CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 janvier 2025

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   Published on 17 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31619/20 Svitlana Volodymyrivna SKRYPNICHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 11 July 2020 communicated on 30 January 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicant’s son, E., on 29   August   2017, of acute blood loss caused by a rib fracture and rupture of the   spleen while in prison. According to official records, which were based on fellow prisoners’ testimonies, E. sustained those injuries in an accidental falling. A   day before his death, he had complained to the applicant about being extorted money and receiving death threats from fellow prisoners. The   applicant informed the prison administration thereabout. The criminal investigation into the death, which was launched on 30   August 2017, was discontinued on 23 May and 30 August 2018 for the   lack of any evidence of a criminal offence, with both those decisions having eventually been quashed as premature. The investigation was discontinued for the third time on 11 March 2019. According to the applicant, she has never received a copy of that decision. In December 2017 the applicant brought a civil claim against the State arguing that the prison administration had not safeguarded her son’s life. She claimed compensation in respect of pecuniary damage (the burial costs) and non-pecuniary damage. Although initially, on 26 February 2019, the   Kremenchuk Avtozavodskyy District Court rejected the applicant’s claim, on 23 May 2019 the Poltava Court of Appeal quashed that decision and delivered a new one, at the applicant’s favour. The appellate court stated that the prison administration had failed to duly account for the death of the applicant’s son. It also questioned the adequacy of the investigation carried out. The appellate court observed, in particular, that it had never been verified whether E.’s fatal injuries could have indeed been caused by his accidental falling. Furthermore, the written testimonies of the fellow prisoners claiming to have eye-witnessed E.’s falling were fully identical. The Poltava Court of Appeal awarded the applicant 11,268 Ukrainian hryvnias [1] (UAH) in respect of pecuniary damage UAH 200,000 [2] in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On   12 February 2020 the Supreme Court upheld that decision. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention (and additionally relying on Articles 3, 6 and 13) that the State did not safeguard the life of her son while under its control and that there has been no effective domestic investigation into the matter. She also argues that the compensation awarded to her in respect of non-pecuniary damage was insufficient.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant’s son’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? 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? The Government are requested to submit to the Court copies of all the relevant documents.     [1] Equivalent to about 380 euros (EUR) at the material time. [2] Equivalent to about EUR 6,750 at the time.