CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 octobre 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 16 October 2020 Published on 2 November 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 10132/15 Viktor Ivanovych GORDYCHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 18 February 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the suicide of the applicant’s son on the tenth day of his mandatory military service, shortly after his conversation with the military unit’s psychologist in respect of a private conflict with another soldier, as well as the alleged ineffectiveness of the domestic investigation. The applicant complains that his son might have been provoked into committing suicide by unprofessional behaviour of the psychologist. Furthermore, according to the applicant, it cannot be excluded that, prior the suicide, his son might have also suffered physical ill-treatment. The applicant also alleges that the investigation into the matter was formalistic and superficial, lacked transparency, and was undermined by undue delays. While the applicant relies on Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention, the application falls to be examined under Article 2 of the Convention only.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the special position of conscripts, did the State comply with its obligation to protect the applicant’s son’s life (see Kılınç and Others v. Turkey , no. 40145/98, § 41, 7 June 2005, and Mosendz v.   Ukraine , no. 52013/08, §§ 91-92, 17 January 2013)? Has the State established an efficient system of psychological assessment and assistance to prevent suicides of military servicemen in the armed forces?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.   Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 132, ECHR 2014), did the   domestic investigation in the present case comply with   Article 2   of the Convention?   The Government are also requested to submit: any relevant information and documents, including legislation, internal rules and regulations concerning prevention of suicides in the   army; and copies of all the documents regarding the domestic investigation into the death of the applicant’s son.