CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 22 October 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 8998/09 Tamara Ivanovna GRISHINA against Russia lodged on 22 January 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Tamara Ivanovna Grishina, is a Russian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in St Petersburg. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 28   April 2007 the applicant’s daughter Ms O. was found shot to death in her flat. When police officers F. and P. arrived on the scene, Ms O.’s husband Mr O., a police officer at the time, showed them to the room where his wife’s body was. He produced his gun which, according to him, his wife had used to commit suicide. A note allegedly made by Ms O. was also found in the room. The note read as follows: “Forgive me. My life does not have any sense. I am not good for [my son]. I do not live. I exist. I cannot do this anymore. Please, raise [my son] as a good man.” On an unspecified date the district prosecutor’s office opened an inquiry into Ms O.’s death. Investigator V. questioned Mr O., police officers F. and P., Ms O.’s neighbours and the applicant. According to the investigator, Mr O. provided the following explanation as regards the circumstances of the case: “... . He and his wife ... moved into the flat ... in 2000. In 2003 she gave birth to their son D. ... . Approximately in 2000-2001 his wife developed depressions ... . She started having thoughts about ending her life. She took sedatives. After their son was born, his wife had another depression. In 2003-2006 she was committed to hospital in this regard ... . Prior to 2003 she also underwent treatment in a psychiatric hospital ... . On 28   April 2007 Mr O. was absent from work due to his son’s illness. He took him to see a doctor. They came back at 1 – 2 p.m. Then he put the child to bed. His gun was stored in a metal safe. ... The day before the incident he cleaned the gun and did not put it back into the safe. At about 6 p.m. (?) Mr O. was woken up by a pop sound. He immediately rushed to his wife’s room. He found her lying on the bed. When he touched her chest, he saw blood. He tried to resuscitate her. Then he saw his gun on the blanket. He took it and put in the box with tools. Then he called the police.” On 4   May 2007 investigator V. with the district prosecutor’s office refused to open criminal investigation into Ms O.’s death. Referring to Ms   O.’s medical condition and her depressions, he concluded that she had committed suicide by having shot herself. On 1   November 2007 the Krasnoselskiy District Court of St Petersburg quashed the investigator’s decision of 4   May 2007 and ordered further inquiry. The court noted that the investigator had failed to verify whether it had indeed been true that Ms O. (1) had undergone any treatment in psychiatric institutions or (2) had written the note found in her room. The court also pointed out that any forensic examination commissioned by the investigator could be conducted only if a criminal investigation was opened. The investigator repeatedly refused to open a criminal investigation into Ms O.’s death. The relevant decisions were taken on 16   January, 15   February, 21   March, 9   April and 17   November 2008. Each time the District Court or the supervising prosecutor quashed the relevant decision and ordered further inquiry into the matter. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 2 and of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 about the Russian authorities’ failure to investigate the circumstances of her daughter’s death.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Sabuktekin v. Turkey , no.   27243/95, § 98, ECHR 2002 ‑ II (extracts)), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?   2.     The Government are also requested to produce a copy of the complete case-file concerning the investigation in the present case.