CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 mai 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }     Communicated on 22 May 2014   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 68433/12 Galyna Stepanivna DIDYK against Ukraine lodged on 10 October 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Galyna Stepanivna Didyk, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Lviv. On 13 April 2007 the body of the applicant’s son, with signs of unnatural death, was discovered in a river. On the same date the police examined the place where the body was found. On 23 April 2007 a prosecutor refused to institute criminal investigation into the death of the applicant’s son having concluded that it was impossible to establish the reason of his death. On 7 and 19 June and 25 October 2007 forensic medical experts conducted post mortem examination of the applicant son’s body. On 7 December 2007 the prosecutor quashed the decision of 23 April 2007 and instituted criminal investigation into the death of the applicant’s son. On 3 January 2008 the prosecutor suspended the investigation. The higher prosecutor ordered its resumption noting that not all the necessary measures were taken to investigate the crime. The investigation was resumed and presently remains pending. In its letters of 19 March 2008 and 25 October 2011 the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office and Lviv Regional Department of Internal Affairs admitted that the investigation was unjustifiably protracted and the police had failed to take all necessary investigative measures. It remains unknown what those measures were. COMPLAINT The applicant complains, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, that the investigation into the death of her son is lengthy and ineffective. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?