2001. The relevant decision was quashed and the criminal investigation was opened on 16 April 2001. It ended on 11 October 2006 with the general prosecutor's office decision to discontinue the proceedings for lack of corpus delicti.
56. The Court notes from the outset that the prosecuting authorities were particularly slow in instituting a criminal investigation into the circumstances of Mr Korogodin's death. The regional prosecutor opened a criminal case only on 16 April 2001, that is, approximately five months after the applicant's initial complaint. Admittedly, the authorities required certain time to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the applicant's allegations. They questioned the doctors and studied Mr Korogodin's medical file. Nevertheless, the Court finds that the scope of the initial inquiry was not such as to justify the delay indicated. It follows, accordingly, that the beginning of the investigation was belated.
57. The Court accepts that the issue under investigation was of certain complexity and required substantial preparation. The Court does not lose sight that the prosecuting authorities had commissioned three forensic medical expert reports in order to establish the circumstances of the case. The experts' opinions varied to a certain extent and the authorities had to reconcile their findings. They questioned the applicant and all the doctors and paramedics who had provided medical service to Mr Korogodin. Nevertheless, having regard to the materials in its possession, the Court cannot ascertain that the authorities proceeded with reasonable expedition and that the complexity of the case alone suffices to explain such length.
58. In particular, the Court observes that, following the opening of the criminal case, the prosecuting authorities discontinued the investigation on six occasions. Each time, the applicant appealed and the supervising prosecutor quashed the relevant decision and reopened the investigation noting the investigator's or the subordinate prosecutor's failure to fully determine the circumstances of the case. The Court considers that such remittals of the case for re-examination disclose a serious deficiency of the criminal investigation which irreperably protracted the proceedings.
59. Lastly, the Court notes that approximately three and a half years after her son's death and while the criminal investigation was still pending, the applicant also brought an action for damages against the medical institutions. The relevant civil proceedings lasted from 4 March 2004 to 14 June 2006 and the case was reviewed by courts at two levels of jurisdiction. While the Court discerns no significant periods of inactivity on the part of the civil courts dealing with the matter, in the circumstances of the case, it does not consider it relevant or having any remedial effect on the lack of progress in the criminal proceedings instituted. In any event, it was for the applicant to select which legal remedy to pursue; consequently, even if it were correct that her choice has fallen on a remedy less suited than others to her particular circumstances, this would be of no moment (see, mutatis mutandis, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 23, Series A No. 32).
60. Recalling that the investigation took almost six years, the foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the domestic authorities failed to respond to the applicant's complaint about medical negligence resulting in her son's death with the level of diligence required by Article 2 of the Convention. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
61. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings concerning her claim for damages against th
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
