CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 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 } Published on 3 June 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 2900/24 Ruzkar GURIANOV against Georgia lodged on 17 January 2024 communicated on 16 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicant’s son as a result of alleged medical negligence and the alleged ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation in that respect. A criminal investigation into the matter has been ongoing since 9   January 2018. The applicant relied on Article   2 and Article   13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the criminal complaint an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicant’s complaint of medical negligence (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, §   215, 19 December 2017)?   2.     Assuming that domestic remedies have been exhausted, has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention? In particular,   Has the respondent State complied with its relevant positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention in the present case (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes , cited above, §§ 186-87 and 189)?   Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (ibid., §§   214-21), has the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case been in breach of the said provision?   3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 2 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, was there a domestic remedy, other than the criminal proceedings, which could have secured a more effective examination of the applicant’s complaints?