42.  The Government considered that these complaints were inadmissible because of the applicants’ non-compliance with the six-month rule. In particular, at the material time the law in force did not provide for a possibility to claim compensation from the State for any damage inflicted by a State official who was not acting in his/her official capacity. It had been established in the present case that at the time of the incidents D. had been off duty. Therefore, the applicants’ claim for damages lodged against the State bodies had been devoid of any prospect of success from the very beginning. Consequently, the six-month time-limit should be calculated from the date of the incidents, namely, 22 November 1999. Given that the applicants had lodged their complaints on 29 September 2005, the Government considered that the applications were inadmissible in the part relating to the applicants’ complaints about the absence of an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention.


89.  The applicant maintained her complaints. In her opinion, it was beyond reasonable doubt that Isa Kaplanov and Ruslan Sadulayev had been detained by representatives of the federal forces, this fact having been confirmed by eyewitness statements and the findings of the domestic investigating authorities. The applicant stressed that her relatives had been apprehended in life-endangering circumstances, given that their arrest had been effected by a group of about 20 armed men who had arrived in six APCs and had not produced any documents to authorise the arrest. In this respect she referred to documents of the Council of Europe and of various human-rights NGOs reporting on a widespread practice of forced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, tortures and ill-treatment of detainees in Chechnya by representatives of the federal forces. She thus argued, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the fact that her relatives had remained missing since 12 May 2001 proved that they had been killed.


51.  The Government submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention did not apply in the circumstances of the present case. They maintained that the applicants were no longer victims of a violation of the aforementioned provision following the redress provided by the authorities, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. They further noted that in the case of D. v. the United Kingdom (application no. 30240/96, 2 May 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑III), which concerned the attempted expulsion of an AIDS sufferer to St. Kitts where he would have been deprived of the medical treatment he was receiving in the United Kingdom, the Court had examined the complaints of the applicant under Article 3 of the Convention rather than Article 2.


193.  The applicant disputed the Government's submission and claimed that she had lodged her application with the Court within the six months' time-limit as required by the Convention. She stressed that she did not allege a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention only in respect of the murder of her husband, but complained of a continuing failure by the authorities in the “TRNC”, over which the respondent Government exercises effective control, to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into her husband's death, to bring his murderers to justice and to compensate her for his death. She also noted that, in addition to her complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, she complained of continuing violations of her rights under Articles 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention.


85.  The applicant complained that the officers from the Ventspils State Police were not sufficiently independent as they were colleagues of A.J. He accepted, however, that the Prosecutors were adequately independent and impartial for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court agrees with this concession, as it would appear that in Latvia the Prosecution Service has a hierarchy of its own, separate from the police, and in operational matters of criminal law and the administration of justice the police are under its orders.


52.  The Government claimed that immediately after the incident a preliminary investigation had been launched and charges mandatorily brought against G.A. According to the Government, the investigation had been prompt and effective. In particular, the authorities had showed initiative and had produced medical, forensic and ballistic reports within a short period of time. In addition, the administrative inquiry into the incident had been independent, since it had been assigned to an officer of the police department dealing with administrative investigations. It concluded that both inquiries took into account the different elements produced and satisfied the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention.


114.  The Government observed that, with regard to Article <mask> of the Convention, it was necessary to make a distinction between, on the one hand, cases where death had been inflicted deliberately or had occurred following assault or ill-treatment and, on the other, cases where death had been inflicted unintentionally, through negligence. This Article of the Convention required the Contracting States, in cases of fatal assault, to conduct an investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (they referred to Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-IV). That being so, an award of compensation could not suffice, in such cases, to make good the violation of Article 2 and to deprive the applicant of his or her victim status.


70.  The Government submitted that the domestic authorities had made every effort to satisfy the procedural obligation inherent in Article <mask> of the Convention. Three high-ranking officers with experience in military operations in that area had been appointed as experts to assist in the investigation. A number of soldiers who had since completed their military service and been discharged from the army had been summoned to give evidence.


60.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under its Article 1 to “secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention”, that Germany did not provide for an adequate or effective official investigation into their father’s death. They further complained that the German authorities had refused to allow U.’s extradition to face trial in the United Kingdom. They relied in this respect on the procedural obligations inherent in Article 2 § 1 which provides in its first sentence:


53.  The applicant’s action against the State provided an appropriate remedy by which to establish liability for R.D.’s actions resulting in a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. The fact that he did not seek compensation from R.D. is not decisive, since the object of his claim, as well as of his application before the Court, was to establish the State’s responsibility as such.


23.  The Government argued that the applicants had submitted their application with the Court twenty years after their relative had died. There had been a period of inactivity in the investigation in question between 2005 and 2015 and the applicants had not demonstrated adequate interest in the progress of the investigation but had instead remained passive. They had lodged their application after the conclusion of civil proceedings for damages before the national courts. However, such proceedings were of no relevance for the State’s obligation under the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention in the circumstances of the case at issue. Therefore, the application had been submitted outside the six-month time-limit.


31.  The applicant maintained her complaint. She argued that the investigating authorities had failed to consider any other version of events in respect of her daughter’s death aside from suicide. The applicant noted that between May 2007 and October 2011 twenty decisions had been taken refusing to institute criminal proceedings against Ch. on the count of incitement to commit suicide and between May 2008 and June 2010 twenty decisions had been taken refusing to institute criminal proceedings against Ch. on the count of inflicting regular beatings. The applicant contended that this was a strong indicator of the ineffectiveness of the investigation. It had been repeatedly noted by the supervising prosecutors and the courts that the inquiries had been incomplete and the decisions refusing to institute criminal proceedings had been unlawful and unsubstantiated. The applicant outlined the major deficiencies of the investigation which had undermined the authorities’ ability to establish the true cause of her daughter’s death and to identify the perpetrator. She further noted that the investigators had been limited in their powers since the pre-investigation inquiry had never progressed to the stage of a criminal investigation and had therefore not been capable of meeting the requirements of an effective investigation under Article <mask> of the Convention. The criminal proceedings opened against Ch. in June 2010 had been limited to the beatings inflicted on Z. Lastly, the applicant noted that she had not been afforded an opportunity to participate effectively in the proceedings.


44.  The applicant submitted that her son, Hubert Mojsiejew, had been killed in the sobering-up centre and that his right to life protected by Article <mask> of the Convention had therefore been violated. The legal regulations in force had proved to be ineffective and theoretical as they had not afforded effective protection of Hubert Mojsiejew’s life. It was beyond doubt that Mr Mojsiejew had died at the hands of employees of the sobering-up centre, who had abused their power by using an immobilisation technique or otherwise causing his death. Therefore, the employees of the sobering-up centre should have been prosecuted for murder and not unintentional homicide.


80.  The Government pointed out that J. had been shown to pose a serious threat to those present at the scene. He had previously been involved in a siege situation and in other violent crimes. He was known to have acted violently towards the police and even towards members of his own family, having shot at his own brother previously, and was also known to have had mental health problems. In addition, the circumstances at the scene were extremely difficult due to the weather and other conditions. The applicable law was in conformity with Article <mask> of the Convention. The police could interfere with a person's constitutional rights only if it was permitted by law. In the present case, as noted by the domestic courts, the police officers in question had had justifiable reasons for believing that J. had made an illegal threat and committed an assault and possibly a robbery. In addition, J. had been proven to be dangerous to the public at large and especially to those present at the scene. This entitled the police to apprehend him and take him into custody. The Government made reference to Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus (judgment of 9 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑VI, p. 2107, § 192) and McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 58, § 200), in which the Court had stated that the use of force may be justified where it is based on an honest belief which is perceived, for good reasons, to be valid at the time but which subsequently turns out to be mistaken. In the present case the situation during the operation fulfilled the requirements of Article 2 § 2 (a) and (b). The police officers had been trying to effect a lawful arrest while protecting themselves, the other persons at the scene and the residents of the island. As concluded during the pre-trial investigation and the consideration of the charges and also during the proceedings before the domestic courts, had J. been allowed to escape armed, the lives of even more people would have been in danger. Therefore, the perception of the situation and the actions taken in the present case had not been proved to be mistaken.


