FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF PRYGUNOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 31557/07and 6 others – see appended list)     JUDGMENT  This version was rectified on 12 May 2021under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court   STRASBOURG22 April 2021This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Prygunov and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Lətif Hüseynov, President, Lado Chanturia, Mattias Guyomar, judges,and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the applications (nos. 31557/07, 61637/11, 12450/13, 19294/13, 20087/13, 81809/17 and 9273/18) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table;the decision to give notice of the applications to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”);the parties’ observations in applications;Having deliberated in private on 25 March 2021,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:INTRODUCTION1. The present case concerns the ineffective investigations into the deaths of the applicants’ relatives, who died under suspicious circumstances or of serious injuries, and in the absence of any evidence that State agents were involved.THE FACTS2. The applicants’ details and the relevant facts are set out in the appended tables.3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna.THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS4. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications and consider them in a single judgment, given that they raise similar issues under the Convention.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION5. The applicants complained that the investigations into the deaths of their relatives, who died under suspicious circumstances or of serious injuries, without there being evidence that State agents were involved, had been ineffective. They relied on Articles 2, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.6. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that the complaints at issue fall to be examined under Article 2 of the Convention (see Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 38, 12 January 2012). This provision, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.”Admissibility7. In application no. 12450/13, the Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted the available domestic remedies as she had not challenged the decision of the investigative authorities of 9 April 2012 refusing to institute criminal proceedings into the circumstances of the death of her brother. They also argued that the decisions refusing to institute criminal proceedings had previously been successfully challenged by the applicant, thus, the remedy at the applicant’s disposal had been effective.8. The applicant disagreed. She maintained that the domestic investigation into the death of her brother could not be regarded as effective, and that this therefore exempted her from the obligation to pursue the remedy proposed by the Government.9. The Court considers that the Government’s objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies raises issues which are closely linked to the question of the effectiveness of the investigation. It is therefore closely linked to the merits of her complaint under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention. In these circumstances, the Court joins the Government’s objection to the merits of the applicant’s complaint.10. In application no. 31557/07, the Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints under Article 2 of the Convention are manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. In particular, the Government stated that the investigating authorities, within a reasonable period of time, established the circumstances of the case and the persons responsible for the murder; the perpetrators had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, and the applicant had been awarded with compensation for damages sustained as a result of the crime. The Government also stressed that the criminal case had been remitted only once for additional investigation for any deficiencies and shortcomings; there were no signs that the applicant had not been involved in the criminal proceedings or that the independence of the investigation was questioned.11. The applicant did not provide any comments.12. The Government submitted no observations as to the admissibility of the remaining applications.13. The Court further notes that the applicants’ complaints are neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible.MeritsThe parties’ submissions14. The Government submitted that there had been no violation of the Convention. They noted in particular that the investigating authorities had either immediately instituted criminal investigations into the applicants’ relatives’ deaths or had taken all investigative steps in order to conclude that an investigation was not necessary. The competent investigating authorities had acted diligently and promptly; they had done everything possible to investigate the circumstances of the cases; and the length of the investigations had been justified by the necessity to carry out a significant number of investigative actions.15. In applications 12450/13, 19294/13, 20087/13 and 9273/18, the applicants did not accept the Government’s assertions that effective investigations had been carried out. They contended that the investigating authorities had not acted promptly and had not secured evidence of the incidents. The applicants also argued that the investigations had not been structured and had been marked by tactical shortcomings, which had undermined any possibility of identifying those responsible or establishing their relatives’ cause of death.The Court’s assessment16.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 2
Outcome: violation