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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 4 March 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 59562/17 Valentyna Pavlivna BUZYNA against Ukraine lodged on 3 August 2017 communicated on 12 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the murder of the applicant’s son, an opposition journalist and author of several books, and the subsequent investigation. On 16 April 2015, the applicant’s son was shot near his residence, allegedly due to his professional activities, by two individuals wearing masks. Although the suspects were initially identified and detained, their preventive measure was later revoked. The case was transferred several times from one investigative body to another. Various shortcomings in the investigation were identified by higher prosecution bodies. In November 2017, the case was forwarded to a court where it has remained pending. The applicant invokes Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention.     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?   3.     Was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?