CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 janvier 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFC8B7517 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:48pt; text-align:center } .sCC074E8E { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCDABDDB1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9C156EF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } SECOND SECTION Application no. 40485/08 Radmila PETROVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 1 August 2008 QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 et seq., ECHR 2009 ‑ ...; Gasyak and Others v. Turkey , no.   27872/03, 13 October 2009; and also Gasparyan v. Armenia (no. 1) , no.   35944/03, § 31, 13 January 2009)?   2.     Have the procedural guarantees under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention been complied with in the present case (see, for example, Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, ECHR   2007 ‑ II; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom , no. 46477/99, ECHR 2002 ‑ II; Velikova v.   Bulgaria , no. 41488/98, ECHR 2000 ‑ VI; Slimani v. France , no.   57671/00, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX; Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom , no.   24746/94, ECHR 2001-III; and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria , 28   October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII)? The parties are requested, in particular, to comment on: - the adequacy of the steps taken to establish the facts after the date on which the Convention entered into force in respect of Serbia; - as regards the role of the public prosecutor, whether he is required by law to give reasons for a refusal to prosecute and what is the practice in this respect; - whether the response of the public prosecutor can be considered to have been adequate, prompt and objectively impartial, and whether the subsidiary prosecution mechanism presented an effective review in this respect. The Government are requested to submit copies of any and all documents contained in the files of all authorities which dealt with the arrest and questioning of the applicant’s son D.P., his hospitalisation and the investigations into his alleged ill-treatment and subsequent death.