CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 septembre 2013

.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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8FA62C20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       SECOND SECTION Application no. 40410/07 Milijan KOSTIĆ against Serbia lodged on 1 September 2007     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC.   QUESTIONS     1.     Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 et seq., ECHR 2009; Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002 and the cases cited therein; see also in this context, Mladenović v. Serbia , no. 1099/08, §§ 39 and 47, 22 May 2012; Butolen v. Slovenia , no. 41356/08, § 70, 26 April 2012, and V.D. v. Croatia , no. 15526/10, §§   52-4, 8 November 2011)?   2.     In view of the outcome of the civil proceedings for damages and the ensuing enforcement proceedings, may the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?   3.     Was the right to life of Mr Dragan Kostić, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case? Is the respondent State under any obligation to account for Mr Kostić’s death?   3.1.     In particular, is there, in general, an appropriate regulatory framework to protect life and effective safeguards in place to prevent members of the armed forces from taking their own lives on account of psychological problems, bullying or other similar grounds? If so, did Mr   Dragan Kostić benefit from those safeguards? Had he ever undergone any psychiatric treatment in military or civilian hospitals and was any post-mortem psychiatric evaluation carried out? Were the national authorities in the circumstances of the case under any positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to take measures to protect Mr Dragan Kostić’s life, in particular by taking measures at preventing his suicide ( Kılınç and Others v.   Turkey , no. 40145/98, § 41 in fine, 7 June 2005; Álvarez Ramón v. Spain (dec.), no. 51192/99 , 3 July 2001; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, §§   90-91, 17 January 2013; Abdullah Yilmaz v. Turkey , no. 21899/02, § 58-76, 17 June 2008; Acet and Others v. Turkey , no. 22427/06, § 56, 18   October 2011; Ataman v.   Turkey , no. 46252/99, §§ 54-55 and 62, 27   April 2006; and Salgın v. Turkey , no.   46748/99, §§ 76-78, 20 February 2007)?   3.2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the investigation carried out in the present case adequate, independent and transparent ( Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII, Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, ECHR 2007 ‑ II; 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; Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria , 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII; and Salgın v. Turkey , no.   46748/99, §§ 76-78, 20 February 2007)? Does the conclusion reached by the military prosecutor and the courts constitute a “plausible explanation” for Mr Dragan Kostić’s death and his injuries within the meaning of the Court’s case-law (see Beker v. Turkey , no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009, Pankov v. Bulgaria , no. 12773/03, § 58, 7 October 2010, and Mosendz v. Ukraine, cited above, § 92-93; see also, Selmouni v.   France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V, and Salman v. Turkey cited above, § 99)? Have all the relevant circumstances of the case been established, including any other possible scenarios apart from suicide; was the impugned incident considered as a prima facie suicide and, if so, for which reason? Did the failure of the investigation authorities to deal with the injuries identified on the neck and “inflicted by a mechanical object” cast doubts on the suicide theory?   4.     The Government are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their answers to the issues above. They are, in any event, requested to provide copies of all the documents in the investigation case file (including evidence presented in a medium other than paper), such as the applicant’s military medical records, medical and other expert’s reports as regards Mr Dragan Kostić’s death, witness statements, minutes of investigative activities, requests by the parties, decisions of the prosecuting and of the investigation authorities, etc.