CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 décembre 2016

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 14 December 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 25846/16 Nadezhda Vladimirovna CHERTOVSKIKH against Russia lodged on 4 May 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant argued that her son had been killed in detention either by inmates or prison guards. Domestic authorities, however, insisted that her son had died in a construction-site accident. The applicant also complained about the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the events. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant’s son’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, did his death result from a use of force by inmates or prison guards?   2.     If the applicant’s death did not result from the use of force and occurred as a result of the construction accident on 2   September 2013, was there a violation of Government’s positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, is there an effective system ensuring prisoners’ occupational safety in Russia (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no.   48939/99, § 71, ECHR 2004 ‑ XII; Cevrioğlu v. Turkey , no. 69546/12, §§   49-55, 4   October 2016)?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?