CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE32676A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sEE1EDB13 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 242 23.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Iorga v. Moldova (application no. 12219/05)   INEFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION INTO A SOLDIER’S DEATH   Unanimously   Violation of Article 2 (right to life - investigation) of the European Convention on Human Rights   Principal facts   The applicant, Svetlana Iorga, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1958 and lives in Paşcani. Her son, a soldier performing his compulsory military service, disappeared from his unit in June 2001. A few days later, a dead body assumed to be his was found hanging from a tree near the unit. A subsequent criminal investigation into his death was closed by the military prosecutor in December 2001, finding that the applicant’s son had committed suicide. In February 2002, the applicant was given access to the case file, which she had requested as she suspected that her son had been murdered and that the authorities were trying to cover up the case.   She challenged the decision to close the case, complaining in particular that she was unsure whether the body – in an advanced state of decomposition – she had been asked to identify had been her son’s. She also stated that she had been pressured into saying that the body was her son’s and that the photos of the corpse suggested hanging from a tree after asphyxiation. Her request for an exhumation to verify the information was refused. In April 2003, the domestic courts found that there had been a number of shortcomings in the investigation, in particular that the applicant had not been informed of her procedural rights as the victim’s representative, and ordered further investigation.   One year later, the courts annulled a decision by the military prosecutor to discontinue parts of that investigation, finding that he had failed to verify press reports according to which a general held information relevant to the murder of the applicant’s son. In June 2004, the military prosecutor discontinued the investigation entirely. The applicant challenged that decision, but missed the hearing before the district court, as she had not received the summons in time. The court upheld the decision to discontinue the investigation, stating it had been exhaustive. According to its provisions, the decision was final and a further complaint by the applicant was rejected in December 2004.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant complained under Article 2 that there had not been an effective investigation into her son’s death. She submitted press articles accusing an officer in her son’s military unit of possible involvement in his murder.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 March 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President, Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges,   and also Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   The Court considered that, while it was for the domestic authorities to decide whether to carry out specific investigative measures, it had to be possible for the victim or his/her representative to request such measures, to be informed of the decision taken and to be able to challenge them in court. However, as found by the domestic courts, the applicant had been deprived of the possibility of exercising such procedural rights.   The applicant had only been given access to the case file just over a month after the end of the investigation and almost eight months after its start. Had she been kept informed during the initial phase of the investigation, the applicant could have raised her most serious objections regarding the decisions taken. Indeed, the applicant had expressly emphasised the need for a quick decision on exhumation in order to dispel her doubts, which she had not been able to effectively request in the absence of any information concerning the case. Further, some crucial investigative measures such as an autopsy and a report concerning the samples taken from the scene, had been carried out only half a year after the body of the applicant’s son had been discovered, without an explanation for this delay.   Moreover, the applicant had been absent from what was apparently the first and only hearing held by the domestic courts to examine her challenge to the final decision to discontinue the investigation. Given the seriousness of the complaints, the courts would have had to verify whether the applicant had in fact waived her right not be heard before taking a final decision.   The Court therefore unanimously concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 as concerned the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the death of the applicant’s son.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 12,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.     ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.