CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mai 2019

.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 } .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 }   Communicated on 28 May 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 27628/18 Alzira Akramovna SHCHERBAKOVA against Russia lodged on 10 May 2018 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Alzira Akramovna Shcherbakova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in the town of Kazan. She is represented before the Court by Mr Igor Sholokhov, a lawyer practising in Kazan. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     Events of 4 June 2017 At around 3 a.m. on 4 June 2017 the applicant’ s son, Mr   S.   Shcherbakov, then aged twenty seven, and his friend Mr A.M., both apparently drunk, walked down the Pavlyukhina street in Kazan. They were arrested by police officers for having committed minor administrative offence of disorderly conduct. Later, at around 11 a.m. on the same day the police drew up a record in this connection. After the arrest the applicant’ s son and Mr A.M. were put in a police van and transported to the police department of the Gorki district of Kazan. During the journey, Mr S. Shcherbakov fell out of the van on the pavement. As a result of the fall, he sustained serious injuries of his head, shoulders and upper part of the body and died on the spot. B.     Subsequent investigation On the same day an investigator drew up a report regarding the incident, suggesting that a crime of negligence may have been committed. After a check on 13 June 2017 a criminal investigation was brought in respect of the events. This decision was later quashed. By decision of 13 September 2017 investigator Kh. took a decision not to institute criminal investigation into the events, having concluded that the applicant’s son’s fall was a result of his own unlawful behavior, as he had tried to escape from the police van by breaking the locked door and jumping out. At the same time, the decision admitted that the regular locking mechanism of the van had not been functioning properly and that instead the door of the van had been locked with an improvised lock, which had broken down during the events. This decision was upheld by the Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan on 10 November 2017. The first instance judgment was quashed on appeal by the Supreme Court of Tatarstan as unlawful on 26   December 2017. On 17 January 2018 the first instance court again upheld the decision of 13 September 2017. The first instance judgment was again quashed on appeal on 16   February 2018. The case was remitted at first instance for a fresh examination. On 20 March 2018 the first instance court again upheld the decision of 13 September 2017. This judgment was upheld on appeal on 24 April 2018. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that her son’s death resulted from the negligent behaviour of the policemen who failed to exercise due care when transporting her son to the police station. She also complained about the lack of proper and effective investigation into the events by the authorities. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is death of the applicant’s son in police custody imputable to the State within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention?   2.     Was Article 2 of the Convention complied with in the present case? In particular, did the State display sufficient diligence and care in respect of a person in its custody?   3.     Did the authorities comply with the requirements of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention? Did they conduct an effective and prompt investigation into the circumstances of death of the applicant’s son?