CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 22 mars 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sD108F2E2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEB26E87E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF7177B22 { width:0.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s507990D1 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB9BE2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sAE1ABF8F { width:36.89pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sACFCD3FC { width:144.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF FILIPPOVY v. RUSSIA (Application no. 19355/09)   JUDGMENT   Art 2 (substantive and procedural) • Failure to comply with positive obligations by taking appropriate regulatory and operational steps to safeguard life of military conscript, who committed suicide after bullying by fellow conscripts • Ineffective investigation into death Art 3 (substantive and procedural) • Positive obligations • Failure to effectively protect military conscript against ill-treatment at hands of other conscripts over protracted period of time, causing constant mental anxiety • Ineffective investigation with failure to lay responsibility on upper hierarchical levels of authority, in general context of endemic hazing practices within Russian military forces   STRASBOURG 22 March 2022 FINAL   22/06/2022   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Filippovy v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Georgios A. Serghides,   María Elósegui,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Peeter Roosma,   Andreas Zünd,   Mikhail Lobov, judges, and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   19355/09) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Russian nationals, Mr Aleksandr Vasilyevich Filippov and Mrs Nadezhda Anatolyevna Filippova (“the applicants”), on 17 March 2009; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 7 December 2021 and 1 March 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present application concerns the ill-treatment and death of the applicants’ son, Pte Ye.F., during his compulsory military service, and the subsequent investigation. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were born in 1956 and 1959 respectively and live in Ulyanovsk, in the Ulyanovsk Region. The applicants were represented by Ms   T.I. Sladkova , a lawyer for the Mother’s Right Foundation, an NGO based in Moscow. 3.     The Government were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by Mr M. Vinogradov, his successor in that office. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.         THE APPLICANTS’ SON’S MILITARY SERVICE AND DEATH 5 .     On 22 June 2006 the applicants’ son, Mr Ye.F., began his compulsory military service. He initially served in military unit no. 83421. On 11   October 2006 another military serviceman, Pte K., hit Pte Ye.F. in the face with his fists at least three times, breaking his jaw. On 28   November 2006 Pte K. was convicted for a breach of the rules governing relations between servicemen of equal rank (Article   335 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (the “CC”)) and sentenced to serve in a disciplinary unit for a year. Details regarding the incident involving the applicants’ son and Pte   K. were posted on noticeboards at military unit no. 83421 after the incident. Because Pte   Ye.F. had testified against Pte K., attitude of his fellow servicemen towards him grew worse. 6 .     In order “to improve the conditions of [Pte Ye.F.’s] military service in view of the situation in the collective”, on 4 December 2006 the applicants’ son was transferred to another unit, no. 83420, an infantry squadron. However, as military unit no. 83421 was the training centre for military unit no. 83420, the two unit were interconnected. As a result, the details of the conflict with Pte   K. became known among the members of Pte   Ye.F.’s new unit as well and he became shunned as a “rat”. People ignored Pte   Ye.F., extorted money from him and beat him up. He wrote to the applicants about the bullying, insults and beatings that he constantly had to endure. According to those letters, Pte Ye.F. could not find protection by appealing to his senior officers, as some incidents took place in front of them and they had not protected him. 7 .     On 6 April 2007 Pte Ye.F. complained to the medical treatment wing of his unit about a leg injury (specifically, pain that he was suffering in the left hip and knee). The relevant entry in Pte Ye.F.’s medical record entry indicated the reason for that pain as his having fallen down a flight of stairs on 10   March 2007. However, Pte Ye.F. wrote to his parents that he had been beaten. It appears that an investigator carried out an inquiry into that incident and on 13   April 2007 refused to open a criminal investigation because Pte   Ye.F. had explained to him that he had fallen after tripping on the stairs. 8 .     Between 23   April and 17 May 2007 Pte Ye.F. was treated at a hospital for the above-mentioned leg injury and between 17 and 30 May 2007 he was treated as an inpatient in the medical treatment wing of his unit. 9.     