Here’s a breakdown of the Makaruk and Others v. Ukraine decision:
1. **Essence:** The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Ukraine in violation of Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to ineffective investigations into deaths or life-threatening accidents where State agents were not involved. The cases involved issues such as traffic accidents, assaults, and shootings. The Court emphasized that the investigations were marred by shortcomings that undermined the authorities’ ability to establish the circumstances and identify those responsible. The ECtHR highlighted failures such as a lack of thoroughness, promptness, and sufficient measures during the preliminary stages of the investigations. As a result, the Court awarded sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs to the applicants.
2. **Structure and Provisions:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Article 2 Violation:** The core of the decision focuses on the alleged violation of Article 2, specifically the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation.
* **General Principles:** The Court reiterated the general principles concerning the effectiveness of an investigation, referencing previous case law such as Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey. These principles include the adequacy and promptness of investigative measures, involvement of the deceased person’s family, and the independence of the investigation.
* **Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies:** The Court dismissed the Government’s argument that applicants failed to exhaust domestic remedies by not lodging civil claims for non-pecuniary damages. It emphasized that requiring such actions would render the obligation to conduct an effective investigation illusory.
* **Specific Shortcomings:** The Court identified specific shortcomings in each case, such as repeated remittals for additional investigation, insufficient measures during the preliminary stage, an unusually high number of repeated forensic examinations, and a lack of thoroughness and promptness.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court applied Article 41, awarding sums for non-pecuniary damage and costs to the applicants, referencing its case-law.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Emphasis on Effective Investigation:** The decision underscores the importance of a thorough, prompt, and independent investigation in cases of deaths or life-threatening accidents, even when State agents are not involved.
* **Specific Shortcomings as Indicators:** The identified shortcomings (e.g., repeated remittals, insufficient measures, lack of promptness) serve as indicators of what constitutes an ineffective investigation.
* **Dismissal of Non-Exhaustion Argument:** The Court’s dismissal of the non-exhaustion argument clarifies that applicants are not necessarily required to bring actions leading only to damages when an investigation is ineffective.
* **Reliance on Previous Case Law:** The decision relies on and references previous case law, providing a context for understanding the Court’s reasoning and standards for effective investigation.
**** This decision is related to Ukraine, highlighting the country’s shortcomings in conducting effective investigations into serious incidents. This ruling may have implications for how Ukraine conducts such investigations in the future, potentially requiring improvements in thoroughness, promptness, and independence to meet the standards set by the European Convention on Human Rights.
