CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 octobre 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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sDD7CB8CD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 23 October 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 45115/09 Natalya Borisovna TRAPEZNIKOVA and others against Russia lodged on 8 June 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Ms Natalya Borisovna Trapeznikova, Ms Yuliya Sergeyevna Trapeznikova and Ms Anastasiya Sergeyevna Antonova are Russian nationals who were born in 1969, 1985 and 2004 respectively and live in Novosibirsk. The first applicant was Mr Sergei Antonov’s mother-in-law. He was the second applicant’s husband and the third applicant’s father. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Sergei Antonov was serving a three years’ prison sentence in correctional colony no.   IK-8 in the Novosibirsk Region. On 20   July 2007 Sergei Antonov was transferred to disciplinary cell no.   14 for smoking outside a designated area. On 22   July 2007 he complained of a headache and poor health condition. At 7:10 p.m. doctor M. examined Sergei Antonov and gave him a painkilling injection. Upon the doctor’s recommendation, he was then transferred to another cell in the disciplinary section where he was detained alone. As requested by the doctor, he was provided with bed sheets. Doctor M. examined him again at 9:25 p.m. and noted that his condition had improved. At 9:40 p.m. the cell where Sergei Antonov was held was locked, sealed off and the alarm system was turned on. The guards who carried out surveillance of the disciplinary cells observed Sergei Antonov at 1:06 a.m. on 23   July 2007 through a peephole in the cell door. He was lying on his bed. During the next round at 1:30 a.m. the guards saw Sergei Antonov’s head and a rope on his neck. They reported to the officer on duty. After entering the cell, the security officers discovered Sergei Antonov hanging by a ligature fashioned out of a bed sheet. They cut the rope and put his body on the floor. According to the autopsy conducted on 24   July 2007, the cause of Sergei Antonov’s death was asphyxiation by hanging. In addition to the strangulation line on Sergei Antonov’s neck, the forensic expert documented the bruises on the deceased’s head: behind the left ear, at the outer corner of his right eye, on the right cheek and on the right side of the lower jaw. On 28   July 2007 the deputy city prosecutor refused to institute criminal investigation into Sergei Antonov’s death. The investigator based his decision on the reports filed by doctor M. and the officers who had discovered Sergei Antonov’s body, the report on the examination of the cell where he was found and his medical case-file. He also questioned one of the guards and convicts Bel., F. and Ber. who had been detained with the deceased in cell no.   14. They submitted that they had not had any conflicts with the deceased. The investigating authorities repeatedly refused to open a criminal investigation into Sergei Antonov’s death. The relevant decisions were taken on 28   August, 22   September, 18   October, 8   November 2007, 1   February, 30   September and 25   October 2008. Each time the supervising prosecutor quashed the relevant decision and ordered further inquiry into the matter. It appears that subsequently the prosecutor’s office conducted additional inquiry into the circumstances of Sergei Antonov’s death. The investigator questioned the officers of the correctional colony who had been on duty on 22   July-23   July 2007 and had seen or observed Sergei Antonov on those days. She had also established that he had a history of drug addiction, one instance of self-harming and had undergone treatment in a psychiatric institution prior to incarceration. The investigator noted that the cell where the deceased had been found dead had been mistakenly indicated in the materials of the inquiry as no.   38 and conducted the examination of cell no.   00. On 13   February 2009 investigator S. concluded that Sergei Antonov he had committed suicide and refused to open a criminal investigation into his death. The investigator’s decision was subject to judicial review at two levels of jurisdiction. On 11   March and 27   April 2009 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk and the Novosibirsk Regional Court respectively upheld the investigator’s findings as regards Sergei Antonov’s death. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention that the authorities failed to protect Sergei Antonov’s life and that the ensuing investigation into his death was not effective.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has Sergei Antonov’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, did the Russian authorities comply with their obligation to take appropriate steps to safeguard his life (see, Keenan v. the United Kingdom , no. 27229/95, §   89, ECHR 2001 ‑ III)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of 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?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article   2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?