CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 1 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD8BF637E { 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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3B786E84 { width:22.69pt; display:inline-block } .sEC241A8 { width:159.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9C6A147F { width:184.21pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 21024/08 Gennadiy Vasilyevich PANOV and Natalya Aleksandrovna PANOVA against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1   December 2020 as a Chamber composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Dmitry Dedov,   Georges Ravarani,   María Elósegui,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 April 2008, 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.     The applicants, Mr Gennadiy Vasilyevich Panov and Ms Natalya Aleksandrovna Panova, are Russian nationals who were both born in 1962 and live in the settlement of Arta in the Chita Region. They are represented before the Court by Mr M. Bereza, a lawyer practising in Khabarovsk. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicants’ son’s death 4.     The applicants, husband and wife, are the parents of the late Mr Igor Panov. 5.     Prior to his conscription, a medical panel examined the applicants’ son to determine whether he was fit for service. It assigned him category “B”, meaning “fit for military service with minor restrictions” as he suffered from dystonia, connective tissue dysplasia syndrome and was slightly underweight. 6.     On 11 November 2004 Igor Panov was drafted into the army, having been assigned to military unit no. 23506 in the village of Pereyaslovka in the Khabarovsk Region. On admission to the unit on 16   November 2004 the applicants’ son was examined by doctors, who confirmed the initial diagnosis of dystonia and his being underweight. He was placed under close medical supervision in respect of his low body weight and prescribed an enriched diet. 7.     On 17 January 2005 the head of the military unit sent a group of soldiers, including the applicants’ son, to an airfield situated outside the military unit. During their deployment to the airfield, the soldiers were to receive packed meals. It appears from later statements that officers also brought additional food and distributed it among the soldiers. 8.     On 19 January 2005 Pte Panov was placed on a regular diet, since he had gained slightly over two kilograms since the start of his service. The following day he fell ill, experiencing severe coughing fits. On 21   January   2005 his condition worsened, with the coughing becoming more serious and fever adding to the cough. Despite this, Igor continued performing his daily military tasks. 9.     On 22 January 2005, during the morning line-up, Major M. noticed the applicants’ son’s poor state of health and asked him about it. The latter replied that he was feeling well and did not have any health problems. After the daily tasks had been assigned, a number of soldiers complained to Senior Warrant Officer S. that the applicants’ son was seriously ill. At approximately 1 p.m. Pte Panov was taken to see the head of the medical unit, Captain C. A medical examination revealed that he had a fever of 39.8 o C, an elevated pulse and respiratory rate and high blood pressure. The preliminary diagnosis was “acute respiratory disease, intoxication syndrome”. After noticing redness in the patient’s throat and given his complaints of fever, fatigue and coughing up blood-streaked sputum, Captain C. did not rule out that he was suffering from pneumonia. As his condition was considered “mildly severe”, the applicants’ son was immediately taken to the Pereyaslovka District Hospital. A chest X-ray performed at the hospital showed that he had acute bilateral pneumonia. That diagnosis led to him being transferred to Circuit Military Clinical Hospital no. 301 in Khabarovsk. The transfer took place about two hours later because the ambulance that was meant to take him had broken down and it had been necessary to find a private car. 10.     The trip to the hospital in Khabarovsk took an hour and a half. On admission Igor Panov was examined by the attending doctor. Another chest X-ray was also performed. His condition was found to be serious. When questioned by the doctor about the origin of his illness, the patient replied that he had been exposed to excessive cold when refuelling aeroplanes with liquid nitrogen. That evening the head of the respiratory department of the hospital was called to attend to the applicants’ son. After examining him, the department head diagnosed him with a “severe form of community ‑ acquired bilateral polysegmental pneumonia, infectious-toxic shock syndrome, II   degree respiratory failure, malnutrition [and] myocardiodystrophy”. He was prescribed treatment. 11.     At 5.40 a.m. on 23 January 2005 the applicants’ son died in the resuscitation unit. 12.   The following day the applicants received a death certificate which indicated that their son had died from “a non-work-related accident” and that the autopsy had shown that the following sequence of medical conditions had led to his death: acute respiratory failure, intoxication and multifocal bilateral pneumonia. Investigation into the death Internal inquiry 13.     