52.  The applicant’s representatives invited the Grand Chamber to “affirm the judgment” made by the Chamber but submitted no further claim for just satisfaction either as regards costs and expenses incurred before it or with respect to pecuniary or non‑pecuniary damage. The applicant also made a written statement confirming his interest in pecuniary compensation for the violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, in the following terms:


190.  The applicant does not complain that her cousin was killed by State agents in circumstances which breached Article 2 in its substantive aspect; consequently, she does not aver that his shooting was unlawful or that the conduct and planning of Operation THESEUS 2 was in breach of Article 2. Rather, her complaints fall solely under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention and relate solely to the fact that no individual police officer was prosecuted following the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.


242.  The applicants maintained their complaints alleging that their relatives had been abducted and intentionally deprived of their lives in circumstances that had violated Article <mask> of the Convention. They further argued that the investigation into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation. Lastly, the applicant in Kukurkhoyeva (no. 50556/08) noted the Government’s failure to provide the Court with a copy of the investigation file.


132.  The applicant alleged that his brother, who had been arrested on 12 September 1994, had disappeared while in custody and had in all probability been killed by the security forces. He submitted that the respondent State had to be declared responsible for failing to protect his brother’s right to life, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:


79.  The applicant alleged that the failure by the authorities to comply with their obligation to protect her life and that of her son, who was killed by her husband, had resulted in a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. She submitted in that regard that the Italian authorities had failed to protect her son’s right to life and that they had been negligent before the repeated violence, threats and injuries which she herself had endured.


57.  The applicant maintained that an effective remedy for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention would have been a proper criminal investigation of the circumstances of the explosion which killed her husband and seriously injured her. She had lodged the application with the Court within six months, as soon as she had been able to realise that the investigation was ineffective. She had therefore complied with the admissibility criteria under Article 35 of the Convention (see Bulut and Yavuz ν. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002).


106.  The applicants further complained under the substantive limb of Article <mask> of the Convention that the authorities had not taken reasonable and adequate steps to protect the life and health of V.P. It appeared from the investigation that V.P. had been escorted to the ground floor because the toilet located on the second floor had not been provided with bars. Thus, the police officers must have had grounded suspicions that V.P. would either attempt to escape or to commit suicide. Under such circumstances the police officers should have taken adequate measures during the escort to avoid any incident. The police officers acted with gross negligence if they had let V.P. run and reach such speed as to jump through the window. The applicants also expressed the view that there should have been bars on the windows on the mezzanine and the second floor in order to prevent such events.


40.   The Government submitted that the criminal investigation had been opened immediately after the accident and that investigative measures were carried out comprehensively and promptly. The national authorities had taken all necessary steps in order to collect the evidence and to establish the circumstances of the death of the applicant’s son. Certain delays had occurred during the proceedings but those had not been attributable to the State. The applicant had been given appropriate access to the case file and had been able to participate effectively in the proceedings. Overall, the procedural requirements under Article <mask> of the Convention had been complied with.


43.  The applicant maintained her complaint. She submitted that her brother’s death had been caused by the authorities’ failure to provide him with medical treatment. Despite their knowledge of his condition, they had left him without any medical assistance for thirty-six hours. Their negligence had been the direct cause of his death, and had amounted to a failure on the part of the State to comply with the positive obligation set out in Article <mask> of the Convention. It had been established in the course of the domestic inquiry that the guards of the temporary detention centre had shirked their responsibility to exercise surveillance over Mr Timin and monitor him. The guards and other inmates had witnessed his erratic behaviour; however, nothing had been done by the authorities to alleviate his condition. As was apparent from the authorities’ decision of 29 February 2012, Mr Timin had also been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody from 10 to 13 March 2004. Lastly, the applicant asserted that the Russian authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of her brother’s death. On numerous occasions the investigators had refused to open criminal investigation, the relevant decision being quashed each time by the superior prosecutor or a court for failure to carry out a complete inquiry.


151.  The applicant further submitted that there had been other instances of medical negligence, such as the four occasions on which her husband had been imprudently discharged from hospital (13 December 1997, 23 December 1997, 9 January 1998 and 3 February 1998). In addition, she argued that the direct cause of her husband’s death on 8 March 1998 undeniably amounted to medical negligence. She alleged that there had been an inexplicable delay in performing surgery, which should have taken place on 6 March but had in fact not been performed until 7 March at 8 p.m., by which time it had been too late to cure the peritonitis which had set in. In this connection she contended that it was undisputed that peritonitis, attributable in her husband’s case to a duodenal ulcer and the resulting perforated viscus, called for urgent surgery in order to avoid the onset of uncontrollable septicaemia, as in the present case. There was thus no reasonable explanation for the fact that the surgery had not been performed until 8 p.m. the following day. To that extent, the applicant submitted that this circumstance formed part of the series of unjustifiable delays in the delivery of appropriate medical treatment to her husband, which had deprived him of the possibility of access to such care. This constituted a further violation of the substantive limb of Article <mask> of the Convention. In this connection she argued that even if the need for surgery had not become apparent until 7 March, this still did not explain why a surgeon had not been called until 3 p.m., thus leaving the patient without effective assistance until that time, and why he had been taken to the operating theatre without the necessary preparation, with the result that he had to be taken out of the theatre and then returned there around 8 p.m., by which time he had been in a very serious condition, between life and death.


36.  The Government disputed the complaint. They argued that the authorities’ actions in the case had been adequate, and that the procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention had been complied with. It was important that the authorities’ obligation to investigate was an obligation of means, not of result. Thus, the fact that the criminal proceedings related to Angel Georgiev’s death had not led to the identification and punishment of those responsible did not mean that there had been a breach of Article 2.


91.  The Government thus contended that the use of lethal force in the present case had been no more than absolutely necessary for the purposes of paragraph 2 (a) and (b) Article <mask> of the Convention, and that the deaths of Amkhad Gekhayev and Zalina Mezhidova had been the result of “the local residents’ failure to comply with the necessary rules concerning personal safety in an area where State agents were conducting a counter-terrorist operation, and to obey the servicemen’s legitimate orders”.


45.  The Government submitted that the respondent State had fulfilled its procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention in that it had established the circumstances under which M.N. had been killed; and identified and punished I.S. as the perpetrator of the crime. The charges brought against Z.J., P.K., V.B. and D.I. had concerned an alleged abuse of office, failure to report a crime or an offender, and assisting an offender after the commission of a crime. Those charges had concerned alleged actions or omissions on the part of the defendants, which had not affected the investigation into M.N.’s death. The offences with which those defendants had been charged had not been decisive for the identification and punishment of I.S., whom the courts had found responsible for M.N.’s death. Lastly, the Government sought that the Court did not take the additional evidence submitted by the applicant (see paragraph 26 above) into consideration since it was neither submitted to any domestic authority nor have its authenticity and veracity been verified.


98.  The applicants contended that the civil proceedings which they had instituted concerning the accidental death of their relative had failed to meet the requirement of promptness and effectiveness. They pointed out that the civil proceedings at issue had lasted for more than fifteen years and that during the proceedings the domestic courts had failed to elucidate the circumstances surrounding the accidental lethal injury and medical treatment of their son and brother. They were aware that they could not bring their relative back, but they had hoped that the liability for his death would be established. In their view, the failure of the domestic authorities to put in place an effective judicial system to deal with accidental death and medical malpractice represented a flagrant violation of Article <mask> of the Convention.


249.  The applicants maintained their complaint, alleging that their relatives had been abducted and intentionally deprived of their lives in circumstances violating Article <mask> of the Convention. They furthermore argued that the investigations into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation. Lastly, they noted that some of the case files submitted by the Government had not been furnished in their entirety, as had been requested by the Court.


61.  The Government argued that the investigation into the murder of the applicant’s husband met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all the measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify those responsible. They submitted that the investigation was being carried out in full compliance with the domestic law and that a large number of investigative actions had been carried out, this fact having been confirmed by a decision of the Urus-Martan Town Court of 29 March 2004 given upon the applicant’s complaint about the refusal of access to the case file (see paragraph 36 above). The Government also argued that once the applicant had been granted the status of victim, she had been duly informed of procedural decisions taken during the investigation. The Government also referred to the Court’s case-law, stating that the procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention did not require applicants to have access to police files, or copies of all documents during an ongoing inquiry, or be consulted or informed about every step (see Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, § 77, 27 November 2007), and argued that by virtue of her status as a victim, the applicant would be able to gain access to the case file once the investigation was completed. The Government thus insisted that they had fulfilled their procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention.


149.  The applicant agreed with the facts as laid down in the Chamber judgment as well as the reasoning adopted in finding a substantive violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. She further submitted that the Court should also take into account at least one other aggravating factor. In this connection the applicant argued that, irrespective of the origin of the bacterium which caused the meningitis, the treatment had not been administered as promptly as the situation demanded. The emergency team which had taken charge of the applicant’s husband at the CHNVG had been entirely unaware of, or else had disregarded, the fact that a nasal polypectomy had been performed two days earlier in the same hospital, and instead had treated the patient on the assumption that he was suffering from psychological problems. The applicant contended that the patient had not received any treatment between his arrival at the emergency department at about 1.30 a.m., and 10 a.m., when the lumbar puncture had been performed.


46.  The Government maintained that the authorities had complied with their positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to secure the applicant’s son’s right to life and that they could not be held responsible for his death, which had been a tragic incident. They referred to legal regulations which had been put in place in order to ensure the safety of patients in sobering-up centres. The manner and circumstances in which means of physical coercion could be applied to patients were also specified by domestic law. The employees of the Tychy Sobering-Up Centre had received relevant training, the centre was properly equipped and there was a continuous presence of a doctor. No evidence of intentional killing had so far been disclosed. Since the criminal proceedings against four employees were still pending before the domestic courts it would be premature to assess the conduct of the employees of the centre during the events in question.


110.  The Government argued that the investigation into the disappearance of the applicants' relatives met the Convention requirement of effectiveness, as all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify those responsible. They submitted that the investigation was being carried out in full compliance with the domestic law and that a large number of investigative measures had been taken, including sending numerous enquiries to the federal military and security agencies to verify the possible involvement of federal servicemen in the imputed offence, or to check whether the applicants' relatives were being kept in any detention centres. The Government also argued that the first and seventh applicants who had been acknowledged as victims in the case had received explanations concerning their procedural rights. The Government thus insisted that they had fulfilled their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention.


22.  The applicants complained of the lack of an effective, impartial and thorough investigation, capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the violent crackdown on the demonstrations of December 1989 in Bucharest, Timișoara, Slobozia, Vișina and Țăndărei, when they had been injured and their close relatives had been killed by gunfire. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention.


142.  The Government contended that Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable in the present case. They pointed out, first of all, that the second, fourth and fifth applicants had not been at home during the flood and that there was no evidence that their lives had been put at risk at any time. The Government then argued that the first, third and sixth applicants, who had been at home when the flood had occurred, had never claimed in the civil proceedings brought by them that their lives had been in danger. In particular, the third applicant had been able to leave home with her child and make her way to a safe place. The Government contended that the circumstances of the present case were different from those in Budayeva and Others v. Russia (nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, 20 March 2008) or Murillo Saldias and Others v. Spain ((dec.), no. 76973/01, 28 November 2006), where the applicants’ relatives had died and a number of the applicants had been injured as a result of the natural disasters concerned – a mudslide and a flood respectively – whereas in the present case none of the applicants had lost any relatives or sustained any injuries during the flood of 7 August 2001.


37.  The Government argued that the Croatian authorities had taken all the appropriate steps, interviewed everyone who could have had any information about the events at issue and had followed up all leads as soon as they had learned about the abduction of the applicant’s husband in 2004. They had thus satisfied their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention.


64.  The Government submitted that the legal remedies at the domestic level had afforded appropriate redress for the applicants' complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention. They further asserted that the national authorities had conducted an effective investigation into the applicants' complaints. In their opinion, both the civil and administrative courts had taken a protective approach towards the applicants when establishing their victim status and granting them redress for their grievances. The courts had awarded the applicants sufficient compensation and these judgments had been executed by the authorities. They added that, following the impugned incident, the Kızılay had decided to give the first applicant a scholarship in order to support his education.


61.  The Government relied on the information provided by the Prosecutor General’s Office and argued that the investigation had not obtained any evidence that Adam Ayubov was dead, or that representatives of the federal military or security agencies had been involved in his abduction or alleged killing. They contested the oral evidence given by witnesses during interviews by the investigating authorities as unreliable, stating that witness statements had been controversial and that the investigating authorities had checked the information given by the witnesses by sending queries to law-enforcement agencies and power structures, but that information had not been confirmed. The Government argued therefore that there were no grounds to claim that Adam Ayubov’s right to life secured by Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached.


56.  The Government maintained that the State cannot be held responsible for the death of the applicant’s husband. They submitted that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the present case as his death had been a tragic accident. Moreover, at the time of making their submissions the issues surrounding the incident were still in dispute before the domestic courts. The Government maintained that the criminal court alone could be considered competent to establish the facts and to assess the alleged responsibility of the Inspector for Environmental Protection for the applicant’s husband’s death.


30.  The Government submitted that the criminal investigation had been opened promptly and that comprehensive investigative measures had been carried out. The national authorities had taken all the necessary steps to collect evidence and to establish the circumstances of the death of the applicant’s son. Delays in the proceedings had not been attributable to the State. Most of the delay had been caused by D., who had been hiding from the authorities. As regards the first period of his absence between November 1997 and April 1998, the police authorities had checked D.’s addresses and other possible places of residence following which they had eventually found that he had moved abroad. As regards the second period of D.’s absence, between 1999 and 2010, the Government could not provide information because the police file containing material on the search for D. had been destroyed. Overall, the procedural requirements under Article <mask> of the Convention had been complied with.


82.  The applicant did not allege that the death of her son had been caused intentionally. Nor do the facts of the case suggest otherwise. Therefore, Article <mask> of the Convention did not necessarily require a criminal-law remedy (see Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004‑VIII). In so far as such a remedy was provided and the applicant availed herself of it, the Court observes that she appears to be challenging the termination of criminal investigations against the doctors involved in her son’s treatment. In other words, the applicant complained about the outcome of the criminal investigation.


100.  The Government have not referred to any other procedure whereby the liability of the authorities can be established in an independent, public and effective manner. While they laid weight on the inquiry, the Court has found above that, although it provided, in many respects, a thorough and useful investigation, it failed for reasons of procedural defects to comply with the procedural obligation imposed by Article <mask> of the Convention. And as pointed out by the applicants, it did not provide any possibility of obtaining damages.


83.  The Government argued that there had been no violation of the procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention by reason of the delay. They were of the view that the inquest process which had now taken place showed that even if the inquest had taken place earlier, the result would have been no different. The jury at the inquest heard evidence on all matters pertinent to Mr McDonnell’s death from prison officers, other prisoners, prison medical staff and expert witnesses. The passage of time had not in any way diminished the capacity of the inquest to resolve all of the issues required for it to comply with Article 2.


39.  The applicants noted that the investigation following the arson attack on the first applicant’s house suffered from a number of crucial omissions which made it ineffective. The conclusion that Major I. was not involved in the arson attack was reached without interviewing key eyewitnesses. According to the applicants, the first applicant was questioned by investigating officers only a month after the events in question and because he went to the investigator on his own initiative, without being summoned. The applicants also underlined that the national authorities, and in particular the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal in its decision of 11 December 2002, pointed out numerous shortcomings in the investigation and remitted the case for additional investigation. The applicants concluded that the authorities had not complied with their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention.


24.  The applicant further complained under Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of lack of compensation for his disability. He also alleged a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention in respect of the courts' assessment of evidence and interpretation of the national law and challenged the outcome of the proceedings.


