CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 avril 2023

.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 2 May 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 51287/21 Małgorzata PAPAŁA and N.K. against Poland lodged on 6 October 2021 communicated on 11 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a criminal investigation into the murder, in June 1998, of a high-ranking police officer, X. The first applicant is X’s widow. The second applicant is his daughter. The ensuing investigation, carried out by two different prosecution services, led, inter alia , to: (i) the indictment against R.B. and A.Z., filed on 10   November 2009 and acquittal of these individuals (first-instance judgment of 31 July 2013, appeal proceedings on-going); and (ii) the indictment against I.M., who was a crown witness in the above-mentioned proceedings against R.B. and A.Z., filed on 28   May   2015 and his acquittal (first-instance judgment of 27 October 2020, appeal proceedings ongoing). These criminal proceedings concern different forms of alleged complicity in X’s murder. The first applicant has the status of an auxiliary prosecutor in the above ‑ mentioned criminal proceedings. In 2010, Ar.Z., who was a witness in one of the criminal proceedings mentioned above, died in unexplained circumstances while in detention. The applicants complain under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention that the criminal investigation into X’s murder was ineffective and that the ensuing court proceedings have not been completed. They submit, in particular, that the investigation was not thorough, or carried out promptly and transparently, but was marked by various shortcomings, for example, regarding the evidence and the communication with the applicants. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, has the investigation by the domestic authorities and the ensuing court proceedings in the present case been in breach of Article 2 of the Convention (see, Olewnik-Cieplińska and Olewnik v. Poland , no.   20147/15, §§ 135-46, 5   September 2019)?   The Parties are also requested to submit information and relevant documents on any new developments that have occurred in the pending criminal proceedings.