On 30 May 2007 Pte Ye.F. was assigned to another squadron in military unit no. 83420 whose task was to ensure the provision of supplies. 10.     On 1 June 2007, while on an assignment outside the military unit, Pte Ye.F. went absent without leave. He wrote later to his parents that he had done it because he had been afraid to return to his unit, as there was “no life for [him]” there. 11.     After he was located and taken back to his unit, Pte Ye.F. had a discussion with Colonel F., a deputy commanding officer of unit no. 83420, during which he allegedly asked to be transferred back to military unit   no.   83421. On 2 June 2007 Pte Ye.F. was transferred back to military unit no. 83421. When, during a phone call with Colonel F. on 4 June 2007, the second applicant learned of the transfer, she asked him not to send her son back to his original unit, as it had been there that Pte K. had beaten him. 12.     On 4 June 2007 Pte Ye.F. lodged an application with the medical unit’s doctor, seeking to be sent for a reassessment by a panel of his fitness for military service in view of his leg injury (see paragraph 8 above). His transfer to the hospital for that reassessment was scheduled for 13   June   2007. 13.     On 5 June 2007 at about 6.40 p.m. Pte Ye.F. was found in a dormitory hanging from a noose. The first applicant was informed by phone of the death of his son on the next day, at about 8.30 a.m.       Investigation of the applicants’ son’s DEATH 14.     On 5 June 2007 at 8 p.m. a criminal investigation under Article 110 of the CC (Incitement to suicide) into the applicants’ son’s death was initiated. The investigator inspected the incident scene and the deceased’s body. The military unit’s doctor also participated in the latter inspection. The body inspection record indicated a strangulation line on the neck and no other injuries.    Witness statements and forensic expert reports 15.     A number of military servicemen and other witnesses were questioned during the investigation.      Lieutenant Ya. and Lieutenant P. of military unit no. 83421 (the first and also the last unit where the applicants’ son served) 16 .     On 5 June 2007 Lieutenant Ya., the interim head of Pte   Ye.F.’s squadron in unit no. 83421, stated that on 2 June 2007 Senior Lieutenant L. had brought Pte Ye.F. to his unit. Senior Lieutenant L. had informed Lieutenant Ya. that the soldier’s relations with his fellow servicemen in the unit no.   83420 “had not worked out” – other soldiers had extorted money from him and had subjected him to violence. According to Senior Lieutenant L., Pte Ye.F. had been absent without leave during his above ‑ mentioned assignment away from the unit and, at the time that he had been found, had been asking for money from passers-by. Lieutenant Ya. had invited Pte Ye.F. for a discussion on the evening of his transfer on 2 June 2007 in order to get to know him better. Pte Ye.F. had been uncommunicative; he had talked a little about his family and not much about himself. He had not had “any philosophical thoughts”, and had not “reflected on the meaning of life” or “expressed any suicidal thoughts”. Pte   Ye.F. had, albeit unwillingly and without going into much detail, admitted having been bullied by his fellow servicemen – he had said that he had been beaten up, but had not mentioned any extortion of money. During the following two days Lieutenant Ya. had not noticed anything out of the ordinary in the conduct of Pte Ye.F. Lieutenant Ya. denied knowing the reasons that could have prompted Pte Ye.F. to take his life. He noted that they had not found any suicide letters, and he did not know whether Pte   Ye.F. had been subjected to physical or psychological violence before his death. Lieutenant Ya. excluded the possibility that he had been murdered. 17 .     Lieutenant P., the officer responsible for educational activities in the military unit, gave similar testimony to that of Lieutenant Ya. During his talk with Pte Ye.F. the latter had looked unhappy; his gaze had been empty, but he had not talked about the “meaning of life” or suicide.      Colonel F. (military unit no. 83420 – the second military unit in which the applicants’ son served) 18 .     On 5 June 2007 Colonel F., deputy commanding officer of military unit no.   83420, stated as follows. Pte Ye.F.’s duties within unit no. 83420 had been in the area of food delivery. On 1   June 2007, when the car in which Pte Ye.F. had been travelling had broken down and the driver had begun repairing it, Pte   Ye.F. had left to go to a shop and had not returned by the time the car had been repaired and driven off. When he had been found later, the conscript had explained that he had gone to a shop to buy an ice-cream and had become lost. At the same time Pte Ye.F. had asked to be transferred to military unit no. 83421 because he did not want to work in the area of food delivery, had poor relations with the other servicemen, had no friends and was an outcast. During his talk with Colonel F. Pte Ye.F. had not confirmed that he had been the victim of any unlawful conduct, but had nevertheless insisted on being transferred to military unit no. 83421 and not some other unit. His request had been granted. Colonel F. had not been aware that Pte Ye.F. had earlier served in unit no. 83421 and that he had been the victim in the above-mentioned criminal case against Pte   K. Colonel   F. stated that Pte Ye.F.’s transfer had been implemented solely on the basis of the soldier’s request and that there had been no other reasons for the transfer.      