FIFTH SECTION     CASE OF SLYUSAR v. UKRAINE (Application no. 39797/05)      JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 17 January 2013 FINAL 17/04/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Slyusar v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Mark Villiger, President, Angelika Nußberger, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Ann Power-Forde, Ganna Yudkivska, Helena Jäderblom, Aleš Pejchal, judges,and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 11 December 2012,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 39797/05) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Yuriy Borysovych Slyusar (“the applicant”), on 26 October 2005.2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr K.M. Buzadzhy, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently, Mr N. Kulchytskyy, of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the investigation of his brother’s death was ineffective.4. On 31 August 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE5. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kyiv.A. Investigation of the applicant’s brother’s disappearance6. On 15 April 2003 the applicant’s twin brother (“Se.”) made a will in the applicant’s favour, according to which, in the event of the applicant’s brother’s death, the applicant would inherit an apartment (“apartment A”) and other property.7. Between 16 and 17 April 2003 Se. disappeared. The applicant claimed he had talked to his brother on the phone at around 8 p.m. on 16 April and they had agreed to meet the next day. However, when the applicant called his brother the next morning, nobody answered. According to statements from the applicant’s former sister-in-law (“G.”), (with whom the applicant’s brother had continued to share an apartment after their sham divorce in the 1990s,) on the evening of 16 April 2003 her former husband had been using the phone when she went to bed. As they slept in different rooms and as the door to her former husband’s room was closed, she did not know whether or not he was at home when she left the apartment on the morning of 17 April 2003.8. According to the applicant, on the evening of 17 April 2003 his friends, (“the Be.”), visited his brother’s apartment. They claimed to have noticed “the absence of the carpet and that [the applicant’s] brother’s son (“S.”) had a wound to his hand”. They also stated that G. and S. were very nervous.9. On 18 April 2003, the applicant and G. reported Se.’s disappearance to the Solomyanskiy district police station in Kyiv (Солом’янський районний відділ ГУ МВС України в м. Києві). According to G., the applicant’s brother had left their apartment at an unknown time and had not come back. She did not see him leaving. The applicant alleged that G. and S. knew of his brother’s whereabouts and requested that the police look for an acquaintance of G. called I.10. On 18, 22 and 23 April 2003 the apartment was examined by the police. The following items were seized: pieces of wallpaper stained brown, traces of a brown coloured substance from a radiator and door, a plastic pipe from the bathroom, a stool, a T-shirt, and running shoes and trousers belonging to S. Police also seized the deeds for three apartments, 2,000 United States dollars (USD) and 1,000 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) (in cash) and Se.’s passport.11. On 26 April 2003 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings owing to lack of evidence, since Se. had not been found among bodies awaiting identification and he himself had not sought the help of the police or been brought to a medical institution in need of assistance.12. On 20 May 2003 the prosecutor quashed the police decision of 26 April 2003 and instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of kidnapping since “there were grounds to believe that [the applicant’s brother] had been confined by unknown persons”.13. On 30 May 2003 the applicant was questioned by the police. He said that his brother had told him he had received threats from his former wife and son.14. On 9 June 2003 Se.’s neighbours, (“B.”), testified that between 2 and 3 a.m. on 17 April 2003 they had heard the sounds of the water heater being turned on, the sounds of running water and what appeared to be the sounds of someone cleaning the apartment.15. On 24 June 2003 the applicant was informed that the police officers K. and O. were being disciplined for breaching criminal procedure law and for their unsubstantiated refusal to institute criminal proceedings.16. On 20 and 24 June and 1 and 4 July 2003, six forensic examinations took place. No traces of blood were found on the plastic water pipe or stool or the clothes confiscated from S. It was impossible to identify the owner of the blood on S.’s running shoes. The blood on the door may have belonged to a woman and there was a possibility that the blood found on the radiator and wallpaper was that of S. or G. However, on 7 July 2003 another forensic examination concluded that the stains on the wallpaper did not contain blood from either S. or G. It is unclear whether, as regards the wallpaper, two different samples had been examined or each examination had reached a different conclusion.17. On 9 July 2003, S. and G. were arrested. However, since there was no proof of their involvement in any crimes, they were released on 18 July 2003 and the criminal proceedings against them were terminated on 21 July 2003.18. On 21 August 2003 the criminal proceedings which had been opened on 20 May 2003 were suspended, as it was impossible to establish who had committed the crime.19. On 24 August 2003 S. was questioned as a witness.20. On 15 October 2003 the criminal proceedings on the charge of kidnapping were terminated and new proceedings were opened on a charge of murder. It was noted that “it appears that Se. was killed”.21. On 20 December 2003 the applicant was recognised in the proceedings as a victim.22. Between January and November 2004 a number of witnesses including Se.’s friends and neighbours, police officers, S. and G. and the notary who had certified the Se.’s will, gave written statements.23. On 10 March 2004 the General Prosecutor’s Office (“the GPO”) informed the applicant that the officer investigating the case had been disciplined for inefficiency.24. On 29 November 2004 a forensic medical examination of the wound to S.’s hand was carried out. S. claimed that he had cut his hand on 18 or 19 April 2003 on a piece of broken glass from a jar. The examination proved inconclusive.25. On 27 December 2004 the case was transferred to the Zhytomyr Regional Prosecutor’s Office for investigation.26. Between May and June 2005 some of the witnesses were called again for additional questioning.27. On 2 June 2005 following a reconstruction of events which took place in the Bs’ apartment in the early hours of 17 April 2003, it was established that it was impossible to hear any sounds of washing and cleaning from the applicant’s brother’s apartment.28. On 3 June 2005 the case was transferred back to Kyiv.29. On the same day S. underwent a lie-detector test. According to the applicant, its results were not included in the case-file and were later lost.30. Between 5 July 2005 and 21 February 2006 S. was questioned again. The applicant was questioned five times, his father was questioned twice, and several investigating officers and a forensic expert, who had been present during the searches of the applicant’s brother’s apartment, were also questioned.31. On 9 November 2005 Y., the investigation officer at that time, was questioned as a witness. He stated that he had been present during the visit to the applicant’s brother’s apartment on 23 April 2003. According to his statements, parts of the wallpaper which had been stained brown had been cut out and removed by the police - allegedly for further forensic examination. Brown spots had also been found on the doors and on the heater. Some clothes were seized (a T-shirt, running shoes and trousers). He did not know what had happened to this evidence.32. On 16 January 2006, at a briefing in the GPO, it was held that the criminal case had not been properly investigated and the applicant’s allegations regarding the involvement of S., G. and M. (G.’s friend, whom the applicant had first identified as “I.”) in the crime had not been investigated. On the same date the GPO sent the following letter to the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office:“After examining the material in the case file it was established that the investigation was marked by shortcomings. The allegations made by Y.B. Slyusar about the circumstances of the crime and the involvement of G. and S. into ... disappearance were not properly checked.Unsubstantiated decisions to drop the investigation were taken. The case was transferred several times from one investigating officer to another.The initial stage of the investigation was marked by delays and a number of tactical mistakes. In particular, much time was lost in verifying the statement that S.B. Slyusar had disappeared. Only after numerous substantiated complaints had been made by the victim’s relatives were criminal proceedings opened on a charge of murder.The investigation was unstructured and chaotic ... no reconstruction of events was held and no checks were made as to whether it was possible to hear the cleaning of the floor and walls from the neighbouring apartment.The majority of witnesses were questioned perfunctorily, without verification of the circumstances of the case. Despite statements from relatives, neighbours and friends that there had been a conflict about money in the victim’s family, no enquiries were made, at the initial stage of the investigation, into whether the former wife and son of the victim had committed a crime for monetary reasons. M.’s implication in the crime was not properly checked either.It was not established how S. had cut his hand or whether he had an illness which could cause nose bleeding ...The GPO is to be informed of the results of the investigation by 16 February 2006.”33. On 13 February 2006 M. was questioned. He stated that G. had told him that S. had killed Se. and had hidden the body. There was a quarrel between Se. and S., and the latter said: “You took my inheritance and I will take your life”. After that G. had heard some noise but S. had told her to stay in her room. Later she had seen two bags in the corridor.34. On 17 February 2006 the GPO informed the applicant that there was no evidence to support his statement that the case materials had disappeared.35. On 21 February 2006 M. was again questioned. He stated that he had been told by G. that the applicant’s brother had been killed by S., who had hit the victim with a dumbbell, cut the body in two, and had hidden it. On 22 February 2006 a face-to-face confrontation was held between M. and S., and between M. and G, with M. insisting that S. had killed the applicant’s brother and S. denying his guilt.36. On 24 February 2006 S. was arrested and released three days later.37. Between 4 October 2006 and 26 February 2007 the applicant, S., G. and M. were questioned again.38. On 9 July 2007 the case was transferred to the Kyiv Investigation Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (слідче управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ м. Києва). Between 26 July 2007 and 23 September 2009, the applicant was questioned three times with several face-to-face confrontations having taken place between the applicant, G. and S., and M. having been questioned also.39. In 2008 S. left for Australia.40. In June 2009 an “A.” enterprise informed the police that in 2003, allegedly upon the request by the investigation authorities, M. was interrogated by its specialists with the use of a lie detector. S. was interrogated in 2005. However, the relevant records were lost.41. On 1 December 2009 the case was transferred to the Solomyanskyi district police department in Kyiv.42. Between 1 December 2009 and 11 September 2011 M. and K. were questioned. The whereabouts of G. and S. at that time were allegedly unknown.43. According to the applicant, since May 2003 there have been sixteen different investigating officers in charge of the case, including two from the Zhytomyr Regional Prosecutor’s Office who handled the case from December 2004 to June 2005.44. The applicant’s brother’s body has never been found. The proceedings are still pending.B. Defamation proceedings45. On 19 April 2006 a TV programme called “Bez tabu” (“Without taboo”) which dealt with the disappearance of the applicant’s brother was shown on TV. The applicant states that it was filmed at the end of 2005 but that at that time the GPO banned it from being broadcast. The programme was finally shown six months later but, according to the applicant, with some of the initial footage missing.46. On 16 May 2006, S. and G. instituted defamation proceedings in the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv against the “1+1” TV company which had made the programme, the investigating journalist, the applicant and three of his family members.47. On 13 November 2006 the court found for the claimants and held that thirty-three different phrases used by the defendants during the programme were defamatory. The court awarded the former UAH 15,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and ordered the defendants to retract the false information by reading out the operative part of the judgment on the same TV programme.48. On 22 May 2007 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal reduced the award to UAH 6,000 and upheld the remainder of the judgment.49. On 23 January 2008 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed the judgment of 22 May 2007 and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal.50. On 17 April 2008 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 13 November 2006 and rejected the claims.51. On 18 June 2008 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 17 April 2008.C. Civil proceedings to declare the applicant’s brother dead52. In October 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Pecherskiy District Court to have the death of his brother on 16 April 2003 formally recognised.53. On 22 September 2004 the court rejected the applicant’s request as criminal proceedings were still pending, no body had been found and there was no evidence that the applicant’s brother had died on the date indicated by the applicant. On 13 January 2005 and 6 April 2006 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, respectively, upheld this decision.54. On 4 October 2006 the Pecherskiy District Court again rejected the applicant’s request − referring to its decision of 22 September 2004.55. On 29 January 2007 the same court found for the applicant in part and finally declared his brother dead. It rejected the applicant’s request for a formal declaration that the death had occurred on 16 April 2003.D. Property-related proceedings56. In 2003, the applicant lodged numerous claims against G. with the courts, requesting, inter alia, the return of some of his brother’s property and the eviction of G. from apartment A. The majority of his claims were rejected by the courts for failure to comply with procedural formalities.57. On 28 April 2007 the Shevchenkivskiy District Court rejected G.’s request to evict the applicant from apartment A. The court also rejected the applicant’s request for formal acknowledgement that G. had lost her right to live in the apartment as it had belonged not to the applicant but to his brother.58. On 6 June 2008 the applicant received an inheritance certificate for apartment A in accordance with the will and testament of his brother.59. In 2008 and 2009 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against G. and S. in order to claim his brother’s property. The courts rejected his claims for failure to comply with procedural requirements.E. Other proceedings60. The applicant unsuccessfully lodged numerous requests to institute criminal proceedings against the prosecutors, police officers and judges who were involved in the case for, inter alia, forgery and neglect of their duties. and against S. and G. for perjury − but to no avail.61. He also instituted civil and administrative proceedings against various State authorities for negligence and claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage, but this was also to no avail.THE LAWI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION62. The applicant complained under Articles 2, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective investigation into his brother’s death and the failure of the domestic authorities to respond to his complaints. In particular, the applicant alleged that his twin brother had been killed by S. and G. in their apartment on the evening of 16 April 2003. He claimed that the body had been removed by S. with the assistance of M. and then hidden. In his opinion, S. and G. had not been prosecuted because they had bribed the investigating authorities.63. The Court considers that this complaint is to be examined under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law ...”.A. Admissibility64. The Government did not submit any observations as to the admissibility of the applicant’s complaint.65. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.B. Merits1. The parties’ submissions(a)  The Government66. The Government submitted that in the present case the requirements of an “effective investigation” under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention had been complied with. The investigating authorities had acted diligently and promptly.67. As soon as G. and the applicant had informed the police that the applicant’s brother had disappeared, the police inspected Se’s apartment and questioned all those who seemed to have any information about his whereabouts (close relatives, acquaintances and former colleagues). As they found no evidence that Se. had been the victim of a crime, on 26 April 2003 it was decided not to institute criminal proceedings. However, on 20 May 2003 this decision was quashed when a prosecutor considered that Se. had had no reason to leave home without informing his close relatives and friends therefore giving rise to the suspicion that he was being kept somewhere by unknown persons.68. The case has still not been solved by the investigating authorities since the body of the applicant’s brother has never been found and no suspects have been identified. However, the Government insisted that the authorities had done everything possible to investigate the circumstances of the case. The applicant’s version of events had been examined but the investigating officers had not had enough evidence to charge the individuals accused by the applicant - M., G. and S. - or other witnesses who were questioned on numerous occasions. A reconstruction of events had taken place in the neighbours’ apartment where it was established that it would have been impossible to hear what was happening in the apartment belonging to the applicant’s brother. The investigating authorities had also done their best to find the body of the applicant’s brother.69. The Government further stated that the applicant’s rights as a victim in the criminal case had not been ignored. He had been recognised by the courts as a victim on 20 December 2003 and had been kept well informed about the investigation. All the possible versions of events suggested by the applicant had been investigated. For them, the applicant’s complaint was that the investigation of the case had only proved to be ineffective because G. and S. had not been prosecuted.70. The Government also claimed that the fact that disciplinary sanctions had been imposed on some of the investigating officers did not mean that the investigation had been ineffective as a whole. The investigating officers had complied with all the requests made by the prosecutors. The Government found the applicant’s statement that the investigation officers had received a bribe from G. and S. to be unsubstantiated.(b)  The applicant71. The applicant did not accept the Government’s assertions that an effective investigation had been carried out. In particular, (i) the State authorities had not acted on their own initiative; (ii) there had been no immediate response from the investigating authorities; (iii) the applicant had not been involved in the investigation to an extent which would have secured his lawful interests, (iv) the investigating officers had not secured the evidence in the case; and (v) the shortcomings and delays in the initial stages of the investigation had undermined any possibility of establishing the cause of the death or punishing of those responsible.72. According to the applicant, between 18 April and 15 October 2003 there had been no investigation into the cause of his brother’s death in spite of the numerous complaints he had submitted. The applicant himself had paid for the forensic examinations which had been held in June 2003. No additional examinations had been undertaken. Evidence such as the confiscated money, the envelopes in which the money had been kept, and the shoes, had been returned to the suspects in the case. The applicant had made a request that no-one should be allowed into his brother’s apartment but this had been rejected, which made any search of the premises meaningless. At the preliminary stage of the investigation M. had not yet been questioned, nor S.’s wound examined; no search had been made for traces of crime near the apartment, nor had an investigation been carried out into how the body had been transported. Therefore the shortcomings and ineffectiveness of the investigation at that initial stage, and the failure to preserve the evidence undermined the ability of the investigating authorities to establish the cause of the death and those responsible for it.73. Later, between 15 October 2003 and 16 January 2006 the investigation had been carried out in a chaotic manner without any clear plan of action. For example, nine of the investigating officers had been replaced and for some unknown reason the case had been transferred to the Zhytomyr Regional Prosecutor’s Office and then sent back to Kyiv.74. The applicant indicated that on 13 October 2005 the GPO had issued detailed instructions on the investigation of the case. However, those were not complied with by the investigating authorities. In the beginning of the following year, on 16 January 2006, the GPO stated that the investigation in the case was unsatisfactory. The applicant’s allegation of the involvement of G., S. and M. in his brother’s murder had not been checked by 16 January 2006 and M. was questioned for the first time only three years after the event.75. Lastly, the applicant concluded that: (i) the investigation had been marked by substantial shortcomings in its preliminary stage and most of the investigation had been delayed (from two months to three years) or not carried out at all; (ii) the case had been transferred from one investigating officer to another and the investigation had been chaotic and unprofessional; (iii) most of the evidence had not been secured; and (iv) the applicant had not been allowed to participate in the investigation to the extent which could secure his interests.2. The Court’s assessment76. The Court reiterates that Article 2 § 1 of the Convention enjoins the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑III). This implies the putting in place of effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions (see Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 115, Reports 1998‑VIII).77. More specifically, where death occurs under suspicious circumstances, leaving room for allegations to be made of the intentional taking of life, the State must ensure some form of effective official investigation (see Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V; Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, §§ 156-57, 9 April 2009; Girard v. France, no. 22590/04, § 76, 30 June 2011; and Shafiyeva v. Russia, no. 49379/09, §§ 86-96, 3 May 2012).78. This is not an obligation of result, but of means. The Court accepts that not every investigation is necessarily successful or comes to a conclusion coinciding with the claimant’s account of events. However, it should, in principle, be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II).79. Turning to the present case,

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