84.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the police had refused to institute criminal proceedings following her initial complaint of 15 October 2009 and that when proceedings were finally initiated, they had been unreasonably lengthy. All the steps necessary to secure possible evidence in the case had not been taken. No independent autopsy had been performed and the results of the tests performed in the hospital had not been independently verified. The applicant put into question the official explanation for the cause of her son’s death and considered that the medical staff had failed to carry out a sufficiently profound medical examination of her son and to give due consideration to other possible reasons for the deterioration of his health, besides the cancer. For example, they had failed to diagnose pneumonia in due time and to assess whether the deterioration of O.’s condition could have been attributed to a tick-borne disease. Other possible causes of death had also been overlooked by the investigative authorities. The applicant further argued that the experts and authorities had failed to duly consider whether the administration of certain medicines, including sedatives, penicillin and medicines lowering the blood pressure, had been justified and in accordance with clinical safety guidelines. Nor had they considered whether such treatment had in fact had negative effects on O.’s condition, including causing his breathing to stop on 12 October 2013. Not all of the medical staff concerned had been questioned in the course of the investigation, and many of those who had been questioned had lied under oath. In the criminal proceedings the authorities had failed to ascertain whether depriving a person of food and treatment, in spite of objections from his immediate family, could be considered to be manslaughter. The procedure for determining brain death had not been followed and O. had been deprived of any treatment or food on 13 October 2009 without the brain-death procedure even having been commenced as required, let alone having been completed.


69.  The Government referred to the results of the forensic examination according to which the remains of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been found at the cemetery where bodies of the illegal armed groups’ members killed on 7 and 9 March 2002 had been buried. They submitted that he had been involved in the fight on 9 March 2002. The Government stated that the special operation conducted in Stariye Atagi between 6 and 13 March 2002 had been properly planned and carried out by competent State bodies in compliance with the applicable legislation, in particular with Federal Law no. 130-FZ of 25 July 1998 on Suppression of Terrorism, Federal Law no. 1026-1 of 18 April 1991 on the Police and Presidential Decree no. 1255c of 23 September 1999 on Measures Enhancing the Efficiency of Counter-Terrorist Operations in the Territory of the North Caucasia Region of the Russian Federation. They further submitted that the force applied had been “absolutely necessary” within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention and, therefore, there had been no breach of the above provision.


59.  The Government argued that all complaints in respect of the death and medical treatment of the applicant’s sister were outside of the Court’s temporal jurisdiction. They pointed out that the Convention had entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997 and that the applicant’s sister had died in 1994. Therefore, the Government concluded that any substantive complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention was incompatible ratione temporis.


56.  The Government further contented that the taking of Mr Apti Dalakov’s life had been in accordance with subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention, namely that it was in defence of others from unlawful violence and in order to effect a lawful arrest. In their submission the Government referred to the findings of the investigation in criminal case no. 27520028, according to which Mr Apti Dalakov had refused to obey the law-enforcement agents’ orders, and therefore the FSB officer had opened fire in order to eliminate the threat to his own life and health and that of the others. The Government further submitted “the investigation of criminal case no. 27520028 was effective and in compliance with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention”.


41.  The applicant emphasised that twenty-four years after her husband had been killed, the related criminal investigation had still not identified those responsible and sent them for trial. She considered that the duration of the investigation had been excessive and that the authorities had not complied with the requirements set forth in the Court’s case-law on Article <mask> of the Convention, or with those set forth by the domestic courts.


61.  The applicant complained that he had been unable to obtain compensation for harm suffered as a result of an aircraft accident from the various third parties involved (see paragraph 75 below) and that the State should bear responsibility for any shortcomings in the legal regulation of the safety of private flights. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will consider this complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads:


290.  The applicants complained that, on 20 February 1993, the security forces had opened fire on the houses in Ormaniçi without advance warning, that Abide Ekin and Ali Yıldırım had been killed and the latter's sister Emine Yıldırım injured as a result of the explosion of devices used by the security forces on that day, and that Ibrahim Ekinci, one of the apprehended villagers, had been injured while being tortured in custody and had subsequently died as a result of his injuries. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


80.  The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to protect the right to life of her son in violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, she argued that the hospital had been negligent in so far as it had not supervised him sufficiently, had not installed adequate security fencing to prevent him from leaving the grounds and had not provided for an adequate emergency procedure. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention she complained about the length of the civil proceedings she had brought against the hospital.


96.  The Government argued that the investigation was prompt and exceptionally thorough. The police arrived at the scene immediately after the applicant’s son’s body was discovered. The circumstances of his death, including any possible omission on the part of the prison staff, were investigated by the police and the Prosecutor. A number of forensic reports were obtained in order for all aspects of the case to be explored. The applicant was involved in the proceedings and was notified of the actions taken during the investigation. She was also given access to the file at the Prosecutor’s office and was able to copy documents from it. The State therefore fully complied with their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention.


56.  The applicant contended that his son had died as a consequence of the prison authorities’ failure to protect his life. Moreover, the pre-trial investigation into the events had not complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. The investigation had been suspended and restarted on numerous occasions. Upon seeing that the investigation was not being conducted promptly and thoroughly, the applicant and his lawyer had repeatedly visited the offices of the Kaišiadorys District Prosecutor. He had persistently complained in writing to the Kaišiadorys District Prosecutor’s Office, the Kaunas Regional Prosecutor’s Office and even to the Attorney General. The applicant emphasised that on his initiative the investigation had been restarted several times, because the Kaišiadorys District Prosecutor’s Office had failed to take the necessary investigative actions by itself.


59.  The applicants alleged that the respondent State had failed in its obligations under the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention. They alleged that those provisions required the State to conduct an effective, impartial and thorough investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the army operation, in the course of which Ms Melnichuk – the first applicant’s wife and the second applicant’s mother – was killed by gunfire, and the third and fourth applicants were severely injured by bullets.


49.  The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the Russian investigating and judicial authorities had conducted a thorough, comprehensive and objective investigation into the applicant's allegations concerning the cause of her son's death. The forensic experts, on whose findings the authorities had based their findings, had been independent and impartial and had presented their opinions after having reviewed all the pertaining materials. As it had been established, the applicant's son had received due and proper medical treatment conducted by competent medical professionals and his death had not resulted from medical negligence. The investigation had been effective as required by Article <mask> of the Convention.


79.  The applicant further maintained that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of her daughter’s death. She submitted that the initial investigation had lasted from 7 June to 7 August 2003. During these two months the investigator had questioned her and granted her victim status in the proceedings and had sent out a number of requests, following which the investigation had been suspended. There had been no investigative activity between August 2003 and December 2006. The cooperation between the investigative and other State authorities had been insufficient. In particular, none of the requests addressed by the investigator to the military prosecutor, the central archives of the Ministry of Defence, the temporary district police, the commander of the UGA or the district military commandant with a view to establishing whether the mortar batteries used on 7 June 2003 belonged to the military units and divisions deployed in the Vedenskiy District had led to results capable of shedding light on the events in question. The applicant further pointed out that it had taken the District Prosecutor’s Office nine months to comply with the court’s decision of 14 April 2008 instructing it to resume the investigation. The decisions suspending the investigation had contained very scarce information as to the evidence collected. The applicant had had a feeling that the investigation process had been a mere formality with a predictable outcome, since over a span of several years the investigating authority had failed to carry out all the possible investigative measures that could have been taken in the absence of the accused. Not all eyewitnesses had been identified and questioned. The official who had given the order to use mortars without a precise calculation of the target area or cordons being formed around that area beforehand had also not been identified. As a result, many issues remained unascertained. Lastly, the applicant had been completely denied access to the case file until 2010. In view of the foregoing, the applicant concluded that the domestic authorities had not complied with their procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention.


70.  The Government submitted that the police officers involved in the organisation and conduct of the training had been disciplined or criminally prosecuted, in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention to ensure, where lives have been lost in circumstances potentially engaging the responsibility of the State, an adequate response so that the legislative and administrative framework set up to protect the right to life is properly implemented and any breaches of that right are repressed and punished (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 91, ECHR 2004‑XII).


45.  The Government submitted that the killing and the physical injury suffered by the applicants and their relatives, as well as the opening of the criminal investigation, happened prior to the date of entry into force of the Convention for Romania on 20 June 1994. Moreover, according to the principles set out by the Court in the case of Blečić v. Croatia ([GC], no. 59532/00, §§ 63-69, ECHR 2006-III), the obligation under the Convention of the Romanian authorities to conduct a prompt and effective investigation is derived from the aforementioned unlawful acts and cannot be severed or examined separately by the Court. Consequently, the Government considers that the Court is not competent ratione temporis to examine the applicants' complaints falling under the procedural head of Article <mask> of the Convention.


