Here’s a breakdown of the Romanyuk v. Ukraine decision:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life. The case concerned the ineffective investigation into the death of the applicants’ son, who died while performing military service. The Court determined that the domestic investigations into the circumstances of his death were inadequate, lacking promptness, failing to properly involve the family, and not thoroughly assessing all potential causes and those potentially responsible. Despite multiple investigations and court orders to reopen the case, significant shortcomings persisted, leading the Court to conclude that Ukraine had failed in its duty to conduct an effective investigation. As a result, the Court awarded the applicants 12,000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets the stage by outlining the case’s focus on the effectiveness of investigations into the son’s death during military service.
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Details the factual background, including the son’s military service, the circumstances of his death at a high-voltage electrical substation, and the subsequent internal and criminal investigations.
* **Internal Investigation:** Describes the initial inquiries conducted by the military unit, which concluded the son’s death was due to electrocution while attempting to steal non-ferrous metals, also noting breaches of internal regulations by commanding officers.
* **Criminal Investigations:** Outlines two separate criminal investigations: one into the possible murder of the applicants’ son, and another into the commanding officers’ allegedly negligent attitude to military service. Both investigations were repeatedly closed and reopened due to identified deficiencies.
* **The Court’s Assessment:** This section contains the legal reasoning.
* It reiterates the State’s duty under Article 2 to conduct an effective investigation when there are suspicious circumstances surrounding a death.
* It identifies shortcomings in the domestic investigations, including a failure to properly involve the applicants, repeated orders to reopen investigations due to insufficient measures, and a failure to adequately assess allegations against commanding officers.
* It concludes that the domestic investigations failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness under Article 2.
* **Application of Article 41:** Addresses the applicants’ claim for damages and awards them EUR 12,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Emphasis on Investigative Duty:** The decision underscores the State’s obligation to conduct thorough and effective investigations into deaths, particularly in circumstances that raise suspicion or involve potential negligence.
* **Elements of an Effective Investigation:** The judgment highlights key components of an effective investigation, including promptness, independence, involvement of the family, and the adequacy of investigative measures.
* **Criticism of Incomplete Investigations:** The Court’s criticism of the Ukrainian authorities for failing to address identified shortcomings, neglecting to involve the applicants, and inadequately assessing allegations serves as a reminder of the importance of comprehensive and impartial investigations.
* **Non-Pecuniary Damage:** The award of damages acknowledges the emotional distress suffered by the applicants due to the ineffective investigation into their son’s death.
**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine, as it highlights the need for improvements in the country’s investigative processes, especially in cases involving deaths during military service or potential negligence by commanding officers. It also emphasizes the importance of involving victims’ families in investigations and addressing their concerns.
