CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 28 July 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 30314/24 Diana ŽDERO against Serbia lodged on 10 October 2024 communicated on 9 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application has been lodged by a mother in respect of her son’s alleged ill-treatment while in police custody and his subsequent death, some 24 hours after his release, in a public courtyard between two residential buildings. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about her son’s alleged ill-treatment by the police and the subsequent failure of the national authorities to carry out an effective official investigation in this connection. In addition to that, the applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that there was no effective official investigation into the complex and ultimately unresolved circumstances surrounding her son’s death. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Are the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention compatible with the provisions of the Convention, ratione personae , in so far as they relate to circumstances concerning the death of the applicant’s son (see, for example, Karpylenko v. Ukraine , no. 15509/12, §§   103-106, 11   February 2016, with further references; see also, mutatis mutandis , §§   107-114 of the same judgment)? 2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see, for example and among many other authorities, Mladenović v. Serbia , no.   1099/08, § 51, 22 May 2012, with further references), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention? 3.     Has the applicant’s son been subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see, for example and among many other authorities, Zličić v. Serbia , nos. 73313/17 and 20143/19, §§ 88-92, 26 January 2021, with further references)? 4.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR   2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?