CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 September 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 34333/19 Svitlana Stanislavivna PRYSTYNSKA against Ukraine lodged on 17 June 2019 communicated on 3 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns investigation into the death of the applicant’s husband, P. On 23 July 2015 P. was punched several times by a private person, K., fell to the ground and hit his head. He was taken to a hospital where he died on 27 July 2015 from the injuries sustained. On the same day criminal proceedings into the P.’s death were instituted. Following the investigation, K. was charged with intentional infliction of severe bodily injuries that caused P.’s death. On 12 January 2018 the first-instance court found K. guilty and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The court allowed the applicant’s civil claim in part and awarded non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 150,000   Ukrainian hryvnas (approximately 4,390 euros at the material time). On 3   May 2018 the court of appeal, relying on the findings of the medical examinations, amended the above judgment and requalified K.’s actions as involuntary manslaughter, a less severe crime under the domestic law, and sentenced K. to four years’ imprisonment. The court of appeal also applied the Law on Amnesty and released K. from serving the sentence. On 22   January 2019 the Supreme Court upheld the above decision. The applicant complains of the ineffective investigation into her husband’s death since the perpetrator avoided punishment, which she considers contrary to the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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?   2.     In particular, was the sentence imposed on the perpetrator, K., consistent with the respondent State’s obligations under Article 2 of the Convention considering that he was released from serving that sentence as amnestied (see , mutatis mutandis, E.G. v. the Republic of Moldova , no.   37882/13, § 43, 13 April 2021)?