An internal inquiry initiated in respect of the applicants’ son’s death led to a decision imposing a disciplinary sanction on the head of the medical service, Captain C., and the head of the airfield, Major M., for “lack of medical supervision over soldiers’ health”. The inquiry held that Captain C., aware of the applicants’ son’s malnutrition problem, had failed to issue an official order placing him on an enriched diet and Major M. had failed to organise a system of effective health checks. At the same time, the investigator noted that despite the absence of such an order, Pte Panov had been provided with additional food, his weight had been checked daily and he had gained almost two and a half kilograms since the start of his service. The conclusion of the inquiry was that the applicants’ son’s death was the result of his failing to promptly complain about his illness and the absence of effective supervision over his health. Criminal investigation 14.     At the same time a criminal investigation was opened into Igor Panov’s death. On 25 January 2005 an investigator requested a forensic medical examination to determine the cause of death. 15.     The experts concluded in a report in February 2005 that Pte Panov’s death had resulted from acute intoxication by inhalation of a substance (vapour or droplets) containing petrochemicals. The experts believed that the soldier had been a victim of so-called “benzene” pneumonia. He had had no other conditions which could have led to his death. The experts also noted that his late request for medical assistance and, consequently, the late diagnosis of the pneumonia, had led to the late start of the specific antibacterial therapy. That had negatively affected the prognosis of the pulmonary illness, as an eight-hour delay in prescribing the antibacterial therapy had worsened the prognosis and outcome of the illness. 16.     On 28 March 2005, after considering the results of the forensic medical examinations and questioning a large number of witnesses, including the applicants’ son’s commanding officers (Captain C., Major M., and others), his fellow soldiers and the doctors who had attended to him before his death, the senior investigator closed the criminal investigation. The investigator reasoned that there was no evidence of a criminal act or conduct as the applicants’ son’s death had resulted from acute poisoning by inhalation of petrochemicals and his late request for medical assistance. The decision was based, to a significant extent, on the statements of the witnesses, who had all testified that the commanding officers had instructed the soldiers, including the applicant’s son, on the safety regulations established for working with fuels at the airfield; checked that the regulations were being complied with; approached the applicants’ son with questions about his state of health; asked him to stay inside if he felt unfit; urged him to visit a doctor; and offered assistance. However, the applicants’ son had refused until he had collapsed in a barrack and had been transported to the hospital. 17 .     On the same day the investigator issued a report addressed to the head of military unit no. 23506 requesting that the deficiencies in the organisation of the military service be remedied. The report, in so far as relevant, read as follows: “In violation of Articles 75, 77 [and] 79 of the Military Service Charter the head of the fuel refilling group, Major M., did not fully instruct the staff on the safety regulations when using [fuel] and did not take all measures to prevent the death of a staff member. On 19 January 2005, when assigning tasks (cleaning of the adjacent territory, cleaning of the premises) to the staff members of the group, including [Pte Panov], Major M. did not fully verify that safe conditions had been created for the work and that his subordinates had fully understood the safety regulations and acquired the full set of practical skills to adhere to those regulations. Major M. did not take all possible measures to safeguard and promote soldiers’ health [and] improve the medical assistance provided to staff members, including [Pte Panov]; when instructing the staff members [he] did not order them to immediately seek medical assistance in the medical service of the unit if they felt sick, and [he] did not [warn] them of the consequences of possible violations of the safety regulations when using [fuel]; that [failure] led to a violation of the safety regulations by Igor Panov when he worked with the [fuel]. The head of the medical service of the unit, Captain C., did not organise medical assistance for the staff members of the group, in violation of Articles 112 [and] 341 of the Military Service Charter, did not participate in setting a diet for “underweight soldiers”, [and] did not assess the illnesses of the staff members. There is no monthly data on the assessment of [illnesses] with proposals for [their] prevention ... and the improvement of sanitary conditions in the unit. [He] also did not carry out daily medical examinations of the staff members during their [military] service and daily tasks. There are also no lists or schedules of examinations of soldiers working in potentially dangerous conditions [or] of soldiers under close medical supervision.” 18.     