CASE OF STABROVSKA v. UKRAINE

On 22 July 2006 the applicant’s son – a young man who was born in 1982 – left home and never returned.

On that day a young man was found severely injured and unconscious, lying in a street in Kyiv. An ambulance and the police attended the scene of the incident. According to the report of a police officer of the Podilskyy District Police Department of Kyiv (“the Police Department”), a doctor explained to him that the man had fallen from a building with a height of approximately five metres; the doctor also specified the man’s surname, which was the same as that of the applicant’s son.

The injured man was taken to hospital, where his surname was noted down slightly differently. On 29 July 2006 he died in hospital. According to the post-mortem examination, the man died from a serious craniocerebral injury; the injuries identified on the body (including the one which was fatal) could have been sustained as a result of his fall.

On 31 July 2006 the applicant – who had no information concerning the whereabouts of her son – reported his disappearance to the Police Department.

On 18 September 2006 the unclaimed body of the man found in the street was buried in a municipal cemetery.

In March 2007 the applicant was invited by the police to look at a picture of the man found in the street. The applicant found that the man very closely resembled her son.

Following the exhumation of the body of the man found in the street, forensic medical experts conducted two DNA examinations. On 14 July 2008 they concluded with 98.73% certainty that it was the body of the applicant’s son.

On 16 October 2006 the Podilsky District Prosecutor’s Office of Kyiv (“the Prosecutor’s Office”), having conducted pre-investigation enquiries, refused to open a criminal investigation into the disappearance of the applicant’s son. The Prosecutor’s Office had regard to the unsuccessful searches carried out by the police and the statements of G., K., D. and L., who had been acquaintances of the applicant’s son but could not give any information as to his whereabouts.

On 24 May 2007 the Prosecutor’s Office refused to open a criminal investigation into the incident regarding the man who had been found injured and unconscious in the street. According to that decision, the identity of the man had not been established. The Prosecutor’s Office had regard to the statements of G., K., L. and other people, who had submitted that they had known the man and that he had often talked about suicide.

On 12 September 2007 the Podilskyy District Court of Kyiv quashed the decision of 16 October 2006 as unsubstantiated, and ordered further pre-investigation enquiries.

On 25 March 2008 the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 24 May 2007 as unsubstantiated, and ordered additional enquiries to establish the circumstances of the incident and the identity of the deceased.

In addition to the above decisions refusing to open investigations, on more than ten occasions between 2007 and 2012 the Police Department and the Prosecutor’s Office (following the pre-investigation enquiries) refused to open criminal investigations into the disappearance and death of the applicant’s son. Those decisions were quashed as unsubstantiated by the supervising courts or prosecutors, and further pre-investigation enquiries were ordered. In particular, on 3 August 2011 the Podilskyy District Court of Kyiv ordered further pre-investigation enquiries, stating that it was necessary to carry out an inspection of the scene of the incident with a forensic medical expert. Among other things, the court also stated that detailed drawings and photographs of the site had to be prepared; the expert had to be questioned in order to establish whether the applicant’s son could have fallen from the building and, if so, whether he could have sustained the injuries found on his body; and additional steps had to be taken to identify potential witnesses.

In the last decision of 9 August 2012, the Podilskyy District Prosecutor’s Office of Kyiv refused to open criminal proceedings in relation to the death of the applicant’s son. According to that decision, the man found in the street had been identified, with a high degree of certainty, as the applicant’s son. He could have sustained fatal injuries as a result of his fall; there had been no evidence of violence and the incident did not appear to have had any criminal element.