would be transferred to Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office ( Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu ) and the Zagreb police in order to ensure the impartiality of those conducting the investigation. 35.     In August 2019 the Zagreb police conducted interviews with U., V. and Z., none of whom had any information about N.K.’s and P.K.’s killing. 36.     The investigation is still pending. Relevant domestic law and practice Croatian Constitution 37.     The relevant provisions of the Croatian Constitution ( Ustav Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette no. 56/1990, with further amendments) read: Article 21 “Every human being has the right to life. ...” Article 134 “International agreements concluded and ratified in accordance with the Constitution and made public shall be part of the internal legal order of the Republic of Croatia and shall take precedence over [domestic legislation] ...” Constitutional Court Act 38.     The relevant part of the Constitutional Court Act ( Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette no.   49/2002) reads as follows: Section 31 “1.   The Constitutional Court’s decisions shall be binding on every physical and legal person. 2. All State bodies and bodies of local and regional government are obliged to implement the Constitutional Court’s decisions in matters of their constitutional and legal competence. 3. The Government shall ensure, through a State administration body, implementation of the Constitutional Court’s decisions. 4. The Constitutional Court may designate an authority on which it confers the implementation of its decisions. 5. The Constitutional Court may determine the manner in which its decisions shall be implemented.” Section 62 “1.     Anyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court if he or she considers that a decision of a State body, or local or regional government, or a legal person vested with public authority, concerning his or her rights and obligations, or as regards a suspicion or accusation of a criminal offence, has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms, or his or her right to local or regional government, as guaranteed by the Constitution (hereinafter “constitutional rights”). 2. If another legal remedy exists in respect of the violation of the constitutional rights [complained of], a constitutional complaint may be lodged only after that remedy has been used. ...” Section 63 “1.   The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint even before all legal remedies have been exhausted if the relevant court has failed to decide within a reasonable time on the rights or obligations of a party [to the proceedings], or as regards a suspicion or accusation of a criminal offence, or if the contested decision grossly violates constitutional rights and it is completely clear that the complainant will face serious and irreparable consequences if Constitutional Court proceedings are not instituted. 2. If it finds the constitutional complaint for failure to decide within a reasonable time referred to in paragraph 1 [above] well-founded, the Constitutional Court shall set a time-limit within which the relevant court must decide the case on the merits ... 3. In a decision issued under paragraph 2 [above], the Constitutional Court shall award appropriate compensation to the complainant for the violation of his or her constitutional right ... to a hearing within a reasonable time. The compensation shall be paid from the State budget within three months of the date on which the request for payment is lodged.” Section 71 “1.   [The Constitutional Court] shall examine only the violations of constitutional rights set forth in the constitutional complaint. ...” The Courts Act 39.     The relevant part of the Courts Act ( Zakon o sudovima , Official Gazette no. 28/2013, with further amendments), reads as follows: Section 5 “The courts adjudicate cases on the basis of the Constitution, acquis of the European Union, international agreements, legislation and other sources of law in force.” Constitutional Court Rules 40.   On 23 December 2014 the Constitutional Court issued a decision (Official Gazette no. 2/2015) changing the Rules of the Constitutional Court ( Poslovnik Ustavnog suda Republike Hrvatske , “the Constitutional Court Rules”). The amended section 54(1) introduced a special reference, “U-IIIBi”, to designate proceedings instituted before the Constitutional Court by constitutional complaints alleging the lack of an effective investigation into crimes under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The relevant part of the Constitutional Court Rules now reads: Designating Constitutional Court cases Section 54(1) “The references [used to designate] Constitutional Court cases are the following: ... U-III- proceedings instituted by a constitutional complaint for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution; ... U- IIIBi - proceedings following a constitutional complaint [lodged] prior to the exhaustion of legal remedies regarding failure to conduct an investigation (ineffective investigation) into criminal offences related to Article   2 (right to life) and Article   3 (prohibition of torture) of the Convention; ...” Constitutional Court’s case-law 41.     In decisions U-I-892/1994 of 14 November 1994 (Official Gazette no. 83/1994) and U-I-130/1995 of 20 February 1995 (Official Gazette no.   112/1995) the Constitutional Court held that all rights guaranteed in the Convention and its Protocols were also to be considered constitutional rights, having legal force equal to the provisions of the Constitution. 42.     