CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 mai 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } 396 18.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not Final [1]     Anusca v. Moldova (application no. 24034/07)   INEFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION INTO A SOLDIER’S DEATH   Unanimously   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in its procedural aspect     Principal facts   The applicant, Liuba Anuşca, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1957 and lives in Lopatnic. Her son was performing his mandatory military service when in October 2004 he was found dead, lying under a tree with a broken cord around his neck, the other end of which was tied to a branch. Shortly before, he had been reprimanded by one of his superiors and had left a short written note with a farewell message with another soldier. A few hours later, the military prosecutor started an investigation, which included an examination of the body, interviews with other soldiers and a post-mortem psychiatric assessment. A forensic examination of the body a few weeks later concluded that the cause of death had been asphyxia caused by strangulation. The military prosecutor closed the investigation in December 2004, finding that the death had been caused by suicide, and that no crime had been committed.   In April 2005, the deputy prosecutor general annulled this decision on the ground that the death of the applicant’s son had not been sufficiently investigated and specified several steps to be taken, including a handwriting analysis and further interviews with soldiers and officers of the regiment. After those steps had been taken, the military prosecutor closed the investigation for a second time in May 2005, concluding again that no crime had been committed. In November 2006, the applicant applied to the municipal court to annul the closure of the investigation, complaining in particular that she had not seen the investigation file and that her request that certain persons be interviewed had been rejected. The municipal court ruled that the applicant’s rights under criminal procedural law, including the right to submit evidence, the right to challenge the decisions of the investigator and the right to become acquainted with the contents of the file, had been seriously violated. It also noted that the photos of the body mentioned in the examination report were not included in the file. It nevertheless rejected the applicant’s complaint on procedural grounds.   Following the intervention by a Member of Parliament in support of the applicant, in May   2007 the deputy prosecutor general again annulled the decision to close the file, ruling that the applicant had to be recognised as the injured party and had to be granted certain procedural rights associated with this status. He further directed that additional information be obtained about the social relations of the applicant’s son and the reasons for his absences from the military base. The military prosecutor closed the investigation for the third time in August 2007, a decision of which the applicant was informed a few weeks later. The deputy prosecutor general cancelled that decision in January 2008, noting that the photos of the body had not been added to the investigation file and that no further information about the absences of the applicant’s son had been obtained. The prosecutor general wrote a letter to the military prosecutor strongly criticising the way the investigation had been handled, in particular that it had been incomplete, that there had been unjustified delays and that steps had not been taken as ordered. The investigation was closed for the last time in May 2008, concluding again that no crime had been committed.     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.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21   May   2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President, Lech Garlicki (Poland), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ján Šikuta (Slovak Republic), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges,   and also Lawrence Early, Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that in a case where the suicide of a soldier was presumed, the authorities responsible for him had to act with particular diligence in investigating the circumstances in order to exclude the possibility of a criminal act against the deceased.   The Court noted that the investigation into the death of the applicant’s son had begun promptly. It found that the shortcomings in the initial actions of the investigator, which the applicant criticised, had not been such as to compromise the investigation. In particular, the loss of the photos did not undermine the forensic examinations, which had come to the same conclusion. Given that other soldiers had last seen the applicant’s son about twenty minutes before his death, the absence of the precise time of death did not call into question the conclusion reached by the investigation. The Court noted that additional interviews with soldiers of the regiment had brought to light certain difficulties the applicant’s son was having with military life; the interviews had also provided an explanation for the fact that he had a significant amount of alcohol in his system at the time of his death. The Court found that there were no elements before it that would cast doubt on the conclusion that the applicant’s son had committed suicide by hanging.   However, the Court was struck by the fact that the office of the prosecutor general had considered it necessary to intervene three times, ordering the military prosecutor on each occasion to re-open the procedure and conduct further enquiries into significant issues. The Court accepted the Moldovan Government’s argument that the actions of the office of the prosecutor general ultimately cured the deficiencies in the investigation, but they could not make up for the delay. The total time of three years and seven months until the investigation was finally concluded could not be justified by its complexity or any objective difficulties.   Moreover, the authorities had not sufficiently involved the applicant in the investigation, at least during the first two years. In the circumstances she had had a strong and legitimate interest in the conduct of the investigation, which would have ensured public scrutiny and accountability. This would have been achieved by granting her the status of the injured party under national criminal law. The Court emphasised that Article 2 in its procedural aspect required more than merely informing close relatives of the progress of the investigation. It therefore rejected the Moldovan Government’s arguments that nothing had prevented the applicant from acquainting herself with the investigation file and that only where an investigation had concluded that a crime had been committed should the relatives be recognised as the successors to the victim.   In the light of these considerations, the Court unanimously concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 8,000   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. All final judgments   are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .