CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 avril 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 } Published on 6 May 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 28321/21 Anatoliy Mykolayovych ZAGNITKO against Ukraine lodged on 26 May 2021 communicated on 19 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant’s son, O., has disappeared in August 2014. According to the applicant, he has been kidnapped on 18 August 2014 by Ukrainian State agents from the house of K. in a village in the Luhansk region, which was controlled by Ukraine at the material time. As it appears from witnesses’ testimonies, on the above date O. and K. were apprehended by armed men wearing camouflage and masks. Those men allegedly arrived at K.’s house in a car with the Ukrainian flag on it. According to K.’s statements, unknown armed men arrived at his house, hit him and the applicant’s son, put bags on their heads and took them in different directions; since that date he had never seen the applicant’s son again. K. also stated that he had been ill-treated, accused of treason and questioned by agents of the Security Service of Ukraine but later released. There is no information about the applicant’s son’s whereabouts after 18 August 2014. On 27 August 2014 the police launched a criminal investigation into the unlawful deprivation of liberty or kidnapping of the applicant’s son. The conduct of the investigation was later entrusted to the Kramatorsk territorial department of the State Bureau of Investigations. According to the applicant, the investigation has been carried out without any results. The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention about the disappearance and possible killing of his son, and the lack of an effective investigation into those events. Referring to Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant further complained that the long-lasting uncertainty about his son’s fate and the inadequate investigation into the latter’s disappearance had caused him suffering. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant also complained that his son had been kidnapped by State agents. In January 2024 the applicant’s wife, O.’s mother, notified the Court of his death on 8   October 2021. She provided the Court with the death certificate issued by the so-called “Luhansk People’s Republic”. She also expressed her wish to pursue the aforementioned complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant’s son disappear under life-threatening circumstances imputable to the Ukrainian authorities, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, is there any evidence available to the effect that the applicant’s son is still alive? 2.     Has the investigation been carried out in respect of the applicant’s allegations of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, as required by that provision? 3.     Was the applicant’s son deprived of his liberty in a manner imputable to the Ukrainian authorities and in breach of Article 5   §   1 of the Convention? 4.     Was the applicant subjected to inhuman treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention on account of his mental suffering allegedly stemming from the long-lasting uncertainty about his son’s fate and the inadequate investigation into the latter’s disappearance?