On 14 May 2001 in case no. U-III-791/1997 the Constitutional Court accepted a constitutional complaint concerning a violation of the complainant’s right to life. The relevant part of the decision reads: “Under the [Code of Criminal Procedure], in a situation where the State Attorney is the prosecutor, the injured party has only very limited rights in the proceedings. However, as soon as the State Attorney is no longer a party (if he or she drops the charges), the injured party can act as a subsidiary prosecutor in the proceedings. In other words, when the State Attorney does not appear [as a prosecutor] in the proceedings, the [injured] party is (or can be) the subsidiary prosecutor. This should be, mutatis mutandis , applied in respect of a constitutional complaint. Since the State Attorney cannot lodge a constitutional complaint ... the injured party can represent him or herself. In this case, [the injured party] can lodge a constitutional complaint.” 43.     In decision U-IIIA-232/2003 of 13 February 2004 the Constitutional Court declared a subsidiary prosecutor’s constitutional complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings inadmissible on the grounds that the proceedings at issue had not concerned his civil rights or obligations or any criminal charge against him. The Constitutional Court followed the same approach in decision U-III-2729/2004 of 23 December 2004. 44.     In decision U-IIIVs-3511/2006 of 22 October 2008 the Constitutional Court revised its practice and accepted a constitutional complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings lodged by a subsidiary prosecutor who had not lodged a civil claim in the criminal proceedings. The relevant part of the decision reads: “The approach taken by the lower courts, by which the complainant did not have the right to lodge a length-of-proceedings complaint because she, as a subsidiary prosecutor in the criminal proceedings ... had failed to lodge a civil claim ... reflects the approach previously taken by this court. ... [T]he Constitutional Court considers that that approach should be revisited on the grounds of public interest and the protection of victims’ rights. ... Therefore, the Constitutional Court considers that the question of whether a subsidiary prosecutor in criminal proceedings has a right to have the competent court decide within a reasonable time [whether] the defendant be found guilty and punished in accordance with the law, cannot be considered only from the perspective of the civil claim which the injured party may have against the defendant. Such a restrictive approach would deprive the subsidiary prosecutor [of the ability] to exercise his or her right to bring a subsidiary prosecution, and would run contrary to the principle that rights should be effective ...” 45.     On 13 November 2014, in decision U-III-6559/2010 (Official Gazette no. 142/14), the Constitutional Court, referring to the standards for an effective investigation outlined in the Court’s judgments in Dolenec v. Croatia (no. 25282/06, §§ 120-130 and 143-145, 26 November 2009), Gladović v. Croatia (no. 28847/08, §§ 39-40 and 46-49, 10 May 2011), Mađer v. Croatia (no. 56185/07, §§ 105-107 and 111-112, 21 June 2011), Đurđević v. Croatia (no. 52442/09, §§ 72-74, 77 and 83-85, ECHR 2011) (extracts) and V.D. v. Croatia (no. 15526/10, §§ 60-65, 8 November 2011), for the first time accepted a constitutional complaint concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the complainant’s alleged ill-treatment. In addition to finding a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention, the court awarded damages to the complainant and ordered the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia to conduct an effective investigation into the alleged ill-treatment. On the Constitutional Court’s website it is indicated that, by the decision in question, its case-law had been aligned with the Court’s case-law under Article 3 of the Convention. 46.     In decisions U-IIIBi-7367/2014 of 15 December 2015, U-IIIBi-2698/2016 of 14 December 2016, U-IIIBi-4690/2015 of 11 January 2017, U-IIIBi-3699/2015 of   30 March 2017, U-IIIBi-2615/2017 of 13 September 2017, U-IIIBi-2349/2013 of 10 January 2018, U-IIIBi-886/2018 of 10   July   2018, U-IIIBi-1385/2018 of 18 December 2018, U-IIIBi-1066/2015 of 3 April 2019, U-IIIBi-863/2019 of 9 July 2019 and U-IIIBi-4222/2018 of 5 November 2019 – all published on the Constitutional Court’s website – the Constitutional Court examined constitutional complaints concerning the alleged lack of an effective investigation under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. 47.     In particular, in decision U-IIIBi-7367/2014 of 15 December 2015 the Constitutional Court examined the effectiveness of an investigation into the fate of the complainant’s brother, who disappeared in 1992 after being taken from his workplace by Croatian police officers and transported to Bosnia and Herzegovina. After obtaining observations from the competent State Attorney’s Office on the measures taken in the investigation, and reiterating the principles outlined in the case of Jelić v. Croatia (no.   57856/11, §§ 72-77, 12 June 2014), the Constitutional Court concluded that in that particular case the investigation following the complainant’s criminal complaint filed in 2013 that a war crime had been committed against her brother could not be considered ineffective. The relevant part of its decision reads: “The complainant filed a criminal complaint on 2 December 2013 against unknown perpetrators, alleging that a war crime against the civilian population had been committed against her brother. ... After receiving the complainant’s criminal complaint on 2 December 2013 the [competent] State Attorney’s Office raised numerous enquiries (described in detail in its observations – see [above]), of which the complainant was informed ... According to the [competent] State Attorney’s Office, the enquiries are still ongoing. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Constitutional Court deems that up to the date of this decision the investigation into the death of the complainant’s brother under Article 21 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the Convention (procedural aspect) cannot be considered ineffective. Nor can it be said that the complainant did not have effective remedies at her disposal to protect against an ineffective investigation into the death of her brother under Article 13 of the Convention, as demonstrated by the constitutional complaint being examined in these Constitutional Court proceedings.” The Constitutional Court further declared inadmissible the part of the complaint concerning the investigation into the complainant’s brother’s disappearance, concluding that it had no competence to examine the matter. The relevant part of the decision reads: “In her constitutional complaint the complainant claims that during August 1992 she reported her brother’s disappearance to the Red Cross. On 1 September 2006 she also reported that disappearance to the [police]. However, the evidence collected undoubtedly points to the conclusion that the complainant’s brother G.Đ. disappeared on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and not Croatia ... Moreover, the decision of 16 November 2001 declaring him dead ... establishes Bosnia and Herzegovina as the place of his death. In view of this state of affairs, there cannot have been a so-called forceful disappearance of the complainant’s brother on Croatian territory.” 48.     In decisions U-IIIBi-2698/2016 of 14 December 2016, U-IIIBi-4690/2015 of 11 January 2017 and U-IIIBi-3699/2015 of 30 March 2017, the Constitutional Court’s analysis of the effectiveness of investigations under the procedural scope of Article 2 of the Convention consisted of noting that the competent prosecutor was raising numerous enquiries after receiving the criminal complaint, of which the complainants were or were not informed, and that having regard to all the circumstances of the case the investigation up to the date of the decision could not be considered ineffective. The court also held that it could not be said that the complainants had not had effective remedies at their disposal to protect against an ineffective investigation under Article 13 of the Convention, as demonstrated by their constitutional complaints being examined in the Constitutional Court proceedings. 49.     In decision U-IIIBi-2615/2017 of 13 September 2017 the Constitutional Court found that an investigation into the complainant’s mother’s death in 2009 could not be considered ineffective. It noted that the complainant had contacted the competent State Attorney’s Office more than a year after his mother’s death, alleging that he had reason to believe that her long-term partner had hurt her, but without providing any specific information. The competent State Attorney’s Office had taken adequate measures to verify those allegations, and the evidence collected indicated that she had died of a stroke and that the hospital had given all the medical documentation to the complainant. The Constitutional Court reiterated that the State had an obligation to conduct an effective investigation under Article 2 of the Convention where there were reasons to believe that a person had died in suspicious circumstances. Even though the complainant had been instructed by the competent State Attorney’s Office to file a criminal complaint, he had never done so, nor had he ever explained why he believed his mother’s death to be suspicious. If the complainant had any specific information in that regard, he could still lodge a criminal complaint. 50.     In decision U-IIIBi-2349/2013 of 10 January 2018, concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the complainant’s alleged ill-treatment by police officers, the Constitutional Court ruled in the complainant’s favour. It examined the case under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention and found that the steps taken by the police and the State Attorney’s Office had fallen short of the necessary procedural requirements. On the basis of the Constitutional Court’s findings, the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia resumed its investigation into the applicant’s complaint. A number of witnesses, including the complainant, were summoned for questioning in February 2018 (see D.K. v. Croatia , (dec.), no. 28416/14, §§   31-33, 26 June 2018). 51.     In decision U-IIIBi-886/2018 of 10 July 2018 the Constitutional Court examined a constitutional complaint concerning police ill-treatment and the lack of an effective investigation into the matter. Noting that an investigation was underway following the complainant’s criminal complaint of 17 November 2017 regarding the conduct of police officers towards him, the Constitutional Court concluded that the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention has not been violated. Two Constitutional Court judges gave a dissenting opinion to that decision. They did not agree that the mere fact that the competent authorities were examining the complainant’s criminal complaint meant that the investigation into his alleged ill-treatment by the police had been effective. They noted that on 20 August 2017 the complainant had explicitly told the deputy prosecutor and the investigating judge that police officers had beaten him up and had showed them the injuries inflicted on his torso. When he had been taken to the police station the day before he had been examined by a doctor, who had reported that he did not have any injuries. It was therefore credible that he had sustained those injuries on 20   August   2017 while being held at the police station. The two judges further noted that instead of launching the investigation of their own motion immediately after learning of the complainant’s credible assertion that he had been ill-treated, the competent authorities had only started investigating his allegations in November 2017, when he had filed a criminal complaint about the matter. At that point it had no longer been possible to examine the nature and origin of his injuries. 