Pte Ye.F.’s aunt 19 .     On 7 June 2007 Pte Ye.F.’s aunt stated that in November or December   2006 she had learned that her nephew had defended someone who was being bullied and that another soldier had broken his jaw. After Pte Ye.F. had testified against that soldier during the respective criminal proceedings and the latter had been sent to serve in a disciplinary unit, other servicemen had started bullying her nephew and calling him a “rat”. In December 2007 Pte Ye.F. had been transferred to military unit no.   83420. When he had called his aunt, he had complained that in his new unit military his fellow servicemen had also mistreated him because he had testified against Pte K. In May 2007 Pte Ye.F.’s aunt had gone to his unit and had asked his immediate superior, Major N., to transfer her nephew to another posting. Major N. had promised her that Pte Ye.F.’s commanding officers would decide on whether he was fit for military service and would in fact probably discharge him. At that time Pte Ye.F. had been receiving treatment in hospital in the town of Podolsk for his leg injury. When his aunt had visited him there, he had told her that a soldier had hit his leg with a stool. When she had suggested that he lodge a complaint with his senior officers, Pte Ye.F. had replied that he had been beaten in front of Major N., who had not intervened, so it was useless to complain. After Pte Ye.F.’s unauthorised absence on 1 June 2007 his aunt had talked to him by telephone and he had told her that he did not want to return to his unit as “there was no life” for him there.      The applicants 20.     On 7 June 2007 the applicants’ representative lodged a complaint with the Lyubertsy Garrison military prosecutor’s office, seeking the opening of a criminal investigation into negligence on the part of Major N. and Colonel   F., as well as into the circumstances of and reasons for their son’s transfer to military unit no. 83421 and his suicide. The applicants wanted to know, inter alia : why Pte Ye.F.’s senior officers, given that they had been fully aware of the fact that he was being bullied and ill ‑ treated in unit no. 83420, had done nothing to protect him from it; why they had not transferred Pte Ye.F. to another military unit instead of unit no. 83421; why other soldiers from unit no. 83420 had been transferred alongside with him to unit no. 83421; and why their son had not remained in the hospital or in the medical treatment wing of his unit until such time as a medical panel decided on whether he should be discharged from military service on account of his leg injury. 21 .     The applicants also requested that the following information be verified. After his conflict with Pte K., Pte Ye.F. had often complained to his parents about being beaten, harassed and insulted by his fellow servicemen. He had also noted that Major N. had been a witness to such incidents. In addition, he had told his parents that other servicemen extorted money from him – he had asked his mother to send him money on numerous occasions and each time the amount had increased – 400 Russian roubles (RUB), RUB   1,000, RUB 1,500, RUB 2,000. The other conscripts would not let him wash himself or use the communal kitchenware. When his mother had asked Pte Ye.F. if he ever had anything to eat when drinking his tea, he had replied that he could not even have tea because he had to “buy out” his glass and had asked his mother to bring him a cup. The officers had sometimes hid him in their own dormitory for his protection. When, after another beating, in May   2007 Pte Ye.F. had been diagnosed with the above-mentioned leg injury, the doctors had feared that it could develop into a sarcoma and had advised him to apply to be discharged from military service. When the second applicant had visited her son in the hospital, she had also seen a new scar on his head. Pte Ye.F. had explained that it had been difficult to protect himself when several people had beaten him with a stool. When the second applicant had asked Major N. to transfer her son to another unit, he had replied that he was aware of the fact that other servicemen had been beating and insulting the conscript, and that although a transfer to another unit would not help, he would try to assist. On 4   June 2007, when Colonel F. had telephoned the second applicant in order to inform her that her son had been transferred to military unit no.   83421, she had asked him not to do it, because it had been there where Pte   K. had broken her son’s jaw. However, Colonel F. had replied that all would be well as there was “a good military spirit” in unit no.   83421; he had also promised to arrange for Pte Ye.F. to appear on 13   June 2007 before a military panel, which would reassess his fitness for military service. When the second applicant had talked to her son on that day, he had said that other conscripts from unit no. 83420 had also been transferred together with him, so he was continuing to be mistreated and beaten. 