90.  The applicants complained of a violation of the right to life in respect of their close relatives, Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev. The applicants submitted that the circumstances of their disappearance and the long period during which it had not been possible to establish their whereabouts indicated that Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev had been killed by representatives of the federal forces. The applicants also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into their relatives' disappearance. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


15.  The applicant complained that the Russian authorities had failed to comply with the positive obligation imposed on them by Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, she alleged that the explosion resulting in her injuries had been possible due to the lax security at the Domodedovo airport. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, she complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the actions of the airport security personnel and the police deployed at the airport. Lastly, she alleged that she had been unable to participate in the investigation. The Court will examine the applicant’s grievances from the standpoint of Article 2 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:


58.  The Government submitted that the applicants could not claim to be victims of a violation because the investigation had categorically established that Mr Todorov’s death had been self‑inflicted and not the result of actions taken by the police. It had therefore not engaged the State’s responsibility under Article <mask> of the Convention, and the applicants could not claim to be victims of a breach of that provision.


154.  The applicant submitted that she was entitled to damages in respect of the unlawful deprivation of the life of her husband Dermot McShane and in respect of any failure in the investigation process, referring to the previous Northern Ireland cases, where non-pecuniary damages of 10,000 pounds sterling (GBP) were awarded to applicants for breaches of the procedural obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention (e.g. Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom and Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, cited above).


77.  The Government further noted that, as established by the domestic courts, the applicant’s son had committed suicide. They asserted that this action had been his own choice, to which Article <mask> of the Convention was inapplicable. The Government referred in this connection to the case of Pretty v. the United Kingdom, in which the Court held that “[Article 2] is unconcerned with issues to do with the quality of living or what a person chooses to do with his or her life” (no. 2346/02, § 39, ECHR 2002‑III).


56.  The applicant alleged that the circumstances surrounding the abduction and disappearance of Mehmet Şah Şeker gave rise to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. He further contended that the authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances of his son’s disappearance. Article 2 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows:


74.  The applicant complained that she had been unable to secure the conviction of the doctor whose medical negligence had caused her to have to undergo a therapeutic abortion. It has not been disputed that she intended to carry her pregnancy to full term and that her child was in good health. Following the material events, the applicant and her partner lodged a criminal complaint, together with an application to join the proceedings as civil parties, alleging unintentional injury to the applicant and unintentional homicide of the child she was carrying. The courts held that the prosecution of the offence of unintentional injury to the applicant was statute-barred and, quashing the Court of Appeal’s judgment on the second point, the Court of Cassation held that, regard being had to the principle that the criminal law was to be strictly construed, a foetus could not be the victim of unintentional homicide. The central question raised by the application is whether the absence of a criminal remedy within the French legal system to punish the unintentional destruction of a foetus constituted a failure on the part of the State to protect by law the right to life within the meaning of Article <mask> of the Convention.


113.  The applicant claimed damages on behalf of himself and his parents. The Court observes that Article 41, except in certain specific cases mostly related to complaints being brought on behalf of a deceased person under Article <mask> of the Convention, provides for the payment of just satisfaction to only the direct victim of the violation. It follows that the Court will only consider claims which have been lodged in the name of the applicant himself.


213.  The applicant contended that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention by both the Russian and Cypriot authorities on account of the failure of the Cypriot authorities to take steps to protect the life of his daughter and the failure of the authorities of both States to conduct an effective investigation into her death. Article 2 provides, inter alia, that:


78.  The Government finally submitted that by ordering the applicant’s release they would have breached their positive obligation under Article 3 and possibly even under Article <mask> of the Convention to protect potential victims from further violent offences. According to the findings of the domestic courts, it was very likely that the applicant would commit similar offences as those at issue in the 1996 proceedings before the Munich I Regional Court against his ex-wife or other persons if released.


88.  The applicants restated their complaint referring directly to Article <mask> of the Convention and argued that Aslanbek Khamidov had been detained by State servicemen and should be presumed dead in the absence of any reliable news of him for more than eight years. The applicants submitted that they had not immediately informed the authorities of the kidnapping because in 2000 a large-scale counter-terrorist campaign had been under way in the Chechen Republic and they had feared to leave their village to visit a prosecutor’s office. At the same time they had not had any confidence in the law-enforcement agencies located in the village of Alleroy since those had been responsible for the identity check of 25 October 2000.


152.  The Government maintained that the criminal proceedings relating to the murder of the applicant's husband had been initiated on 27 February 2001, and the applicant recognised as an aggrieved party within those proceedings. The Government argued that the applicant should have raised her complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention within six months of that date, but had failed to do so.


89.  The Government did not accept the applicant's claims under Article <mask> of the Convention that her husband was deprived of his life intentionally or by any excessive or unjustified use of force. Indeed, in this case, there was no question of force being used against the applicant's husband. The events which led to his death were simply a tragic accident. It could not have been the intention of the framers of the Convention that Article 2 would come into play wherever there happened to be an accident which was allegedly caused by a person who was acting in an official capacity at the time. Article 2 was therefore not engaged.


128.  The Government argued that, given the exceptional circumstances of the case, the authorities had carried out an effective investigation and emphasised that every effort had been made by them to identify and punish those responsible, in accordance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, which did not impose an obligation on the authorities to reach a particular outcome.


39.  The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the gendarmes had acted in complete disregard of the right to life by using explosives and firearms and that it was only by pure chance that he had survived. Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicant further complained that, having been shot at, beaten up and exposed to tear gas, he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant submitted that his allegations had not been investigated in an effective manner at the national level.


118.  The applicants further considered that, even under the “new material test” which had been developed and applied in the Chamber judgment, the Court could be competent to examine Russia’s compliance with the procedural obligation under Article 2, assuming that the required new element was not limited to important new evidence becoming known in the post-ratification period but also included new and sufficiently important procedural facts. This test should also encompass cases where the domestic authorities had failed to collect new evidence or where they had adopted conclusions that starkly contradicted previous findings or historical facts. Although a decision to close the investigation was not as such new material for the investigation, it could constitute a new procedural development of relevance in the context of Article <mask> of the Convention, especially since it marked a sudden change in the investigation. Moreover, when a significant portion of the investigation file became classified and the same status was given to the final decision in the investigation, there existed good reasons to presume that the sudden and radical change in the investigation must have resulted from relevant new findings.


54.  The applicants complained of a violation of the right to life in respect of their relative, Vakhid Musikhanov. They submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which his whereabouts could not be established indicated that Vakhid Musikhanov had been killed by the federal forces. The applicants also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into the matter. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


35.  The applicants complained that Mr Kałucki had been killed in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They alleged that the police officers had used machine and other guns from very close range on unarmed men who were panicking because they thought they were being robbed. Thus the police had used lethal force in circumstances where this was not absolutely necessary and in an excessive manner. They also complained that the police operation, which had been initiated on the basis of an unconfirmed anonymous call, was not properly prepared and was badly directed.


77.  The Government argued firstly that the investigation into the murder of the applicant’s husband was still ongoing, and that therefore the domestic remedies had not been exhausted. They further claimed that the investigation in the present case had met the requirements of effectiveness, enshrined in Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the applicant’s complaint concerning the incident of 6 January 2000 had been received by the authorities on 17 February 2000, and the criminal proceedings had been instituted on 27 February 2000, which had been in full compliance with the time-limit established by Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 then in force. Also, in the Government’s submission, all measures envisaged in national law were being taken to identify the alleged perpetrator.


91.  The applicants complained that Amir Magomedov and Ali Uspayev had been arrested by Russian servicemen and then disappeared and that Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov had been shot and taken away by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into these matters. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads:


72.  The Government, recounting in detail the facts described above, argued that the various national authorities had done everything they could in the present case and had consistently established the cause of Mr Dejan Petrović’s death. An independent prosecutor had carried out the investigation, and the police officers involved in the investigation had been hierarchically independent and/or superior to the police officers present during the incident. The Government submitted that the investigation into the death of the applicant’s son had consequently fully met the requirements of impartiality and thoroughness laid down in Article <mask> of the Convention.


68.  The applicants complained that the police had failed to ensure the safety of the participants in the training exercise which had resulted in their son’s death and which they claimed, moreover, was intentional. The applicants further complained that the investigation into alleged negligence on the part of police officers had been very lengthy and inefficient. They invoked Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:


64.  The Government contended on one hand that Article <mask> of the Convention was not applicable to the applicants’ complaint concerning the disappearance of their brother and that their complaint under this head must be examined under Article 5 of the Convention. To this end they referred to the case of Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 101-09, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑III. On the other hand, they submitted that the complaint should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, as the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations before the Court. Further, the Government submitted that the domestic investigation obtained no evidence that the applicants’ brother had been held under State control or that he was dead. They further noted that the mere fact that the investigative measures employed had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that there had been any omissions on the part of the investigative authorities. They claimed that all necessary steps were being taken to comply with the obligation to conduct an effective investigation.


70.  The applicants also submitted that the doctors had been aware of the patient’s critical condition. Referring to the case of Jasinskis v. Latvia (no. 45744/08, §§ 67-68, 21 December 2010), they argued that the Government were responsible for her death, in that the necessary care had not been provided, and had therefore breached Article <mask> of the Convention in its substantive aspect.


23.  The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that their relative had been killed unlawfully by the soldiers. They submitted that the fact that his hunting rifle was still fully loaded at the time of the killing, coupled with the absence of any bullets or bullet cases which might have been discharged from the soldiers’ weapons, had shown that no armed clash had taken place at all. The applicants added that a policy of impunity prevailed in Turkey in respect of breaches of the right to life by law enforcement officials. Everything in this incident indicated that their relative Murat Tekdal had been an innocent civilian. However, in the documents drawn up by members of the security forces attempts had been made to portray Murat Tekdal as a member of an outlawed organisation so that members of the security forces would not be prosecuted and punished.


34.  The applicant complained that Police Officer Apostolidis had used a weapon during the course of his arrest. He also complained, under the same provision, that the investigative and prosecuting authorities had failed to launch a prompt, comprehensive and effective official investigation into the legitimacy of the use of force by Police Officer Apostolidis. He argued that there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


45.  The Government submitted that the present application is inadmissible as regards the applicant’s complaints about the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, on account of the lengthy investigation of the traffic accident which resulted in bodily injuries to the applicant, since this part of the application fell outside the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis. The traffic accident took place on 26 January 1993, while the Convention entered into force in respect of Ukraine on 11 September 1997, which was more than four years after the accident. The Government referred to the Court’s decisions in the cases of Moldovan and others v. Romania (no. 41138/98, 13 March 2001), and Kholodovy v. Russia (no. 30651/05, 14 September 2006).


58.  The applicant complained that all the relevant facts concerning the death of his sister had not been properly established in the unreasonably long criminal proceedings against Dr V.B. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will consider this complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:


84.  The applicants maintained in reply that they had been submitted to ongoing harassment which also included acts of physical violence against the first applicant and verbal violence against both applicants. Such harassment had disrupted their daily lives and caused them a significant level of constant stress and suffering, in particular in view of the first applicant’s medical condition. They argued that the ongoing pattern of harassment and abuse met the requisite intensity standard under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and that Article <mask> of the Convention was also applicable given the escalation of violence against the first applicant in view of his extreme vulnerability and also in view of the likelihood, as demonstrated by research on disability hate crime, of low-level harassment turning into full-scale violence if left unchecked, possibly resulting in extreme circumstances in death or severe ill-treatment.


129.  The applicants argued that it was beyond reasonable doubt that Muslim Nenkayev had been kidnapped by representatives of federal forces. They further stressed that their relative had been abducted in life-threatening circumstances and argued, relying on Article <mask> of the Convention, that the fact that he had remained missing for more than six years proved that he was dead.


79.  The applicant submitted that the State had violated its procedural obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention by failing to carry out an effective investigation of the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s daughter’s death. Even if a civil remedy would have been an appropriate remedy in this case, the flawed investigation carried out after Y’s death rendered a possible civil remedy ineffective.


83.  The Government further noted that, following inquiries conducted by the prison administration, the initiation of an investigation had been refused on 10 August 2001. The refusal had been reiterated on 24 August 2001. However, that decision had been quashed by a prosecutor and an investigation had been instituted on 4 June 2002. It had established that the prison officers were not responsible for Mr Shumkov’s suicide. Accordingly, on 28 May 2003 the investigation had been discontinued for lack of corpus delicti. Following the applicant’s appeal against that decision, the domestic courts had found that it was lawful and well-founded since the investigating authorities had established the causes of Mr Shumkov’s death and conducted a proper assessment of the actions of the doctors and prison officers. Therefore, the Government concluded that the investigation had been effective for the purposes of Article <mask> of the Convention.


30.  The Government further maintained that in the present case, unlike in the case of Osman v. the United Kingdom (28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑VIII), the State authorities had not known of the existence of a real and imminent risk to the life of the applicants’ relatives. Moreover, D. had not been acting in his official capacity. Although the internal investigation had established “some flagrant violations and shortcomings in the organisation of the working processes of the relevant police department”, the national courts had not established any causal link between these shortcomings and D.’s actions. Therefore, the Government considered that in the present case the State had complied with its positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention.


59.  The applicant complained under Article 2 § 1 of the Convention of the lack of effective and adequate measures taken by the police and prosecutor's office to investigate her son's death. She maintained, in particular, that the Ukrainian authorities had failed to comply with their positive obligation to carry out a proper and comprehensive investigation into the circumstances in which E. had died. She alleged in this respect Article <mask> of the Convention which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:


48.  The applicant complained about her father’s death following his arrest by the police and his deprivation of liberty in Argenteuil police station. She argued that the necessary measures for the protection of his right to life had not been taken. She further argued that the investigation into the facts had not been effective. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


40.  The applicant complained that the investigation into her son’s death had not met the requirements of effectiveness under Article <mask> of the Convention, given the decision of the prosecuting and judicial authorities not to investigate all aspects of the incident or to attach any responsibility to all of the persons concerned. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:


74.  The Government acknowledged that the State’s duties under Article <mask> of the Convention encompass a positive obligation to take preventive measures in order to protect an individual whose life is at risk from criminal acts of another individual. Nonetheless, Pravieniškės Prison authorities and its medical staff had not been aware of the risk to A.Č.’s life and could not have known that the risk to his life was real and immediate.


28.  The applicant complained of a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in that no effective investigation had been carried out into the circumstances of the accident which had resulted in the death of her husband. She also complained of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, claiming that the criminal investigation of the accident which had caused her husband’s death had not been fair. The Court, however, considers it more appropriate to examine the case solely from the standpoint of Article 2 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads:


30.  The Government submitted that the relevant circumstances had been effectively examined at the domestic level and that there had been no procedural violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They admitted that the civil claim had been closely linked to the determination of the criminal charges against Dr G. However, the civil courts had been prompt in their consideration of the applicant’s claims in a separate set of civil proceedings.


99.  The Government pointed out that Bulgarian law made provision for “compassionate use” of unauthorised medicinal products. However, they emphasised that such products carried serious risks, which required them to be carefully regulated. The State was entitled to refuse permission for the use of an unauthorised medicinal product, and this did not breach the right to life, but safeguarded it. The positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention had limits, and could not exceed what was reasonable. The applicants had been given conventional medical treatment. There was no further duty to allow them to use a product which was not authorised in any member State of the European Union or had not been subjected to a clinical trial. A State could not be obliged to make available all possible drugs, let alone products whose contents and origins were not clearly known, and which had not been authorised in developed countries with strong health care systems. The product at issue did not comply with the requirements for “compassionate use” under Article 83 of Regulation (EC) no. 726/2004. If its producer met the applicable requirements, the authorities could envisage allowing its use in the future. In that sense, the applicants were not left with no hope at all.


45.  The applicants complained that Mr Mihaylov had been killed by the police in circumstances in which the use of lethal force had not been absolutely necessary. They also complained that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into that matter. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:


51.  The applicants alleged that Adnan Yıldırım had been tortured and killed following his abduction by undercover agents of the State or by persons acting under their express or implicit instructions. They also complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into his killing. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides:


33.  The Government claimed that the applicants’ complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention were incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, as the first applicant, who had alone been responsible for the accident that had claimed his wife’s life, could not be considered to have victim status. They further argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies in relation to their complaints, as they had not applied to the Supreme Administrative Court for rectification of its decision dated 25 January 2011.


89.  The applicant complained of a violation of the right to life in respect of her son, Artur Bersunkayev. She submitted that the circumstances of his disappearance and the long period during which his whereabouts could not be established indicated that Artur Bersunkayev had been killed by the federal forces. The applicant also complained that no effective investigation had been conducted into her son’s disappearance. She referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


148.  The applicant submitted that, according to the more recent understanding of Article <mask> of the Convention (she referred to Dodov v. Bulgaria, no. 59548/00, 17 January 2008; Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, ECHR 2013; Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, 5 December 2013; Asiye Genç v. Turkey, no. 24109/07, 27 January 2015; and Elena Cojocaru v. Romania, no. 74114/12, 22 March 2016), for the Court to find that there had been a violation of Article 2 under its substantive limb, it had to be established that in concrete terms the promptness and diligence which could reasonably have been expected in the circumstances of the case had been lacking and, further, that this failing had contributed to putting the victim’s life at risk. The applicant noted that in the aforementioned cases the factor which had weighed most heavily in the Court’s judgment was the absence of the timely medical treatment which, in the circumstances of each case, could reasonably have been expected and whose absence had contributed significantly to the chain of events which put at risk the life of patients who, in the end, had died. She stressed that in these various situations the Court had emphasised that there was no call to speculate on what the victims’ chances of survival might have been if the failings identified had not occurred; what counted was the unreasonable risk to which, in the circumstances of each case, the patient had been exposed and which had contributed to the chain of events leading to his or her death. The applicant observed that, in determining the relevant facts, the Court had applied the “beyond reasonable doubt” test, according to which the requisite proof could follow from a sufficiently persuasive combination of inferences and presumptions. She submitted, contrary to the Portuguese Government’s view, that the Chamber judgment provided a concrete application of these principles to the facts of the case. The applicant emphasised in this connection that the Court had subsequently applied the same principles in the Elena Cojocaru case, cited above.


34.  The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention that her son had been killed as a result of the unnecessary use of firearms by a State agent and that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into her son’s death. The Court will examine the present complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides as follows:


93.  The Government considered that, given the leading judgments delivered by the Court in the case of the Association “21 December 1989” and Others (cited above), it was clear that every similar case which satisfies the admissibility criteria could raise a problem under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention. However, the Court should note that, following that judgment, the Government had undertaken steps to redress the situation in line with the action plan submitted to the Committee of Ministers on 24 July 2012. In such circumstances, the allegations made by the applicants should only be considered from a purely historical standpoint.


35.  The Government submitted that the “TRNC” authorities had been fully justified under paragraph 2 of Article <mask> of the Convention in taking all necessary precautions and using necessary force in order to avert the danger and protect the lives of others. An assembly of 150 persons throwing missiles at a patrol of soldiers to the point that they risked serious injury had been considered a “riot” by the Commission in the case of Stewart v. the United Kingdom (no. 10044/82, Commission decision of 10 July 1984, Decisions and Reports (DR) 39, p. 162). In that case, the Commission had also pointed out that the authorities had no obligation to retreat when quelling a riot. In any event, as no death had occurred in the present case, there could be no question of a violation of Article 2. The positive obligations arising from this provision entailed protecting “by law” the right to life, and there was no allegation that the laws of the “TRNC” failed to afford such protection.


74.  The applicant disputed that objection. He claimed that the fact that the investigation into the circumstances of the disappearance and death of his son was still pending cast doubt upon its effectiveness and that, in any event, he had not been informed of the conduct of the investigation, and therefore had been unable to appeal in time against decisions taken in the context of the investigation. The applicant also contended that the Government had not demonstrated that the remedies to which they had referred were effective and, in particular, were capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, as required by the Court's settled case-law in relation to complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention.


13.  The applicants complained that the domestic authorities had not carried out within a reasonable time an effective investigation into the events of December 1989 which occurred in Bucharest, Slobozia, Târgoviște and Reșița, during which they were injured from gunfire or their close relatives were killed. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention. In so far as relevant, this provision reads as follows:


47.  The Government, acknowledging their positive obligation under Article <mask> of the Convention to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction, submitted that – as radio and power lines constitute a source of increased danger – special instructions, rules and regulations regulate such installations in order to ensure adequate safety standards. The prescribed inspections and maintenance on the installation at issue in the present case were carried out within the defined intervals, and the necessary repairs were made. Before the incident of 19 July 2001, none of the users had complained of any power failures. However, an exceptional situation had arisen in that, some days before the incident, a severe thunderstorm had damaged numerous radio and power lines in the region. In this connection, the Government submitted – referring to the evidence given by a number of Ayvove villagers in the domestic proceedings – that the radio wire had broken on 18 July 2001 and not on 5 July 2001 as alleged by the applicant. As nobody had reported the damaged wire to the authorities or requested its repair, the Network had remained unaware of the problem at the material time.


116.  The applicants complained that the authorities had failed to comply with their positive obligations to take appropriate measures to mitigate the risks to their lives against the natural hazards. The first applicant complained that the domestic authorities were responsible for the death of her husband in the mudslide of July 2000. She and the other applicants also complained that the domestic authorities were responsible for putting their lives at risk, as they had failed to discharge the State's positive obligations and had been negligent in the maintenance of the dam, in monitoring the hazardous area and in providing an emergency warning or taking other reasonable measures to mitigate the risk and the effects of the natural disaster. They also complained that they had had no redress, in particular they had not received adequate compensation in respect of their pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. They relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides:


71.  The applicants complained that the State authorities had not undertaken reasonable and adequate steps to protect the life and health of V.P. and that the State had not provided sufficient explanation of V.P.’s death. Alleging that the investigation into the latter’s death had been carried out by an internal department of the Ministry of the Interior and by the police units implicated in his death or stationed in the area, the applicants also complained that no effective and independent investigation had been carried out on the authorities’ own initiative. According to them, the State authorities had not started investigations of their own motion. Indeed, the officer who had arrived at the scene of incident had stopped the investigation too quickly and with no plausible reason. The Supervision Department had only started to act upon filing of a criminal complaint by the applicants. The applicants further complained of various shortcomings during the investigations which had been led with insufficient diligence and promptness. Furthermore, the applicants had been repeatedly denied access to the investigation file and had had no adequate remedy in respect of the breaches of their rights under the Convention. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention which reads as follows:


46.  The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to protect the life of her son and were responsible for his death. She also complained that the investigation into her son's death had not been adequate or effective, as required by the procedural obligation imposed by Article <mask> of the Convention. This provision reads in its relevant part as follows:


45.  The Government submitted firstly that the applicant had failed to properly exhaust the available domestic remedies. Referring to the Court’s case-law on the subject of the State’s positive obligations under Article <mask> of the Convention, they argued that the criminal-law avenue was not the one to be pursued by the applicant. On this point the Government admitted that within the framework of criminal proceedings the applicant had brought a civil action, and had been recognised as a civil claimant who had suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. However, in each of the subsequent decisions to discontinue the criminal investigation of the death of the applicant’s son the prosecutors suggested that she bring a separate civil claim against the Vilnius city municipality under Article 6.266 of the Civil Code. Moreover, by a decision of 3 July 2008 and subsequent decisions the prosecutors established that the Vilnius city municipality had been the de facto owner of the derelict building the collapse of which had caused the death, and that it thus had absolute liability. Referring to the practice of the Lithuanian courts (see paragraphs 40-42 above), the Government thus insisted that Article 6.266 of the Civil Code was an effective remedy the applicant should have pursued. Whilst noting that the pre-trial investigation did not establish physical persons liable for the accident, the Government also argued that the applicant could have alternatively claimed redress for the damage on the basis of Article 6.271 of the Civil Code, which sets forth a more general provision, namely liability to compensate for damage caused by unlawful actions of institutions of public authority. Again, the applicant could have relied on the prosecutor’s conclusion that the Vilnius city municipality, which had learned about the poor state of the building in question in 2004, did not act promptly enough to eliminate the threat. Even so, the applicant had never lodged any separate civil claim under the rules of civil procedure in respect of the damage caused by her son’s death.


