FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF GOROPATSKYY[1] AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 63243/13 and 5 others)    JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 9 April 2021under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court  STRASBOURG4 February 2021    This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Goropatskyy[2] 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. 63243/13, 76040/13, 37806/15, 23618/16, 55825/16 and 21113/17 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 to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”);the parties’ observations;Having deliberated in private on 14 January 2021,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:INTRODUCTION1. The present cases concern the ineffective investigation into the violent deaths of the applicants’ relatives without, however, 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 violent deaths of their relatives were ineffective. The applicants 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. As to application no. 23618/16 the Government considered that the applicant’s complaints under Article 2 of the Convention were 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 both the cause of the applicant’s mother’s death and the person responsible for the murder; the latter had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and the applicant had been awarded compensation for damages sustained as a result of the crime committed against her mother. The Government also stressed that the criminal case was never remitted 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 called into question.8. The applicant disagreed and maintained that the application was admissible. In particular, the applicant alleged that the Government’s statements in this regard were based on incorrect facts and that there had been no effective investigation into the death of her mother.9. The Government submitted no observations as to the admissibility of the remaining applications.10. The Court considers that the applications are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.MeritsThe parties’ submissions11.

Outcome for Article 2: violation