22.     On 8 June 2007 the first applicant lodged a request to be granted the procedural status of victim in the criminal investigation into the death of his son. 23.     On 13 June 2007 the investigator refused to grant the first applicant victim status in the criminal investigation into his son’s death, but allowed him to read the decision to open that investigation and two forensic expert reports that he (the investigator) had ordered. On 18 June 2007 the investigator refused to admit to the proceedings the first applicant’s representative on the grounds that the first applicant had not been accorded victim status in the investigation. 24.     On 4 July 2007 the Lyubertsy Garrison military prosecutor’s office replied to the applicants that any negligent actions on the part of the senior officers of military unit no. 83420 would be examined within the framework of the criminal investigation under Article 110 of the CC (Incitement to suicide) being carried out in respect of their son’s death.      Forensic experts’ examination of Pte Ye.F.’s body 25.     On 28   June 2007 four experts issued a report on the examination that they had carried out of Pte Ye.F.’s body. 26 .     The experts noted that they had found the following injuries on the body. First, a strangulation line was situated on his neck. Furthermore, there was a bruise on his nose and another one on his right iliac area. An examination of the internal organs had uncovered haemorrhages in the mesocolon and in the liver. 27 .     The experts concluded that Pte Ye.F. had died from asphyxia, as evidenced by the strangulation line and other signs. As regards the other injuries, the experts considered that they had resulted from blows that the soldier had received while still alive. The bruise on Pte   Ye.F.’s iliac area had been caused about seven or ten days before his death, while the bruise on the nose had been caused between six and forty-eight hours prior to death. While those injuries had not caused the soldier’s death, the experts mentioned that the haemorrhage in the liver would have been considered to constitute serious damage to the health of a living person.      The soldiers who discovered the applicants’ son’s body 28 .     On 5 July 2007 Pte V., who had been on guard duty on the day of Pte   Ye.F.’s death, recounted the events before and after he had discovered Pte   Ye.F.’s body. He noted that, given that Pte Ye.F. had transferred to their unit only three days prior to his death, Pte V. had not known him well, but he had known from other soldiers in the squadron that a conscript had been sent to prison because of Pte Ye.F. 29 .     Pte Sh., Pte Kr. and Pte R., who had also been on guard duty on the day of Pte Ye.F.’s death, also described that day, listing people who had been present on the premises.      Internal inquiry 30 .     On 6 July 2007 a military prosecutor with the Lyubertsy Garrison, after the issuance of the results of an internal inquiry, found that Lieutenant   Ya., the commanding officer of Pte   Ye.F.’s last squadron in military unit no.   83421, had failed to properly organise educational work, ensure military discipline and take sufficient measures to prevent breaches of the rules governing relations between servicemen of the equal rank and to prevent loss of life among the personnel of his squadron. The prosecutor instructed the unit’s senior officers to rectify those omissions, conduct training sessions for conscripts on criminal liability for breaches of the rules governing relations between servicemen and decide whether Lieutenant Ya. should be subjected to disciplinary measures.      Captain M. (commanding officer of the applicants’ son’s second squadron in military unit no. 83420) 31 .     On 10 July 2007 Captain M., the commanding officer of Pte   Ye.F.’s second squadron in military unit no. 83420 (in which he had served from 30   May until 4 June 2007), recounted the events surrounding the latter’s unauthorised absence on 1 June 2007. He had objected to Pte   Ye.F.’s subsequent transfer on 4   June 2007 because his squadron had been understaffed, but Colonel F. had told him that the decision had already been taken. After the death of Pte   Ye.F., Major N. and Lieutenant L. had told him that the soldier’s “relations with his fellow servicemen had not worked out” and that he had been treated disrespectfully because it had been “his fault” that another military serviceman from unit no. 83421 had been convicted. Major N. had not notified Captain M. of that matter before Pte   Ye.F.’s transfer to his squadron. Pte Ye.F. had never complained to Captain   M. about any issues, and the latter had never witnessed anyone taking any unlawful action towards the conscript or seen any injuries on his body.      Soldiers who served with the applicants’ son in military unit no.   83421 32 .     