EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION / Alla Tymofeyeva (ed.)

victims or perpetrators, and stressed the duties of those working for the State Attorney in that respect. On 24 March 2009 the Police War Crimes Unit sent a gun belonging to A.H. and a bullet extracted from the body of V. for ballistic examination. The report indicated that they did not match. On 23 August 2010 the Criminal Justice Section of the County Police filed a report with the County State Attorney’s Office, informing it that they had carried out an analysis of their Section’s official documents and found documents concerning the arrest and killing of a number of civilians. With regard to V., it was stated that his dead body had been found on 9 February 1992 on the Kupa river bank. On 20 June 2011 the County Police lodged a criminal complaint against Đ.B. and V.M. on charges of war crimes against the civilian population. This included the killing of the applicant’s husband. On the same day Đ.B., Head of the Police Department in 1991 and 1992 was arrested. On an unspecified date the investigation was opened and on 13 July 2011 Đ.B. died. On 9 December 2013 a first-instance judgment was delivered. V.M. was found guilty of war crimes against the civilian population in that he had allowed the killings of persons of Serbian origin and had failed to undertake adequate measures to prevent such killings. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. Apart from this, on 28 February 2003 the applicant brought a civil action against the State, seeking compensation in connection with the death of her husband. The claim was dismissed on 6 December 2005 and was upheld on appeal by the County Court and the Supreme Court. The national courts found that the claim had been submitted after the statutory limitation period had expired. A subsequent constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant was dismissed.

Questions: 1. Is the application admissible? If not, on which grounds? 2. Which provision(s) of the Convention could be violated? 3. Is the right to life absolute? 4. What are the “positive obligations” of the State? 5. If you were a judge of the Court how would you rule on the case?

Glasses Late in the night of 2 July 1998, a Ms P. was assaulted at the entrance of her house. Two of her neighbours apprehended the applicant on suspicion that he had committed the crime and handed him over to the police. The applicant was taken to the Moscow Pechatniki District Police Department ( ОВД «Печатники» ) for questioning. It appears that at a certain point the applicant’s glasses were partially broken and the police took them away from the applicant, who was short-sighted (according to the applicant, he needed glasses of 3.5 dioptres). At the police station the applicant signed a written statement in which he confessed that he had tried to rob Ms P. using a gas handgun, and that there had been a short fight between him and one of her neighbours. The neighbours confirmed that testimony in written statements taken by the police officers. On 3 July 1998 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of armed robbery of Ms P. and illegal possession of firearms. On an unspecified date the applicant was also charged with three counts of fraud, which were not related to the episode with Ms P. On 4 July 1998 the applicant was taken by the policemen to see a doctor. It appears that the applicant did not complain to the doctor about any injury.

50

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION