CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 février 2024

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 4 March 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 44249/17 Valentyn Ivanovych DZYON against Ukraine lodged on 20 October 2017 communicated on 12 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 19 May 2010 the applicant’s son (an investigator at the Staromiskyy department of police in Vinnytsya) died from a gunshot in his office. The applicant alleges that the colleagues of his son were inciting him to take a bribe and when he had refused, they beat and shoot him. On the photos submitted by the applicant it is visible that the applicant’s son had scratches and bruises on his head. On 21 May 2010 the criminal proceedings were initiated. On 29 April 2013 the Vinnytsya City Court of the Vinnytsya Region found the superior of the applicant’s son guilty of negligent handling of weapons (the applicant’s son had allegedly taken the weapon of his superior and committed suicide). On 12 August 2013 the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the first instance court due to numerous shortcomings and inconsistencies of the investigation and ordered a fresh investigation into the matter. The investigation has been on-going since then. The applicant complains, referring to Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention, about the State’s failure to protect his son’s life and ineffective investigation.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s son’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case? Is the State responsible for the death of the applicant’s son?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph   104 of Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention?