CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mars 2021

.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 }   Published on 19 April 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 39384/20 Svetlana Vitalyevna LATYUK against Russia lodged on 27 July 2020 communicated on 31 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a conscript’s suicide as a result of his ill ‑ treatment by an officer and the refusal of compensation claims brought by the applicant against the State in respect of the officer’s actions. As a result of a criminal investigation, the national courts established that officer Kh. had systemically subjected the applicant’s son to ill-treatment which had resulted in the latter’s depression and the decision to take his own life. Officer Kh. was convicted and ordered to pay to the applicant RUB   1,500,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant’s claims for compensation from the State for the actions of officer   Kh. had been rejected on the grounds that the latter had not been acting on the orders or in the interests of the State. In the applicant’s view, the situation raises issues under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the national authorities in the circumstances of the case under any positive obligation under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention to take measures to prevent or protect from ill-treatment and to protect life, in particular, by taking measures at preventing suicide (see, for instance, Mosendz v. Ukraine , no. 52013/08, §§ 112-113, 17 January 2013; Perevedentsevy v. Russia , no.   39583/05, §§ 90-94, 24 April 2014, and Lyalyakin v. Russia , no.   31305/09, §   70, 12 March 2015)?   2.     Given the refusal of compensation claims against the State, did the applicant have effective domestic remedies at her disposal in respect of her complaints under Articles 2 and 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Keenan v. the United Kingdom , no.   27229/95, § 130, ECHR 2001 ‑ III; Poghosyan and Baghdasaryan v.   Armenia , no. 22999/06, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2012; and Mirzoyan v. Armenia , no.   57129/10, §§ 78-83, 23   May 2019)?