CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 septembre 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 18 October 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 46569/19 Rosaria INTRANUOVO against Italy lodged on 26 August 2019 communicated on 29 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is the mother of Mr Antonino Drago, who was working as a corporal in the Italian Army and was found dead following a fall from a window in the army barracks in which he was stationed. The applicant complains under the substantive aspect of Article 2 that the national authorities failed to protect her son’s life. She further complains under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention that there has been a failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of her son’s death. 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, do the conclusions reached by the domestic authorities constitute a “plausible explanation” for his death within the meaning of the Court’s case-law (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; see also Beker v. Turkey , no. 27866/03, § 41, 24 March 2009)?   2.     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? In particular:   2.1.     Did the domestic authorities make a serious attempt to establish the circumstances surrounding Mr Drago’s death (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 175, 14 April 2015)? Did the authorities take all the reasonable measures available to them to secure evidence concerning the impugned events?   2.2.     Can it be said that the domestic investigation’s conclusions were based on a thorough, objective and impartial analysis of all relevant elements?   2.3.     Was the investigative process carried out with reasonable expedition, as required by the Court’s case-law (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey , cited above, § 178)?   2.4.     Are the decisions taken by the domestic authorities adequately reasoned and do they take into account the applicant’s submissions made to those authorities?   In answering the foregoing questions, the Government are invited to address to address, inter alia , the following points:   - With reference to question 2.1., which among the investigative acts identified as necessary by the investigating judge could still have been carried out on 29 March 2019?   - With reference to question 2.2., in the request to discontinue the proceedings of 27 July 2017, in which the prosecutor assessed the expert reports on the cause of death and recalled that the judge is the “ peritus peritorum ”, what evidence was relied on in order to substantiate the thesis that Mr Drago had committed suicide? With reference to the same question, what was the applicable case-law, at the time of the issuing of the domestic decisions, which framed the notion of criminal negligence associated to intentional crimes committed by other persons ( cooperazione colposa nel reato doloso ), as mentioned in the domestic decisions? What was the impact of such case-law on the investigation?