CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 11 March 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 26256/21 Tatyana Fedorovna YERMOLENKO against Ukraine lodged on 29 April 2021 communicated on 23 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicant’s son, a policeman, following an assault on the police station and the subsequent investigation into these events. The applicant’s son (M.) was a police officer in Mariupol. Around 9 a.m. on 9 May 2014 an armed group attacked the building of the police station in which M. was performing his duties. As result of shooting between police officers and the attackers M., who had been taken hostage, was heavily injured. He was later brought to a hospital where he died on the same day. On 9 May 2014 a criminal investigation into the aforementioned events was instituted by the Security Service of Ukraine. On 21 September 2014 four individuals suspected of organising and participating in the events of 9   May 2014 (hereinafter – “the suspects”) were arrested. They were indicted on 20   March 2015. The applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and lodged a civil action. As a result of the so called Normandy Contact Group meeting held in Paris on 9 December 2019, Russia and Ukraine agreed to carry out an exchange of prisoners. On 20 December 2019 the Prosecutor General of Ukraine sought to change the preventive measures imposed on a number of suspects, accused persons and convicts in respect of whom criminal proceedings were pending, with a view to the planned exchange. On 26 December 2019 the Zhovtnevyy Local Court of Mariupol changed the preventive measures of the suspects involved in the 9 May 2014 assault from detention to personal obligation to appear before the court. In its decision the court admitted that the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine did not envisage the possibility of switching from pre-trial detention to personal obligation to appear at trial but based its decision on references, inter alia , to the Normandy Contact Group agreement, the order of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine and the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. On 14 January and 4 February 2020, the court of appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, refused to open proceedings on the applicant’s appeals against the first-instance court’s decision. After their release the suspects absconded from justice. On 2   November 2020 the trial court granted the request of the investigative authorities to put the suspects on the list of wanted persons and suspended the criminal proceedings. The applicant complains, invoking Article 2 of the Convention, that the State had not protected her son’s life as it had allegedly failed to take any precautionary measures before the assault and properly organise the counterterrorist operation during the assault. She further complains about lack of effective investigation into the events. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the respondent State’s positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to protect the life of the applicant’s son in respect of the manner in which the authorities organised and conducted their operation in reaction to the assault of 9 May 2014?   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? In particular, was there a breach of that provision in that the authorities allowed the suspected perpetrators of the assault to escape justice?