On 12 July 2007 Pte T. testified that in 2006 he had served in the same unit as Pte Ye.F. for about two weeks, before the latter’s transfer to another unit. He had been aware that Pte Ye.F. had been granted the procedural status of victim in the criminal case against Pte K., as that information had been posted on the unit’s noticeboards. After Pte Ye.F. had returned to their unit, Pte T. had recognised him, but had not attempted to talk to him as Pte Ye.F. had looked as though he did not want to talk with anybody. Whenever everybody had gone off to play football, watch television or smoke a cigarette, Pte Ye.F. had not joined them and had remained apart. In the three days that Pte Ye.F. had spent in the squadron after his transfer on 2   June 2007, Pte T. had not observed any injuries on Pte Ye.F.’s body or any unlawful conduct towards him. 33 .     Junior Sergeant A., Junior Sergeant V. and Junior Sergeant Z. stated that they considered that Pte Ye.F. had been a talkative, impulsive and confrontational person, who had not always been careful with his words. It was he who had provoked the conflict with Pte   K. that had led to the latter breaking his jaw and subsequently being sent to a disciplinary unit. Because of that Pte Ye.F. had lost the respect of his fellows and they had had less contact with him thereafter. Sergeant S. mentioned that when Pte   Ye.F. had returned to unit   no.   83421, a Pte Kr. had asked his opinion of the new soldier, as they had previously served together. Sergeant S. had replied that Pte   Ye.F. had not been a trustworthy person because it had been his fault that Pte K. had been convicted. 34.     A number of other military servicemen who gave witness statements also stated that, to the best of their knowledge, Pte   Ye.F. had not been mistreated. Pte R. (confession) 35.     On 24   July 2007 the investigator decided to arrest Pte R. as a suspect in the criminal investigation into Pte Ye.F.’s death. Pte R. affirmed his earlier statement (see paragraph 29 above) and denied having beaten Pte Ye.F. or otherwise humiliated him. 36 .     On 26   July 2007 Pte R. made a “surrender and confession statement” ( явка с повинной ) admitting that he had beaten Pte   Ye.F. not long before his death. On 5   June 2007 at about noon he had given Pte   Ye.F. RUB 30 to buy him a beer. At about 5.50 p.m. he had gone to ask Pte Ye.F. why he had not brought him his beer, but the latter had refused to reply. Pte   R. had hit Pte   Ye.F. twice in the chest area and twice in the stomach area. After that Pte   R. had left and had returned to the dormitory only after Pte V. had discovered Pte Ye.F. there hanging from a noose. Pte R. and Pte Sh. had taken the deceased down and laid him on the floor. Opening of the criminal case against Pte R. 37.     On 3 August 2007 a criminal case against Pte R. was opened under Article 335 of the CC (A breach with serious consequences of the rules governing relations between servicemen of equal rank). On the same day the above case was joined to the initial case opened under Article 110 of the CC (Incitement to suicide) in respect of Pte Ye.F.’s death. Detailed post-mortem psychological and psychiatric expert report 38 .     On 17 August 2007 three experts issued their report on Pte Ye.F.’s psychological state and health before his death, which was based on their assessment of the available documents. According to Pte Ye.F.’s personal service file, he had been declared fit for military service. Having studied the available witness statements the experts considered that the conflict with Pte   K. had not initially affected Pte   Ye.F. – despite having been beaten, he had attempted to resolve the situation in a straightforward fashion and to present the incident as a fight (rather than as a one-sided attack). Pte Ye.F. had later written several letters asking for the criminal prosecution of Pte K. to be halted because he had no issues with him and they had achieved a reconciliation. However, after the conviction of Pte K., at whose trial Pte   Ye.F. had given evidence as a victim, his situation had changed radically: general opinion had held him to be a “rat” – a despised status among servicemen. Information about Pte K.’s conviction had been posted on his military unit’s noticeboards, and people had placed the blame specifically on Pte Ye.F. for that conviction. Their attitude had been manifested by the fact that Pte Ye.F.’s fellow servicemen had ignored him, humiliated him by taking his money, forced him to acquire cigarettes for them, and beaten him. Those actions had given rise to intense physical and mental suffering in Pte Ye.F. – especially as he had considered his treatment to be unfair, given the fact that he had done everything possible to help Pte   K. The transfer of Pte Ye.F. had not changed the situation because the military units had been interlinked, and the attitude towards him in the new unit had remained the same. Under such pressure Pte Ye.F. had started to behave in an unsatisfactory manner, as his unauthorised departure had demonstrated. Although he had attempted to resolve his problem by asking for another transfer to unit no.   83421, he had met former colleagues there who were aware of his conflict with Pte K. At that point Pte Ye.F. had become passive and alienated. The protracted psychotraumatic situation had depleted Pte Ye.F.’s mental resources and thus his ability to behave properly and to interact socially. He had felt lost, had feared further beatings and had seen his situation as unbearable and hopeless. His beating by Pte R. had been the “last drop” ( последняя капля ), which had triggered suicidal thoughts on which he had immediately acted. However, the conflict with Pte   R. had not had a direct cause-effect link with Pte Ye.F.’s suicide, as the main reason for that had been his mental exhaustion, which had arisen from the psychotraumatic situation. Senior Lieutenant P., Junior Lieutenant G. and other officers of Pte   Ye.F.’s second squadron in military unit no. 83420 39 .     On 14 September 2007 Senior Lieutenant P., an officer from the second squadron in military unit no. 83420 in which Pte Ye.F. served, also recounted events surrounding the conscript’s unauthorised absence. He stated that he had not been notified that Pte Ye.F. had been the victim in a criminal case against Pte K. Senior Lieutenant P. was not aware of any violent actions on the part of fellow conscripts or officers towards Pte   Ye.F. during the latter’s service in his squadron. 40 .     Junior Lieutenant G. and a number of other officers of the same squadron gave similar statements; for example, they insisted that they had been unaware of Pte Ye.F.’s involvement in a criminal case or that anyone had behaved violently towards him. Major N. (commanding officer of Pte Ye.F.’s first squadron in military unit no 83420) 41.     On 19 September 2007 Major N., the commanding officer of Pte   Ye.F.’s initial (infantry) squadron of military unit no. 83420, gave his testimony. He stated that the conscript had been transferred because of his involvement in the criminal case against Pte K. in military unit no. 83421. Major N. characterised Pte   Ye.F. as a quiet and reserved person and as a dutiful soldier. Major N. submitted that he had asked Pte Ye.F. on many occasions whether he had ever been subjected to violence by anyone in the squadron, and the soldier had always replied in the negative. Pte Ye.F. had never complained to him about any other issues. Major N. asserted that during his routine daily body check-ups (to which all conscripts were subjected) Pte   Ye.F. had never had any bruises, injuries or scrapes. Major   N. recounted that Pte   Ye.F.’s mother had once come to visit her son and had asked him to transfer her son to another squadron because Pte Ye.F. had not enjoyed good relations with his fellow conscripts. Major N. also believed that the members of his squadron had not been aware that Pte   Ye.F. had provoked a fight with Pte K. and that the latter had been convicted, because by the time Pte Ye.F.’s transfer to the squadron all older conscripts (with memories of those events) had been discharged from military service. According to a psychological assessment of Pte Ye.F. carried out in April 2007 he had had a high level of neuro-psychological resilience (“NPR”) and had been a low suicide risk. Psychologists from military unit no. 83420 42 .     On 17   September 2007 the investigator questioned Lieutenant Colonel K., who was the head psychologist of military unit no.   83420. He had been aware of the negative attitude of servicemen in his unit towards Pte Ye.F. after the conviction of Pte K., as information and rumours had circulated easily between the two units (83421 and 83420). However, Lieutenant Colonel K. had not been aware of the occurrence of any violence towards Pte Ye.F. The latter had been examined by a psychologist on 17   July   2006 at the moment of his induction into the army and on 23   April   2007 during a regular health check-up. Both examinations had indicated a good level of NPR and a low suicide risk. Pte Ye.F. himself had never requested psychological assistance. 43.     On 19 September 2007 Senior Lieutenant Kuz., the psychologist of Pte Ye.F.’s first squadron in military unit no. 83420, stated that no servicemen in that squadron had been aware of the criminal case against Pte   K. because by the time that Pte Ye.F. had arrived from the hospital, all senior conscripts had been discharged, having completed their respective obligatory terms of military service. Senior Lieutenant Kuz. said he would have known if Pte Ye.F. had had any difficulties with other conscripts. 44.     On 19 September 2007 Major Ak., the head of the military unit’s psychological assistance and rehabilitation department, stated that Pte   Ye.F. had been judged to be in the category of servicemen with a high NPR and low suicide risk; he had not raised any concerns among his senior officers. He had not requested any psychological assistance. After the episode on 1   June 2007, when he had gone absent without leave, Major Ak. had added him to the list of people under his command requiring a higher level of pedagogical and psychological attention and had scheduled a meeting with him for 3   June   2007. However, that meeting had not taken place because on 2   June   2007 Pte Ye.F. had been transferred to military unit no.   83421. Psychologists of military unit no. 83421 45 .     