On an unspecified date the investigator’s decision of 28   March   2005 was set aside and the criminal investigation resumed. 19.     On 15 June 2006 the applicants were assigned victim status in the criminal proceedings and informed of their procedural rights. 20.     On 5 July 2006 another forensic medical examination of the applicant’s son’s body was performed by the Khabarovsk Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations. The expert panel, comprising a number of leading specialists in the fields of medicine, toxicology and pathological anatomy, concluded that there was no evidence that the applicant’s son’s death had resulted from intoxication by petrochemicals. The experts insisted that the results of laboratory examinations of the tissues of the applicants’ son’s body had not revealed the presence of any toxic substances, including petrochemicals, and that there was no link between the deceased’s pneumonia and his work with fuels. The final conclusion of the expert panel was: “... the examination [and] treatment of Igor Panov during his stay in the hospital were complete and corresponded to the seriousness of the patient’s condition. Resuscitation actions were also carried out in full, in accordance with conventional standards. It follows that the patient’s death was directly linked to the severity of the illness against the background of [the patient’s] immunodeficiency. However, there were deficiencies in medical assistance in the period preceding [the patient’s] admission to hospital no. 301, including the assistance provided in the medical service of the military unit: deficiencies in the organisation of the medical preventive measures, late admission of [the victim] for inpatient treatment, [incorrect] filing of medical documents, unsuitable transport of [the victim to the hospital], late request for medical assistance by the patient, [and] limited diagnostic possibilities. The above-mentioned deficiencies could have had a decisive impact on the unfavourable outcome of an illness such as acute bilateral polysegmental distal pneumonia, which also affected the middle lobe and lingual segment when the proper complex treatment had not been promptly prescribed. At the same time, the present expert panel considers it necessary to note that even in circumstances where timely and appropriate medical assistance in specialised hospitals is provided to patients with such a serious form of pneumonia as Igor Panov had, a favourable outcome is not always possible in view of the fulminate and aggressive nature of the inflammatory process which leads to complications such as the development of immunodeficiency, clinical picture of bacteremic shock, etc.” 21.     In November 2006 the Main State Centre of Forensic Medical and Criminological Examinations in Moscow performed a complex medical examination intended to resolve the differences between the findings of the two previous expert examinations. The Moscow experts held that the cause of Pte Panov’s death had been staphylococcal multifocal bilateral pneumonia. They found that his diagnosis and treatment had been correct, and that the medical assistance provided to him in the medical service of the military unit and the hospital had been adequate. Lastly, the experts confirmed that there had been no objective evidence of the applicants’ son’s intoxication with petrochemicals, finding that the etiological cause of the pneumonia had been staphylococcus aureus bacteria. 22.     On 25 December 2006 the investigator closed the criminal proceedings for lack of evidence of a criminal act or conduct leading to the applicants’ son’s death. Tort action against military officials 23 .     In 2006 the applicants lodged an action against military unit   no.   23506, seeking compensation for their son’s death. 24 .     On 20 February 2007 the Lazo District Court of the Khabarovsk Region partly allowed the action, awarding both applicants 300,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (about 8,700 euros (EUR)) in compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage and RUB 21,936 (about EUR 635) in pecuniary damage and court expenses. After examining a large number of statements made by the military and civilian personnel of the unit, as well as the expert reports and results of various additional forensic medical tests, including those prepared within the framework of the criminal investigation, the District Court made the following findings: “The court considers that the administration of the military unit did not take measures to preserve and improve soldier Igor Panov’s health. The court’s findings are based on the following: It appears from the meaning of the regulations examined that Igor Panov, having been registered as an underweight person, should not have been assigned to a task of special gas production ... and should not have been deprived of a normal diet and provided with packed meals in violation of the law. Those actions violated the soldier’s right to health. Witness [Captain] C., heard in open court, explained that he was the head of the medical service of military unit no. 23506 ... He had not performed a medical examination of [the latter soldier] on his admission to the military unit as he had been on annual leave ... After returning to the unit after leave, Captain C. had not paid attention to [Pte Panov’s] state of