CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 31 March 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 6111/19 Nicolai IALAMOV against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 18 January 2019 communicated on 10 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicant’s son in prison while serving a custodial sentence. In particular, the applicant’s son, I.A., died on 2 September 2014 in Prison   no. 13. On 6 December 2014 the Chișinău prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal investigation into the circumstances of I.A.’s death, noting the absence of any injuries on his body. The applicant learned about this decision at the beginning of 2015 and appealed against it. He relied on the contradictions concerning the cause of death: the death certificate listed mechanical asphyxiation, while the forensic medical report listed drug overdose. He also pointed to the failure to hear all inmates present in the cell at the time of his son’s death, to examine his son’s medical record in prison, to examine the available prison video records and to clarify how drugs had made it into prison. On 25 May 2015 the investigating judge upheld the applicant’s appeal and ordered further investigations with the due involvement of the applicant. Subsequently, the prosecutor refused on two more occasions to initiate a criminal investigation advancing the exact same reasons as before (20   July 2015, 12 July 2016). However, upon the applicant’s appeal, the investigating judge each time ordered further investigation into the circumstances of I.A.’s death with reference to the deficiencies in the investigative measures carried out until then (28 April 2016, 3 November 2017). The investigation was pending at the time when the application had been lodged. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention about the ineffective investigation into the circumstances of his son’s death while in State custody. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention? Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention? Were the applicant’s rights to be kept informed of the course of the investigation observed (see, for instance, Iorga v. Moldova , no. 12219/05, §§   24-37, 23 March 2010)?