The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Morozova v. Ukraine, concerning the ineffective investigation into the death of the applicant’s 17-year-old daughter. The Court found that the investigation into the daughter’s death, allegedly caused by poisoning, was marked by several shortcomings that undermined the authorities’ ability to establish the circumstances of the death and identify any responsible parties. The ECtHR concluded that Ukraine had failed to meet its obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life, specifically concerning the procedural duty to conduct an effective investigation. The Court highlighted failures to thoroughly investigate different versions of events, a lack of efficiency criticized by national authorities, and a general lack of thoroughness and promptness in the investigation. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant 6,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 250 euros for costs and expenses.
The structure of the decision begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and representation. It then presents the facts, focusing on the applicant’s daughter’s death and the domestic investigation that followed. The core of the judgment lies in the legal assessment, specifically addressing the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The Court references its established case law on effective investigations, emphasizing the need for adequacy, promptness, family involvement, and independence. The decision highlights the shortcomings in the Ukrainian investigation, referencing similar cases where Ukraine was found in violation. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41, concerning just satisfaction, and outlines the compensation awarded to the applicant. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as this is a single judgment on the specific application.
The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the State’s obligation to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into deaths, even in the absence of direct State involvement. The judgment underscores that investigations must be prompt, adequate, and involve the family of the deceased. The decision also highlights that a failure to address shortcomings previously identified in similar cases can lead to a finding of a violation of Article 2. This ruling serves as a reminder to Ukraine of its duty to ensure that investigations into suspicious deaths are carried out effectively and in accordance with human rights standards. **** This decision has implications for Ukraine, particularly in the context of ongoing conflict and potential human rights violations, emphasizing the need for thorough and impartial investigations into any deaths.