health. He had subsequently learned that [that conscript] was underweight and that it had in fact been necessary to provide him with additional food, which had not been done and for that failure he had been punished after [Pte Panov’s] death ... On 23   January   2005, at 5 a.m., Igor Panov had died. The autopsy which [Captain] C. had attended had revealed pneumonia. On the way to [the hospital] in Khabarovsk Pte Panov had told [Captain C.] that he had not informed [the authorities] of the onset of the illness as he had feared being transferred to another military unit. [Captain] C. considers that the cause of [the soldier’s] illness was his possible exposure to the cold. Staphylococcus bacteria could have pushed the illness even further leading to death, in view of [Pte Panov’s] weakened immune system. Witness C.’s statements confirm that Igor Panov was not subjected to regular medical supervision, [and] that his physical capacity to work and his need for additional food were not properly assessed. ... The cause of Igor Panov’s death was staphylococcal bilateral pneumonia with multiple confluent foci, abscess formation and areas of pulmonary tissue destruction accompanied by bilateral serohaemorrhagic pleurisy, purulent-necrotic tracheobronchitis complicated by infectious-toxic shock [syndrome], renal shock, brain oedema, myocardiodystrophy, acute heart failure, lung oedema and acute respiratory failure. [The patient’s] diagnosis pronounced in hospital no.   301 on 22   January 2005 should be considered the correct one corresponding to the pathology of the patient. The treatment afforded to Igor Panov should be considered appropriate. Neither the material of the criminal case file nor the material of the internal inquiry contains any evidence revealing the possible place or time when [Pte Panov] could have been intoxicated with petrochemicals. The two above-mentioned expert reports deny the possibility of intoxication, which the court considers to be the most reliable evidence establishing the cause of Igor Panov’s death. The court disregards the expert opinion which diagnosed [the deceased] with benzene pneumonia, as that opinion was not confirmed by any other evidence examined by the court. As noted in the service capacity report, Igor Panov was found fit for military service; that means that [his] state of health made him capable of performing military service. In the court hearing, the representatives of the defendants did not deny and dispute that Igor Panov had been healthy on his arrival at the military unit. As noted in report no. 11 of 24 January 2005 issued in military unit no.   23506, [Pte Panov]   ... was excluded from the unit’s personnel list ... in view of his death connected to his performance of military service . Taking into account the above-mentioned circumstances of the case, the court concludes that Igor Panov’s death resulted from the failure of the administration of military unit no. 23506 to perform their official duties [and] to create a safe environment preserving the life and limb of the soldier, which could be seen from the following: Assigning [Pte Panov], an underweight person, to tasks of working with equipment and cleaning snow even though he ... should have been assigned to the lighter regime of military service until his body weight reached the required level. That conclusion is also supported by the finding of the medical expert ... who also did not rule out that the conditions of military service during [the soldier’s] adaptation (general exposure to the cold and insufficient food) were the factors behind the development of the illness. Poor performance of official duties by medical staff: lack of daily medical examinations of the military staff, lack of individual diets for underweight soldiers; absence of a schedule for medical examinations of soldiers working in conditions which could have negatively affected them and soldiers on the list for regular medical check-ups ([Pte Panov] was one of those individuals as he was placed on the list on his arrival at the unit). Moreover, the court accepts the forensic medical expert report that Igor Panov’s death was directly linked to the seriousness of the illness developed against the background of his immunodeficiency, which is confirmed by [the deceased’s] diagnosis and the accompanying illnesses from which [the latter] suffered and which, in the court’s opinion, also contributed to the development of [the main] illness. The formal fault of State officials is also evidenced by the report [of 28   March   2005] requesting the elimination of the reasons and conditions contributing to the commission of offences. Moreover, the fault of State officials is evidenced by the sanction imposed on the head of the medical service, Captain C., for lack of control over the management and performance of medical supervision of military servicemen, and on Major M. for lack of supervision over the health of his subordinates. The court disagrees with the respondents’ position that Igor Panov hid his disease and that this had caused his death. The above circumstance is refuted by the evidence before the court showing that Major M. was aware of [Pte Panov’s] condition, because he had asked [him] about it twice during the morning instructions; however, he did not take measures to send [the soldier] to the medical service; on the contrary, [he had] involved him in work activities, including cleaning snow outside during the winter period and working with technologies, during which time [the latter] got hypothermia. ...” 