36.  The Government further submitted that the applicant’s detention and his subsequent placement in a disciplinary cell had been lawful, having complied with the provisions of national law laying down responsibility for disciplinary offences committed by servicemen. The use of force by Mr L. had been absolutely necessary to prevent the escape of the applicant’s son, who had been lawfully detained. Thus, Mr Putintsev’s loss of life could not be regarded as having been in contravention of the Convention, being covered by the exception in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 2 to Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government insisted that, having decided to abscond and having refused to comply with the order to stop, Mr Putintsev had himself placed his life in imminent danger. He had been warned and he had fully understood the consequences of his actions. The deadly force had been used for a lawful purpose and had been a measure of last resort. The Russian Federation could not therefore be held responsible for Mr Putintsev’s death.


44.   The Government submitted that the criminal investigation was carried out comprehensively and promptly. The national authorities had taken necessary steps in order to collect the evidence and to establish the circumstances of the applicant’s husband’s death. Certain delays during the proceedings had not been attributable to the State. The procedural requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention had been complied with.


196.  The applicants stressed that their relatives, Serdar Tanış and Ebubekir Deniz, had disappeared in circumstances in which their lives were in danger. They submitted that account should be taken not only of the specific context in which the men had disappeared, but also of the broader context of a large number of such disappearances in the province of Şırnak. In their submission, there had been a grave violation of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the Government had been unable to furnish a plausible explanation for their disappearance.


162.  The applicant asked the Court to find a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on the ground that the investigation into the disappearance and the subsequent killing of her husband had been so fundamentally flawed as to amount to a failure to comply with the procedural requirements of that provision. The applicant identified, in particular, the following shortcomings in the investigation into the killing of her husband:


125.  The applicants submitted that the domestic authorities had never informed them of any orders or decisions introducing a curfew and stressed that the Government had failed to produce any documents which would confirm that a curfew had been introduced in the Chechen Republic or indicated either its start or end dates or the conduct to be adopted by the local population in that connection. They furthermore argued that the documents submitted by the Government suggested that Z. had not been entitled to stop and inspect civilian vehicles and that he had acted in excess of his powers, which fact had been indicated by higher-ranking prosecutors. Moreover, there was no indication that the servicemen under his command had been entitled to stop and inspect the vehicle. It followed from the statement by A.K. that the incident had taken place when it had been dark and accordingly the passengers of the VAZ-2109 car could hardly have seen any signals to stop allegedly made by the servicemen. Moreover, the statement by A.K. that he had fired two warning shots was contradicted by the statements of K.M. and the third applicant, who submitted that the servicemen had directly shot at the vehicle and that they had not heard any single shots but continuing bursts of automatic gun fire coming from the side of the servicemen. During the first minutes after the skirmish a police officer had inspected the vehicle but no weapons or ammunition had been discovered in it. Moreover, it had been inspected again on 24 October 2001 and no spent cartridges or guns had been found close to it. Hence, the allegation that the vehicle passengers had fired at the servicemen did not stand up. More importantly, all the spent cartridges seized from the crime scene were found on the side of the road where the servicemen had been stationed. In sum, the applicant claimed that the death of their relative had been in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention.


37.  The Government acknowledged that Article 201 of the Statute of Garrison and Sentry Service, in force at the material time, had not indicated that the use of force had to be absolutely necessary. However, that legal norm had indicated that deadly force could only be used in specific cases and as a measure of last resort. The Government observed that the wording of Article 201 of the Statute had afforded the same level of protection of the right to life as Article <mask> of the Convention. They further noted that in assessing the circumstances of the case the Court should not overlook the fact that the events in question had occurred in the army, a very specific setting characterised by extreme limitations on the rights and freedoms of individuals performing military service. The specific responsibilities of servicemen to respect discipline and the regulations of the Statute of Garrison and Sentry Service, as well as the fact that military service was inherently characterised by unquestionable compliance with orders of higher-ranking officers, had justified the use of deadly force against a serviceman to prevent his escape.


119.  The applicants argued that the treatment to which the first applicant and Mr Bashir Velkhiyev had been subjected should be characterised as torture. To support their argument they referred to the severity of the injuries both of them had sustained and which in Mr Bashir Velkhiyev’s case had resulted in death. The applicants also contested the Government’s assertion that the investigation had been effective, on the same grounds as set out in paragraph 94 above in relation to Article <mask> of the Convention.


160.  The Government maintained that the State had not been liable for the death of Aslan Maskhadov and that the investigation had fully complied with the requirements of the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government reiterated their earlier request to declare the case inadmissible as the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies by bringing court proceedings under Articles 123 and 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the relevant decisions and replies of the investigation authorities. They pointed out that copies of the case-file materials and documents could have been obtained by the applicants if they had made the relevant requests before the courts.


52.  The Government referred to the fact that in April 2009 the applicant had received compensation in an amount equivalent to about EUR 7,066 at the time. As to the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention, it is noted that the civil courts explicitly dismissed the applicant’s arguments supporting her monetary claim on the grounds of an ineffective investigation. As to the substantive aspect of Article 2, it is sufficient for the Court to observe that this amount is substantially less than it has awarded in similar cases (see Nagmetov v. Russia [GC], no. 35589/08, § 92, 30 March 2017; Maslova v. Russia, no. 15980/12, §§ 61-62 and 106, 14 February 2017; Lykova v. Russia, no. 68736/11, § 135, 22 December 2015; Rudakov v. Russia, no. 43239/04, §§ 71-73, 28 October 2010; and Zelenin v. Russia, no. 21120/07, § 79, 15 January 2015; see also paragraph 114 below). Given that − as established by the Court below − the investigation into the circumstances leading to the victim’s death was ineffective and that the compensation awarded was insufficient, the applicant had and continues to have standing to complain about a breach of the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention (see Nagmetov, § 89, with further references). Accordingly, the Government’s objection must be dismissed.


126.  The applicant complained that her husband was killed in circumstances indicating that agents of the Turkish State were in one way or another involved. She further complained of a failure by the authorities to protect her husband's life and to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into his killing. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows:


73.  The applicants submitted that there was overwhelming evidence to conclude that Nura Luluyeva had been deprived of her life by State agents in circumstances that violated Article <mask> of the Convention. They argued that she had been detained on 3 June 2000 during a “mopping-up” operation in Mozdokskaya Street in the northern part of Grozny and then killed. They relied on the findings of the investigation that she had been detained by a group of armed men who forced her into an APC – a military vehicle. They referred to the witnesses' statements and to the information received from the officials of the Leninskiy VOVD about the hull number of that APC. They further argued that the discovery of her body in a mass grave in close proximity (less than one km) to a large military base in Khankala, access to which was restricted almost exclusively to Russian military forces, confirmed the participation of State agents in the killing of Nura Luluyeva. The applicants further noted that the authorities had failed to provide an explanation or an alternative version of the events.


63.  The Government raised two combined preliminary objections. On the one hand they contested the Court’s competence ratione temporis to examine the applications under the procedural head of Article <mask> of the Convention and, on the other hand, they argued that the applications had been lodged out of time, as the applicants had lacked diligence both before the domestic authorities and the Court.


122.  The applicant also submitted that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the State's failure to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into his son's death. In support of his allegation the applicant contended, in particular, that the autopsy carried out on the body of his son was wholly inadequate, that there had been a failure to properly inspect the crime scene at the petrol station as well as a failure to keep custody records in relation to Kadri Ateş, and, finally, that the Prosecutor had failed to take statements from a number of potentially important witnesses.


69.  The Government submitted that the investigation had been conducted by independent prosecution agencies (see Gülec v. Turkey, no. 21593/93, 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, §§ 81-82, and Öğur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, 20 May 1999, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III) and that it had been prompt and expedient, having started on the very day of the explosion (see Cakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, §§ 80, 87, 106; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, 28 March 2000, ECHR 2000-III, §§ 106-107). In order to identify the persons involved in the explosion, the preliminary investigation team had demonstrated a sufficient effort to allow it to assert that the authorities of the Russian Federation had fulfilled their positive obligation to conduct an effective investigation as required by Article <mask> of the Convention (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, no. 26307/95, 8 April 2004, § 220).


51.  The applicants complained about the killing of their father and deficiencies in the investigation in that respect. They also claimed that their father had been killed because of his Serbian ethnic origin and that the national authorities had failed to investigate that factor. The applicants further complained that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in respect of the alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. They relied on Articles 2, 13 and 14 of the Convention. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under Article 2 of the Convention alone which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: