CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 octobre 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 } .sF023082F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 8 November 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 45987/21 Manana ELIBASHVILI against Georgia lodged on 7 September 2021 communicated on 14 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicant’s son on 1 August 2016 as a result of drowning while being chased by police. The investigation into the matter started on 3 August 2016 into the offence of inciting suicide and was further extended on 10 August 2020 to cover the offence of neglect of official duty. The criminal proceedings are already pending for more than five years and no charges have been brought to date. The applicant complains of a violation of Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the right to life of Z.E., the applicant’s son, as protected under Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case? In particular, did the circumstances in which the applicant’s son died engage the State’s responsibility under Article 2 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case in breach of Article 2 of the Convention (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v.   Turkey   [GC], no. 24014/05 , §§ 169 ‑ 182, 14 April 2015, and Mikayil Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 4762/05, §§ 101-105, 17 December 2009)? What is the current state of the proceedings?   3.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   The respondent Government are requested to submit a copy of the file of the prosecuting authorities’ investigation into the death of Z.E.