25 .     On 13 July 2007 the Khabarovsk Regional Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal against the judgment of 20   February 2007, endorsing the District Court’s reasoning that “the commanding officers’ failure to effectively perform their official duties to safeguard the soldier’s health had led to the development of the serious illness, its late discovery and subsequent failure to promptly provide medical assistance and resulting death.” Reopening of the criminal investigation 26.     On 7 December 2007 the Krasnorechenskiy Garrison Military Court (“the Military Court”) allowed a complaint by the applicants about the investigator’s decision of 25 December 2006. It quashed the decision as unlawful and ill-founded, noting the judgments of the Lazo District and Khabarovsk Regional Courts, and ordered the military prosecution authorities to remedy the deficiencies in the previous investigation. 27.     On 24 February 2008 the investigator closed the criminal investigation into the applicants’ son’s death, finding no prima facie evidence of a criminal offence. That decision was annulled by the head of the investigation department of the military prosecutor’s office and the criminal investigation was resumed. The investigator was to assess, in particular, the lawfulness of the commanding officers’ decisions to assign the applicants’ son to the airfield, given his low body weight, and their failure to provide him with additional food and place him under regular medical supervision. 28.     On 14 April 2008 the investigator held that the applicants’ son’s death had not been linked to any criminal act (or inaction) and discontinued the criminal proceedings. Responding to complaints by the applicants, on 1   August 2008 the head of the investigating department annulled the decision of 14 April 2008. He once again noted that the investigator should subject actions by the commanding officers to a more thorough assessment. That finding was confirmed three days later by the Military Court. 29.     The next decision to terminate the criminal investigation of 1   September 2008 was declared unlawful by a court judgment of 8   October 2008. 30.     Another decision to close the proceedings, issued by the investigator on 24 October 2008, was also found to be unlawful and unsubstantiated by the Military Court and was quashed on 2   December   2008. 31.     According to the Government, the latest decision to terminate the criminal investigation was issued on 25 October 2009 and was not appealed against. The applicants did not comment or submit further information on the outcome of the criminal investigation. COMPLAINTS 32.     The applicants complained under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention of their son’s death and the authorities’ failure to investigate it effectively. 33.     The applicants further complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that they had been victims of inhuman and degrading treatment as a result of their son’s death in the army and the authorities’ reluctance to investigate it. THE LAW Submissions of the parties The Government 34.     The Government submitted, with reference to the Court’s case-law (citing Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002 ‑ I; Vo v. France [GC], no.   53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VII; and Öneryıldız v.   Turkey   [GC], no.   48939/99, §§ 91, 95-96 ECHR 2004-XII), that in the sphere of negligence, a civil or disciplinary remedy could suffice. 35.     The applicants had brought a civil action against military unit   no.   23506 and the Far East Military District seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of funeral, transport and postal expenses. On 20 February 2007 their claims had been partially allowed. The applicants had been awarded RUB 300,000 (about EUR   8,700) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and their costs and expenses had been reimbursed in the amount of RUB 21,936 (about EUR   635). During the proceedings, the first-instance court had established the circumstances of the damage caused to the life and health of the applicants’ son during his military service by unlawful actions (or inaction) of the military unit personnel, the cause-and-effect relationship between those unlawful actions and the resulting damage, and the fault of the military unit, as evidenced by the faulty actions of its representatives. 36.     The Government claimed that the applicants had agreed with the above-mentioned judgment and, unlike the respondent military unit, had not appealed against it. During the appeal hearing, the applicants’ representative had asked the court to uphold the first-instance court judgment. 37.     The appellate court had held that the first-instance court had correctly established the relevant circumstances, as it had found that the applicants’ son’s death had resulted from the military unit personnel’s failure to ensure safe conditions of military service. 38.     