FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF MUSINA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 48419/16)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
26 March 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Musina and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 María Elósegui, President,
 Andreas Zünd,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 48419/16) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 9 August 2016 by four Ukrainian nationals listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), who were represented by Mr M. Tarakhkalo, Ms O. Chilutyan and Mr Y. Chekarov, lawyers practising in Kyiv;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms M. Sokorenko;
the parties’ observations;
 
Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint under Article 2 of the Convention about the death of their relative, A.M. (the first and the second applicants’ son, the third applicant’s brother and the fourth applicant’s father), while he was under the control of the State, and the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation. 2. In April 2014 A.M., then 40 years old, was called up for military service following the announcement of a special military mobilisation. As confirmed by several medical examinations, he was in good health. 3. In March 2015 A.M. was scheduled to be discharged from the army. Although the order on his discharge was dated 25 March 2015, A.M. stayed in the military unit for several days more in order to finalise all the formalities (see paragraph 18 below). 4. At about 11 p.m. on 27 March 2015 the patrol discovered, near the gasmask distribution tent some 20 metres from the central checkpoint, a heavily drunk soldier lying on the ground with his upper and lower limbs tied up. He had had a gag in his mouth but had managed to remove it and to call for help. The guards liberated him and let him go towards the casern, without being able to obtain any explanations. As it was later established, the drunk soldier was V.S. 5. At about 6.10 a.m. on 28 March 2015 the patrol found A.M. dead inside the same tent. His wrists had been tied behind his back with two plastic hose clamps and his feet had been tied with a piece of an electric cable to one of the tent poles. A.M.’s mouth was covered by adhesive tape. Once it was taken off, a textile gag fell out of his mouth. 6. On the same date a criminal investigation was launched into murder in respect of the “sudden death” of A.M. However, the relevant entry in the Unified State register of pre-trial investigations contained a note which stated that there was no indication of a violent death. The military authorities’ position was that at the time of his death, A.M. had no longer been in service and thus the military command lacked power to investigate his death. The investigation was therefore entrusted to the Novomoskovsk city police. 7. Also on 28 March 2015 the Dnipropetrovsk garrison military prosecutor’s office launched an investigation into possible omissions by the military unit’s staff in so far as the access, control and security of its territory were concerned. It is not clear which investigative measures were taken. It is only known that on 30 June 2015 the investigation was discontinued owing to absence of any indication of a criminal offence. 8. During an inspection of the scene on 28 March 2015, A.M.’s wristwatch was found outside the tent. A sniffer dog picked up a scent from the crime scene, headed towards the checkpoint, reached the fence and lost the scent. 9. On the same date several soldiers, including those involved in the patrol on 27 and 28 March 2015, were questioned. They claimed not to have noticed anything out of order, apart from having seen a few drunk comrades and the incident with V.S. (see paragraph 4 above). The latter was also questioned. He submitted that on 27 March 2015 he had been drinking alcohol with A.M. and two “unidentified” soldiers. V.S. alleged that he did not remember all the events. He only submitted that an “unidentified” soldier had put a gag in his mouth. Two of the soldiers questioned submitted that they had been drinking alcohol with A.M. and V.S. until about 2 p.m. on 27 March 2015 and did not know what had happened thereafter. 10. On 30 March 2015 a death certificate was issued, according to which A.M. had died of acute coronary insufficiency. 11. On 10 April 2015 a forensic medical expert examination report confirmed that conclusion. It stated that A.M.’s death had been caused by coronary insufficiency exacerbated by heavy alcohol intoxication. The expert noted that A.M. had sustained minor bodily injuries (namely sores and bruises on his mouth and cheeks) before his death, but that there was no causal link between those injuries and his death. It was also observed that there was dried soil around and inside the nostrils and on the mouth. 12. On 16 June 2015 the criminal investigation unit drew up a report that the military unit’s management had refused to provide information as to who had been present in the territory of the military unit on 27 and 28 March 2015. 13. On 27 June 2015 the Novomoskovsk police department discontinued the investigation on account of absence of any indication of a criminal offence. With reference to the expert report of 10 April 2015 (see paragraph 11 above), the investigator held that A.M. had died of coronary insufficiency exacerbated by alcohol intoxication. Furthermore, it was noted that there had been no injuries on the body or any indications suggesting a violent death. 14. On 6 July 2015 the Novomoskovsk city prosecutor’s office quashed the above-mentioned decision as premature and unlawful. On the same date the first and the second applicants were granted the procedural status of victims and were questioned in that capacity. 15. On 20 November 2015 an additional forensic medical expert examination was carried out with a view to establishing whether there had been any causal link between the tying of A.M.’s hands and feet and his death. The expert reiterated the previous conclusion as to the cause of the death (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above). It was further noted that the forensic examination of the body had not established any injuries or other indications of a violent death. The expert therefore concluded that there was no causal link between the fact that A.M. had had his wrists and feet tied and his death. 16. On 27 November 2015 the Dnipropetrovsk regional prosecutor’s office carried out an operational meeting with the Novomoskovsk police department. It was observed that the instructions given to the investigator by several prosecution officials in charge had not been complied with and that the investigation had been undermined by a number of serious omissions. 17. In early January 2016 a forensic cytological expert examination was carried out in respect of the hose clamps and the cable used for tying up A.M., the adhesive tape and the gag, the contents under his fingernails and the wristwatch found near the tent. No DNA material was found. Although there was blood on the adhesive tape and the gag, the expert found it impossible to determine whether it belonged to A.M. because no blood samples had been provided for examination. Furthermore, there were some skin cells under A.M.’s fingernails, but they were unsuitable for any further analysis. 18. On 18 June 2016 the military unit’s acting commander, R.K., was questioned for the first time. He submitted that A.M. had stayed in the military unit beyond 25 March 2015 in order “to hand over his position”. R.K. claimed that he neither knew who could have tied up A.M. and V.S. nor suspected anybody. Lastly, he emphasised that the military unit was a secure facility operating under a strict access control regime, which ruled out the presence of any unauthorised individuals. 19. On 30 November 2016 the investigator discontinued the investigation once again. His ruling was identical to that of 27 June 2015 (see paragraph 13 above). On 3 March 2017 that ruling, too, was quashed on similar grounds as before (see paragraph 14 above). 20. On 30 March 2017 the same investigator, who, following numerous complaints by the applicant, had been disciplined on several occasions for the poor quality of the investigation, gave another decision to terminate the investigation, the wording of the decision being identical to that of 27 June 2015, with only one new sentence added, stating that the additional forensic medical examination had found the absence of any causal link between the tying up of A.M. and his death.

Outcome for Article 2: violation