Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Petryk v. Ukraine:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerns the death of the applicant’s son, P.S., during his military service in Ukraine in 2015. The applicant alleged that the State failed to protect his son’s life and that the subsequent investigation into his death was ineffective. The Court found that Ukraine violated Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, both in its procedural and substantive aspects. The Court highlighted the excessive length and deficiencies of the investigation, as well as the failure of the authorities to provide a convincing explanation for P.S.’s death while he was under State control. As a result, the Court awarded the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter and Background:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s subject matter, focusing on the death of the applicant’s son during military service. It details the circumstances of P.S.’s call-up, his service, and the events leading up to his death, including witness testimonies and initial investigations.
* **Death of P.S. and Related Criminal Investigations:** This section describes the immediate aftermath of P.S.’s death, the launch of criminal investigations, and the numerous deficiencies that undermined the investigation. These deficiencies included the loss of crucial evidence, delays in examining key items like the mobile phone and the lorry, and questionable expert examinations.
* **Other Relevant Facts:** This part addresses the family’s application for a State allowance and the subsequent court decisions related to compensation for the military authorities’ unlawful actions.
* **The Court’s Assessment:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court assesses the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. It first examines the procedural limb, determining whether the criminal investigation was effective. Then, it turns to the substantive limb, assessing whether the State can be held responsible for the death.
* **Application of Article 41:** The judgment concludes by addressing the applicant’s claims for compensation and outlining the amounts awarded by the Court for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 2 (Procedural Limb):** The Court found that the investigation into P.S.’s death was ineffective due to its excessive length (over nine years) and the numerous delays and deficiencies caused by the domestic authorities. This highlights the importance of prompt, diligent, and competent investigations in cases of death occurring under State responsibility.
* **Violation of Article 2 (Substantive Limb):** The Court concluded that the Ukrainian authorities failed to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for P.S.’s death, which occurred while he was under their care. This underscores the State’s obligation to protect the lives of individuals under its control and to provide a plausible account when a death occurs in such circumstances.
* **Compensation:** The Court awarded EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage, acknowledging the distress and suffering caused by the ineffective investigation and the lack of a clear explanation for the death of the applicant’s son. This sets a precedent for the level of compensation that may be awarded in similar cases.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine and highlights the importance of effective investigations into deaths occurring during military service, as well as the State’s responsibility to protect the lives of soldiers and provide clear explanations when deaths occur under their care.