The Government asserted that the civil proceedings had complied with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention because they had established the circumstances of the applicants’ son’s death and the people whose inaction had caused it, and the applicants had been awarded compensation. They concluded that the national courts had established a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 2 of the Convention and had taken steps to remedy it. The applicants were therefore no longer victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, and their complaints should be dismissed as being inadmissible. The applicants 39.     The applicants submitted that their son had died as a result of the State’s failure to comply with its positive obligation to safeguard lives under Article 2 of the Convention. 40.     They also submitted that the criminal investigation into their son’s death had not been effective. In particular, the investigation had depended on their actions – it had been closed on several occasions and reopened only after their complaints. In addition, they had only been granted victim status a year and a half after the opening of the investigation and could not participate effectively in the investigation during that entire period. 41.     The applicants acknowledged that their civil action had been allowed and that they had received compensation from their son’s military unit. They submitted however that they still had victim status, because the criminal investigation had not established the reasons and circumstances of their son’s death, while the civil proceedings had not had the objective of establishing those reasons and circumstances and could not punish those responsible. The compensation awarded to them could not be considered just satisfaction for the violations of their rights under Article 2 of the Convention. The Court’s assessment 42.     The applicable legal principles have been summarised, albeit in a different context, in Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC] (no.   41720/13, §§   161-163, 25 June 2019), and Vovk and Bogdanov v.   Russia (no. 15613/10, §§   65 and 66, 11   February 2020). The Court also reiterates that in cases concerning unintentional infliction of death and/or lives being put at risk unintentionally, the requirement to have in place an effective judicial system will be satisfied if the legal system affords victims (or their next-of-kin) a remedy in the civil courts, either alone or in conjunction with a remedy in the criminal courts, enabling any responsibility to be established and any appropriate civil redress to be obtained. Where agents of the State or members of certain professions are involved, disciplinary measures may also be envisaged (see Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase , cited above, § 159). 43.     In the circumstances of the present case there was nothing to indicate, and the applicants also never claimed, that their son’s death had resulted from an intentional act. 44.     The facts of the present case show that Russian law offers victims of negligent conduct (or their next of kin) criminal and civil-law remedies, as well as disciplinary measures. In the event that various legal remedies (civil as well as criminal) are available, the Court will consider whether such remedies as are provided for in law and applied in practice, could – taken together – be said to have constituted legal means capable of establishing the facts, holding accountable those at fault and providing appropriate redress to the victim (ibid., § 169). 45.     The applicants used both the criminal and civil-law remedies. They insisted that only a criminal investigation could have allowed the circumstances and reasons of their son’s death to be established, as required by Article 2 of the Convention, but that in their case it had had numerous deficiencies and had eventually been terminated. 46.     The Court notes that the authorities promptly initiated a full-scale criminal investigation to assess whether criminal negligence had caused the applicants’ son’s death. A criminal investigation is generally capable of establishing the facts and identifying and punishing the perpetrators, if any (compare with a pre-investigation inquiry in Fanziyeva v. Russia , no.   41675/08, §   53, with further references, 18 June 2015). The investigator took witness statements from those involved and obtained a number of expert reports. Based on the evidence collected, no elements of criminal liability were established, although a number of deficiencies in the organisation of the applicants’ son’s military service and the medical assistance provided to him were identified. The investigator brought those deficiencies to the attention of the military unit and requested that they be remedied (see paragraph 17 above). 47.     The Court sees the reason behind the applicants’ claims about serious deficiencies in the criminal investigation, such as the late granting of victim status to the applicants (one and a half years after the opening of the investigation), the repeated reopening of the criminal investigation on grounds of unlawfulness and ill-foundedness of the decisions to terminate the investigation, and the protracted duration of that investigation as a result (about five years overall). 48.     However, as noted above, the applicants’ son’s death did not result from an intentional act. Also, in the present case there were no exceptional circumstances still requiring a criminal investigation to be pursued, such as where a life was lost or put at risk because of the conduct of a public authority going beyond an error of judgment or carelessness (see Vovk and Bogdanov , cited above, §§ 64-66). 49.     The Court has held that the possibility of obtaining compensation for the death of a person in civil or administrative proceedings might generally, and in normal circumstances, constitute an adequate and sufficient remedy (see Alp v. Turkey (dec.), no. 3757/09, §§ 27-33, 9   September 2013; Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no.   24014/05, § 131, 14   April 2015; and Vovk and Bogdanov , cited above, § 66). 50.     The applicants had and made use of the right to bring a civil action to have the liability for the death of their son established and to seek compensation in that respect (see paragraph 23 above). 51.     As to their argument that the civil proceedings were not an effective means of establishing the circumstances of their son’s death and the responsibility of the people involved, the Court notes that civil proceedings are a standard method of challenging negligent conduct and practices of State authorities (see Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, 11 January 2000). The applicants did not substantiate their argument that such proceedings would generally provide no possibility of effective redress. 52.     The decision to terminate the criminal proceedings in the present case only excluded the criminal liability of the military personnel involved and did not exclude potential civil liability (see A.V. v. Estonia (dec.), no.   3853/14, § 69, 29   March 2016, and Dumpe v. Latvia (dec.), no.   71506/13, §   64, 16 January 2018). 53 .     The Court notes that in the present case the applicants were not debarred from bringing a civil action by operation of law (contrast Tarariyeva v. Russia , no. 4353/03, § 97, ECHR 2006 ‑ XV (extracts)), and that their action was not bound to fail (ibid., § 101). The civil courts, as is apparent from their decisions (see paragraphs 24-25 above), were not constrained by the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings and were free to examine the facts in the light of the evidence presented before them, including the material of the internal inquiry and criminal investigation, such as expert reports (see Dumpe , cited above, § 67). There is also nothing to indicate that, for any reason, the applicants were unable to effectively participate in the civil proceedings (ibid., § 68, and Kołaczyk and Kwiatkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34215/11, § 49, 22 October 2013). The national courts established the relevant facts, found the military unit personnel liable in negligence for the applicants’ son’s death, and awarded compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. 54.     As for the amount of compensation awarded to the applicants, the Court reiterates that reparation for the damage caused should be comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for instance, Firstov v. Russia , no. 42119/04, § 35, 20   February 2014, and Mindrova v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 32454/06, §§   24 and 25, 31   January 2017). However, the Court is of the opinion that in the present case the applicants cannot claim that the amount of compensation awarded was insufficient, as they themselves did not appeal against the first-instance court judgment (see Alp , cited above, § 36). 55.     The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see Scordino v.   Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 180, ECHR 2006 ‑ V; Gäfgen v.   Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 115, ECHR 2010; Nada v.   Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 128, ECHR 2012; and Blyudik v. Russia , no.   46401/08, §§ 49-50, 25 June 2019 ). The Court considers that in the present case the national authorities acknowledged in substance a violation of the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention and provided compensation in that regard. Therefore, the applicants are no longer victims of the alleged violation of the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. This complaint should be dismissed under Article   35   §§   3   (a) and 4 of the Convention. 56.     As to the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court refers to its findings about the civil proceedings (see paragraph 53 above) and concludes that in the present case they were an effective remedy for establishing the circumstances of the applicants’ son’s death and the responsibility of the military personnel for it. The applicants’ complaint under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention is therefore manifestly ill-founded and should be dismissed under Article   35   §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 57.     The Court has examined the other complaints submitted by the applicants (see paragraph 33 above). However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court’s competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. This part of the application must therefore also be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 22 December 2020.   Milan Blaško   Paul Lemmens   Registrar   President