On 19 September 2007 Major An. stated that on 2 June 2007 he had learned that Captain Kuk. had been interviewing a newly transferred soldier. When Major An. had joined them, he had recognised the soldier as Pte   Ye.F., who had been accorded the procedural status of victim in the criminal case against Pte K. As Pte Ye.F. had been previously transferred from their unit to another unit because of that criminal case, Major An. had been surprised to see him back. During his interview Pte Ye.F. had only replied to questions unwillingly. He had mentioned that he had been subjected to bullying in unit no. 83420 and that his parents had complained about it to his former commanding officer. Major An. had not observed any bruises on Pte Ye.F.’s face, but had not examined the latter’s body. 46.     On 18 October 2007 Captain Kuk. testified that, as the unit’s psychologist, it was part of his duties to conduct preventive and introductory meetings with new military servicemen. Pte Ye.F. had explained his transfer as having been prompted by the poor relations that he had had with his fellow soldiers. He had given an evasive answer when asked whether any violence had been applied to him by fellow servicemen. Captain Kuk. had later reported to Major An. that he had been unable to establish the true reasons for Pte Ye.F.’s transfer, as the latter had evaded answering his questions regarding whether there had been any unlawful conduct on the part of other soldiers. Captain Kuk. had felt that Pte   Ye.F. had been depressed. He could not make a guess about Pte Ye.F.’s reasons for committing suicide, especially since the latter had shortly been scheduled to be discharged from military service on health grounds.    The applicants’ victim status and participation in criminal proceedings against Pte R. 47 .     On 22 January 2008 the Lyubertsy Garrison Military Court found unlawful the investigator’s refusal to grant the first applicant victim status in the proceedings. 48.     On 5 March 2008 the investigator granted the applicants victim status in the criminal investigation into their son’s death. On the same day he instructed a local military investigator based in the applicants’ town of residence to interview the applicants and to inform them of their right to lodge civil claims and to study the case file. If they wished to study the case file, they were to be invited to come to the place where the investigation was taking place (the town of Lyubertsy) not later than 11 March 2008. 49.     On 12 March 2008 the applicants were questioned in their hometown by the local military investigator. They also signed a waiver of their right to study the case-file documents. Later that day the applicants retracted that waiver and lodged a request with the investigator to be permitted to study the case-file material. 50 .     On the same day in Lyubertsy, the investigator separated the case material concerning the injuries to Pte Ye.F.’s nose and iliac area from the material concerning his beating by Pte R. and opened a separate inquiry in respect thereof. The applicants were not kept informed about the progress or the outcome of that separate inquiry. It appears that on 26   March 2008 the investigator refused to open a criminal case for lack of evidence implicating any military servicemen. 51 .     Furthermore, on the same day the investigator concluded the investigation into Pte R.’s actions and charged him with committing a breach with serious consequences of the rules governing relations between servicemen of equal rank. Lastly, the investigator also closed the investigation into the possibility of incitement to suicide under Article 110 of the CC for lack of evidence of a criminal event. 52 .     The applicants’ representative was able to study the case file on 15   April 2008, when the case against Pte R. was sent for trial to the Lyubertsy Garrison Military Court.    Trial of Pte R. 53.     During the trial of Pte R. the applicants asserted that their son had been murdered. They argued, relying on a report that they had commissioned from an independent expert, that after receiving heavy blows Pte Ye.F. could have been in a temporary state of traumatic shock; thus, being unable to resist, he could have been hanged by a third person. The applicants also complained that, as they had been granted victim status only nine months after the opening of the criminal investigation, they had been unable to put questions to the experts before the forensic examinations conducted during the investigative stage of the proceedings. The applicants requested that the court call and examine (i) a number of servicemen who could have witnessed the events that had taken place immediately before their son’s death, and (ii) one of the doctors who had participated in the examination of the body. The court dismissed the applicants’ requests. The court furthermore deemed the forensic experts’ report more reliable than the report produced by the independent expert appointed by the applicants because they were more experienced and because more information and material had been available to them to study. 54.     On 20 May 2008 Pte R. was found guilty as charged and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. On 19 September 2008 the Moscow Regional Military Court upheld first-instance judgment on appeal. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE         RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW on psychological assessment and assistance    Need for a legal framework on prevention of suicide 55 .     According to an instruction on the prevention of suicide issued in 1996 by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation (“Directive 18”), suicide in the armed forces represented a serious problem. 80% of suicides were committed by conscripts or contractual military servicemen during the first year of service. 60% of suicides were committed by hanging, although the number of suicides committed with firearms during sentry duty had also increased. Among the reasons for suicide were the following: poor living conditions and poor conditions of military service (various aspects), interpersonal conflicts, and breaches of rules on relations between servicemen (the phenomenon of “hazing” or dedovshchina ). According to Directive 18, the effectiveness of suicide prevention was negatively affected by the underappreciation of and the lack of a systemic approach to the issue, the lack of relevant statistics, and the absence of proper investigations into and analysis of suicide attempts. Directive 18 instructed the relevant authorities to devise a system of psychological assistance in order to ensure psychological health and to prevent suicide among military servicemen.    The system of psychological assessment and assistance 56 .     The relevant domestic legislation in force at the material time (the Charter on Sentry Duty, adopted by Presidential Decree no. 2140 of 14   December 1993; the 1997 Guide to Psychological Work in the Russian Armed forces (in peacetime); and the Russian Ministry of Defence’s Decree no. 50 of 26 January 2000 on the Introduction of the Guide to Professional Psychological Screening in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation) established a system of psychological assessment and assistance in the armed forces. It was to be carried out by psychologists and other responsible officers. The system was designed to determine people’s ability to perform particular military jobs and, also, to identify people suffering from psychological issues, to provide them with psychological assistance and to prevent suicide. People had to pass a psychological assessment before and during their military education or service, at regular intervals and upon each transfer. In cases involving psychological issues, including suicide risk, certain limitations were placed on eligibility for military education or service and on access to weapons. Moreover, military students or servicemen with psychological issues were to be placed under special supervision and required to follow an individual plan of corrective and preventive activities or treatment. Psychological assistance was also available upon request to all military students and servicemen.       RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND OTHER MATERIAL 57 .     On 20 October 2004 Human Rights Watch, an NGO, published a report entitled “The Wrongs of Passage: Inhuman and Degrading Treatment of New Recruits in the Russian Armed Forces”. The report documented hazing practices in the armed forces and their consequences on the basis of three years of research undertaken in several regions across Russia. For more details of the report see Perevedentsevy v. Russi a, no. 39583/05, § 70, 24   April 2014 . 58 .     In July 2005 the Human Rights Ombudsman of Russia published a special report on abuse in the armed forces. The report called attention to hazing practices in the armed forces, which had resulted in the deaths and suicides of military servicemen. 59 .     On 26 March 2006 the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued a report entitled “Human Rights of Members of the Armed Forces” (Doc.   10861), which described the situation in the Russian armed forces as “extremely worrying”. It noted, in particular, that “every year deaths occur among young conscripts who have been ill‑treated, subjected to initiation rites, suffered accidents, committed suicide or suffered untreated illnesses”. 60 .     On 11 April 2006 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued Recommendation 1742 (2006) on the human rights of members of the armed forces requesting the member States “to ensure genuine and effective protection of the human rights of members of the armed forces, and ... to urgently adopt ... the requisite measures to put an end to the scandalous situations and practices of bullying in the armed forces ...”. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2, 3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION 61.     The applicants complained of their son’s ill-treatment and death during his compulsory military service and of the lack of an effective investigation under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read, where relevant, as follows: Article 2 “1.     Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. ...” Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 13 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the