52.     In decision U-IIIBi-1385/2018 of 18 December 2018 the Constitutional Court found that an investigation into the death of the complainants’ six-year-old daughter and sister near the border with Serbia after an alleged pushback of the family by Croatian police officers had been effective. It found that the complainants had filed a criminal complaint in December 2017, and that the competent investigative authorities had then examined all possible leads and established that there was no reasonable suspicion that Croatian police officers had committed criminal offences against the complainants and the late child. The Constitutional Court found that the complainants’ criminal complaint had been rejected within the statutory time-limit, and that the complainants had then taken over the prosecution. The complainants had had an effective remedy for their complaint concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation; they could seek information from the competent State Attorney about the measures taken in relation to their criminal complaint, and had also been able to lodge a constitutional complaint, which had been examined. Three Constitutional Court judges gave a dissenting opinion to that decision. They held that the examination of the effectiveness of the investigation into the death of a child should not have been reduced to mere procedural formalism. It had been crucial to establish whether the child had crossed the border and entered Croatian territory, and whether Croatian police officers had prevented her from seeking asylum by returning her to Serbia. The three judges noted, inter alia , that the investigating authorities had failed to take into account an important public statement by the Serbian authorities which had been in the case file, had not considered whether the critical event had been recorded on any kind of recording device and had failed to verify the location of the complainants and the police officers involved by using their mobile telephone signals. 53.     In decision U-IIIBi-1066/2015 of 3 April 2019 the Constitutional Court examined the effectiveness of an investigation into the killing of the complainant’s son in 1991 in Vukovar. After obtaining observations from the competent State Attorney’s Office on the measures taken in the investigation, and reiterating the principles outlined in the case of Milić and Others v. Croatia (no. 38766/15, §§ 44-49, 25 January 2018), the Constitutional Court concluded that in that particular case the investigation could not be considered ineffective. The relevant part of the Constitutional Court’s decision reads: “The Constitutional Court firstly notes that the Croatian authorities are not responsible for the death of the complainant’s son. ... In this particular case the Constitutional Court finds it undisputed that the complainant’s son died on 20 November 1991 in circumstances which led the competent authorities to conduct a thorough and effective investigation in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court finds that the complainant’s son died during the war on the territory initially occupied, which was until 15 January 1998 under the governance of the United Nations Transitional Administration in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (“the UNTAES”) on the basis of the United Nations Security Council Resolution of 15 January 1996. Therefore, the Croatian authorities could only have exercised their power over that territory, including by conducting investigations, after 15 January 1998. It is undisputed that after a wide-ranging criminal inspection, the Ministry of Internal Affairs ( Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova ) filed a criminal complaint on 21   September 1995 with the competent State Attorney’s Office against two hundred and thirty-one perpetrators of different criminal offences, including the killing of forty-seven civilians captured at Vukovar Hospital, one of whom was the complainants’ son. It is also undisputed that following the criminal complaint the State Attorney’s Office launched an investigation against one hundred and ninety-eight individuals indicated in the criminal complaint, whose identities could be established, and that the competent court took certain investigative measures, ordered detention and issued arrest warrants against those individuals. It is also undisputed that after the investigation was completed the criminal proceedings were discontinued in respect of one hundred and eighty-eight individuals on the basis of the General Amnesty Act ( Zakon o općem oprostu ), for the criminal offence of armed rebellion covered by that Act. An indictment was lodged against the remaining accused individuals for war crimes, of which the complainant’s son was also a victim. The Constitutional Court finds that the criminal proceedings were discontinued ... by a decision of 29 January 2004 ... The case file contains no evidence, and the complainant [does not state] in her constitutional complaint that she appealed against that decision... On the other hand, the investigation against the remaining suspects was continued for war crimes. During the investigation over two hundred and twenty individuals were questioned and the available documents were obtained. The investigation led to an indictment for war crimes. During the proceedings the competent authorities established cooperation with the International Criminal Court for Yugoslavia and the competent Serbian authorities. During the investigation no facts were established and no evidence was found to show that a particular individual or individuals were directly responsible for the death of the complainant’s son. These circumstances can surely be explained by objective reasons, caused primarily due to the war situation, destruction of evidence by the perpetrators during the occupation of Vukovar and the removal of traces of crime before the peaceful integration of Podunavlje, and the fact that the suspects were not available to the competent authorities and that there is an international arrest warrant issued against them. The complainant did not set forth in her constitutional complaint any specific evidence or suggestions that the authorities could undertake to conduct an effective investigation, nor did she claim that any of the possible perpetrators were on Croatian territory. The Constitutional Court notes that the suspects in the criminal proceedings in question are unavailable to the Croatian authorities and that the accused persons who live in Serbia and who have Serbian citizenship cannot be extradited (see Nježić and Štimac v. Croatia , no. 29823/13, § 45, 9 April 2015), and the Croatian authorities cannot be responsible for that. As to any obligation on Croatia to ask Serbia to prosecute the criminal offences in question, the Constitutional Court points out that criminal proceedings against twenty-four people have already been conducted in Serbia and that eight ... have been sentenced to imprisonment ranging from five to twenty years. In addition, three individuals were tried before the International Criminal Court for Yugoslavia for the murder of prisoners of war in Ovčara, and two ... were sentenced to ten and twenty years’ imprisonment. As to the possible perpetrators who have so far not been prosecuted, and who could be residing on Serbian territory, [it should be noted that] close family members of victims could file a criminal complaint with the Serbian Prosecutor for War Crimes, which is competent to deal with serious violations of international humanitarian law (ibid. § 44). Additionally, the complainant could have made enquiries with the Serbian authorities and made her complaints about their work, and could have also lodged an application with the Court against Serbia, if she considered that her Convention rights had been violated by that country (ibid, § 68). In conclusion, the Constitutional Court finds that, regardless of the seriousness and sensitivity of the investigation and prosecution of war crimes, Article 21 of the Constitution obliges the State to perform this task effectively. However, having regard to all the circumstances of this particular case, particularly the fact that the investigation is still pending and that there are a large number of criminal proceedings pending before the Croatian courts for war crimes, the Constitutional Court considers that in this particular case, for the moment, there is no negligence or unwillingness on the part of the competent authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the death of the complainant’s son under Article 21 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the Convention.” 54.     In decision U-IIIBi-863/2019 of 9 July 2019 the Constitutional Court examined the effectiveness of an investigation into an explosion which had occurred at the complainant’s workplace in 2006 during which he had sustained life-threatening injuries. In that case the police drafted a report on the accident in 2006, but the competent authorities did not institute any criminal proceedings. In 2016 the complainant filed a criminal complaint against his company employer and two other individuals, which was eventually dismissed on the grounds that the prosecution had become time-barred in 2011. The Constitutional Court examined the complaint in the light of the principles outlined in the case of Fergec v. Croatia (no.   68516/14, §§ 21-22 and §§ 32-33, 9 May 2017). It found that the complainant could have sought protection both in the civil and criminal courts. As he did not lodge his constitutional complaint until February 2019, the Constitutional Court held that it could not examine any failure of the competent authorities to conduct a criminal investigation between 2006, when the accident had occurred, and 2011, when the prosecution of the criminal offence had become time-barred. The complainant had not used any civil remedies for his situation, even though his employer’s liability for the damage he had suffered could have been examined under tort law. The Constitutional Court concluded that the complainant, by not instituting civil proceedings for damages and by only filing a criminal complaint ten years after the date of the accident, when the prosecution had already become time-barred, had brought about a situation in which the authorities could no longer investigate the matter. It concluded that there had been no breach of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention. 55.     In decision U-IIIBi-4222/2018 of 5 November 2019 the Constitutional Court accepted a constitutional complaint concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the killing of the complainants’ family member, who in December 1991 had been taken from his home by members of the Croatian military police to