The applicants complained of the ineffective investigation into the deaths of their relatives, which had not resulted from involvement of State agents.<\/p>\n
European Court of Human Rights This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Kentesh and Borodynya v. Ukraine,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2023,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table<\/p>\n 2. The Ukrainian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. The applicants complained of the ineffective investigation into the deaths of their relatives, which had not resulted from involvement of State agents. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 6. The Court notes at the outset that the present case falls to be examined from the perspective of the State\u2019s obligation to conduct an effective investigation under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention.\u00a0The relevant general principles concerning the effectiveness of the investigation were summarised in Mustafa Tun\u00e7 and Fecire Tun\u00e7 v.\u00a0Turkey [GC] (no.\u00a024014\/05, \u00a7\u00a7 169-82, 14 April 2015). In particular, once the investigative obligation is triggered, compliance with the procedural requirement of Article\u00a02 is assessed on the basis of several essential parameters: the adequacy of the investigative measures, the promptness of the investigation, the involvement of the deceased person\u2019s family, and the independence of the investigation. These elements are inter\u2011related and each of them, taken separately, does not amount to an end in itself (ibid., \u00a7\u00a0225).<\/p>\n 7. Moreover, this is not an obligation of results to be achieved but of means to be employed. The Court accepts that not every investigation is necessarily successful or comes to a conclusion coinciding with the claimant\u2019s account of events. However, it should, in principle, be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477\/99, \u00a7\u00a071, ECHR 2002-II).<\/p>\n 8. Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of those principles, the Court considers that the investigations were marked by various shortcomings, which had undermined the ability of the investigating authorities to establish the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the applicants\u2019 next of kin, and who, if anyone, was responsible. The specific shortcomings are indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 9. In the leading cases of Kachurka v.\u00a0Ukraine (no. 4737\/06, 15\u00a0September 2011), Pozhyvotko v.\u00a0Ukraine (no. 42752\/08, 17 October 2013) and Basyuk v. Ukraine (no. 51151\/10, 5 November 2015) the Court already found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the investigations failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness.<\/p>\n 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a02 of the Convention under its procedural limb.<\/p>\n III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Basyuk, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 74-80), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into the deaths of the applicants\u2019 relatives, which had not resulted from the involvement of State agents;<\/p>\n 4. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits ______________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nFIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF KENTESH AND BORODYNYA v. UKRAINE<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 44244\/19 and 26300\/22)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 January 2024<\/p>\n
\nM\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits, President,
\nKate\u0159ina \u0160im\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1,
\nMykola Gnatovskyy, judges,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 2 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(ineffective investigation into deaths or life-threatening accidents without involvement of State agents)<\/p>\n