CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juillet 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 3 July 2020 Published on 20 July 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 61019/19 María Isabel GARRIDO HERRERO against Spain lodged on 12 November 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant’s 9 year old daughter needed a breathing machine to sustain life. Due to an alleged failure in its installation and/or maintenance, the breathing machine stopped working properly and the applicant’s daughter died. On the basis of the technical reports attached to the file, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the company that installed the breathing machine, which was discontinued, reopened and finally dismissed by the Audiencia Provincial of Murcia as the six-month time-limit for the criminal investigation was met and there were no sufficient rational indications of criminality against a concrete person. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities failed to protect her daughter’s right to life. She also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that she was deprived of her right to a fair trial, as the Investigating Judge did not take all the necessary measures to investigate the circumstances under which the applicant’s daughter’s death had occurred.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s daughter’s right to life guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention breached in the present case?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the investigation held by the domestic authorities in the present case in breach of Article   2 of the Convention?   3.     Was the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention breached in the present case?