6.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Tolyatti. 7.  On 8 May 2007 the applicant’s daughter, Z., was found hanged in the apartment where she had been living with her husband, Ch., and their two minor children. 8.  On the same day the law-enforcement bodies of the Nenetskiy Autonomous Region were informed of Z.’s death. An on-site inspection and an initial examination of Z.’s body were carried out. Statements were obtained from those who had had contact with Z. shortly before her death and a post-mortem examination of Z.’s body was ordered. 9.  The post-mortem examination (in a report of 1 June 2007) established that Z. had died as a result of mechanical asphyxia caused by deliberate self‑harm by means of hanging. Apart from a strangulation mark, multiple bruises and abrasions were discovered on Z.’s face, forearms and shins which could have manifested shortly before Z.’s death as a result of impacts from blunt objects, such as blows inflicted on her face, arms and legs at the hands of another person. Ethyl alcohol was found in Z.’s blood and urine, which confirmed that she had been in a state of alcohol intoxication. 10.  In May to June 2007 the applicant lodged complaints with the Nenetskiy Regional Prosecutor’s Office, seeking to have criminal proceedings instituted against her son-in-law, Ch., who she alleged had incited Z. to commit suicide by inflicting regular beatings and other violent actions on her. 11.  Between 18 May 2007 and 14 October 2009 nineteen decisions were taken by an investigator refusing to institute a formal criminal investigation into Z.’s death. The pre-investigation inquiry established that Z., in a state of alcohol intoxication and after having had a row with Ch., had committed suicide by hanging herself. The above decisions were subsequently set aside by the supervising prosecutor and by the Naryan-Mar Town Court of the Nenetskiy Autonomous Region (“the Town Court”) as unlawful and unsubstantiated. On each occasion it was noted that the instructions, given to the investigator by the prosecutor and the head of the criminal investigations department, to carry out procedural measures aimed at establishing the existence of the circumstances mentioned in the applicant’s complaint and the circumstances surrounding Z.’s death, had not been complied with. 12.  On 13 November 2009 the applicant complained to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of the failure of the criminal investigations department and the police department to carry out comprehensive and prompt inquiries into the death of her daughter. 13.  On the same day the first deputy prosecutor of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office held that there had been a failure to comply with the law and the requirement of promptness in carrying out the inquiry into Z.’s death by the officers of the criminal investigations department and the police department, which had violated the applicant’s rights. 14.  Subsequently, on 15 December 2009 the investigator took another decision refusing to institute a criminal investigation into Z.’s death. 15.  On 16 September 2011 the chief of the Inter-District Investigative Department of the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation for the Arkhangelsk Region and the Nenetskiy Autonomous Region set aside the decision of 15 December 2009 as unlawful and unsubstantiated. He noted, in particular, that the investigator had not given due consideration to information received from several persons to the effect that Ch. had regularly subjected Z. to beatings and humiliation. In order to establish the circumstances of the incident and the reasons and the motives for the suicide, the chief investigator considered it necessary to carry out investigative measures involving, in particular, specialists and experts in psychology and psychiatry, which was only possible in the framework of a criminal investigation. 16.  On 19 September 2011 criminal proceedings were instituted against Ch. under Article 110 of the Criminal Code (incitement to commit suicide). 17.  On 20 September 2011, however, the deputy prosecutor of the Nenetskiy Autonomous Region set aside the above decision. 18.  Following another round of pre-investigation inquiries, on 24 October 2011 the institution of a criminal investigation into the death of Z. was again refused under Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of a lack of the constituent elements of a crime under Article 110 of the Criminal Code in Ch.’s actions and the absence of any crime under Article 105 § 1 of the Criminal Code (murder). The investigator arrived at the conclusion that Z.’s decision to commit suicide had not been provoked by any actions of Ch. amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment. Z. had been in a state of severe alcohol intoxication and could not have fully understood her actions when taking the decision to take her own life. The bruises and abrasions on Z.’s face and body could have originated during a heated altercation with Ch. shortly before the former’s death. No direct evidence in support of the theory that Ch. had ill-treated Z. had been discovered. Even assuming that the two disclosed instances of Z. being beaten by Ch. (in 2005 and 2007) had indeed taken place, they would have been one-off unrelated events occurring under unspecified circumstances and could not have been connected to Z.’s decision to take her own life. Furthermore, Z. had not been fully dependent on Ch. or particularly vulnerable. According to Z.’s relatives, she could have left Ch. at any time, divorced him, taken the children and changed her place of residence. She could also have sought medical assistance, and/or complained about Ch.’s actions to the police. However, she had not done so. At the same time she had told her relatives that she loved her husband and did not want to divorce him. The case file further contained information indicating that Ch. had inflicted beatings on Z. in June 2006, of which Z. had complained to the police. However, Z.’s submissions had been inconsistent and she had eventually refused to pursue those proceedings. The applicant’s theory that Ch. had staged the suicide had been checked and found to be unsupported by the material in the case file. 19.  Following a complaint by the applicant, on 10 September 2013 the Town Court found the decision of 24 October 2011 lawful and justified. 20.  In the meantime, on 8 May 2008 it had been established by the investigator that Ch.’s actions in respect of Z. contained the elements of a criminal offence under Article 117 § 1 of the Criminal Code (causing physical suffering by inflicting regular beatings) for the period between 19 June 2006 and 8 May 2007. The relevant material was submitted for a pre-investigation inquiry to the Nenetskiy Autonomous Region police department. 21.  Between May 2008 and March 2010 at least seventeen decisions were taken by the police department refusing to institute criminal proceedings against Ch. under Article 117 § 1 of the Criminal Code, all of which were subsequently set aside by the supervising prosecutor as unlawful and unsubstantiated. 22.  On 24 June 2010 criminal proceedings were instituted against Ch. under Article 117 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 23.  On 7 July 2010 the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. 24.  On 13 April 2011 Ch.’s actions were reclassified as inflicting beatings, thus coming under Article 116 § 1 of the Criminal Code, but charges under this Article could not be pursued in the absence of an application by the victim. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings were discontinued on the basis of Article 24 § 1 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 25.  In April 2009 the applicant brought civil proceedings against the Ministry of Finance seeking damages for the non-pecuniary harm caused to her by the failure of the domestic authorities to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of her daughter’s death. 26.  On 5 June 2009 the Naryan-Mar Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. 27.  On 16 July 2009 the Nenetskiy Autonomous Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.