4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.  On 21 May 2004 at 08.15 two household workers (“M.R.” and “I.B”) discovered the body of the applicant’s daughter (“S.J.”) at her home in Ventspils. She had a rope around her neck, the other end of which was thrown over the top of a door and tied to the door handle on the other side. 6.  At 08.20 M.R. and I.B. reported the incident to the Ventspils City and District Police Department of the State Police (“the Ventspils State Police”). Three police officers from the Ventspils State Police were dispatched to S.J.’s home. S.J.’s husband (“A.J.”), who worked as a policeman-driver for the Ventspils State Police, arrived separately. 7.  The Government have provided details of the investigation which followed. Their account has not been disputed by the applicant. 8.  From 09.40 to 10.35 officers G.A. and A.G. from the Ventspils State Police examined S.J.’s home. They prepared the procedural record, photographed the scene and seized material evidence. Later that same day S.J.’s body was transported to the Ventspils City Morgue and A.G. requested an autopsy and forensic medical examination of the body. He also submitted an internal report to the Head of the Ventspils State Police which stated that he and G.A. had arrived at the scene, established that S.J. was dead, arranged for the transportation of the body, examined the scene, and took statements. In the report he noted that the persons transporting S.J.’s body to the morgue had removed the rope from around her neck. 9.  In a letter dated 23 May 2005 a Prosecutor from the General Prosecutor’s Office admitted to the applicant that the examination of the scene by A.G. had not been done “qualitatively” or in compliance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law. He had been subjected to disciplinary action and prosecuted under Article 319(1) of the Criminal Law (Failure of a State Official to Perform His Duties) and under Article 327(19) (Forgery of a Document by a State Official). The second prosecution would appear to relate to the forgery of a Doctor’s signature on a document purporting to set out an expert’s conclusion. A.G. was later released from criminal liability. 10.  In the same letter the Prosecutor from the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that another officer from the Ventspils State Police (“A.M.”) had been subjected to disciplinary action for violating the Criminal Procedure Law when verifying the fact of S.J.’s death. It is not clear whether or not the disciplinary action related to the examination of the scene on 21 May 2004. 11.  On 24 May 2004 the police took statements from the applicant and S.J.’s sister (“B.L.”), both of whom expressed the opinion that S.J. had no reason to commit suicide. 12.  On 25 May 2004 a forensic expert, having examined S.J.’s body, concluded that she had died on 21 May 2004 and attributed the cause of death to mechanical asphyxiation. The report stated that there was no evident sign of violence, aside from the strangulation, although it noted that S.J. had bruises on her shoulder, hands and legs and three scratches on her right palm which could have been acquired up to three days prior to her death. 13.  The following day the police obtained statements from a neighbour (“M.N.”) and two of S.J.’s colleagues. M.N. recalled that between 22.00 and 22.15 on 20 May 2004 she had observed a red vehicle similar to the one driven by A.J. parked in the courtyard of the building where S.J. and A.J. lived. Another neighbour (“Ma.N.”) subsequently recalled seeing such a vehicle in the courtyard from 22.00 to 22.30. 14.  S.J.’s colleagues confirmed that she had finished her shift in the shop she worked in at 22.00 and headed to an office where she had a second job as a cleaner. Another witness later confirmed that she had arrived at the office at 22.15 and left at 22.45 ‑ 22.50. 15.  The Government submitted that on 27 May 2004 the Kurzeme Regional Division of the Organised Crime Combating Department (“the OCCD”) requested a list of incoming and outgoing calls to S.J.’s mobile phone from her operator. 16.  On 30 May 2004 the son of S.J. and A.J. (“Av.J.”) made a statement. He said that A.J. had picked him up at home at 18.00 on 20 May 2004. He had remained with his father until 23.00, when his father returned to work and he went to the home of his sister (“D.J.”). A colleague of A.J. later reported going with him to the cafeteria in the police station at 23.00 and the chief officer on duty that night confirmed that A.J. had remained with the squad until his shift ended at 07.00 on 21 May 2004. He also told the investigators that after midnight the police station was locked and the main gate closed, with the consequence that no person – or vehicle – could leave the premises without his permission. 17.  On 1 June 2004 Officer A.M. performed a further examination of S.J.’s home. He examined marks and traces left by the rope on the door and seized several samples for forensic traceology examination. 18.  On 8 July 2004 a household worker gave a statement to the police confirming that on 20 May 2004 A.J. had returned home at 18.00 to collect Av.J. On 20 July 2004 D.J. confirmed that A.J. and Av.J. had arrived at her home at 23.00 that night. 19.  On 21 July 2004 the State Forensic Expertise Centre reported that the groove marks on the upper fragment of the door had been chafed into the wooden surface by the rope attached to S.J.’s neck. Those marks could only have been made by pulling the weight of S.J.’s body towards the door handle, to which the rope was subsequently tied. 20.  On 23 July 2004 the OCCD initiated criminal proceedings to investigate the aggravated murder (murder with mercenary intent) of S.J. From this point onwards, Inspector V.L. of the OCCD was responsible for the investigation under the supervision of the General Prosecutor’s Office. A.L. was the Prosecutor in charge and he reported to A.B., who was the supervising Prosecutor. 21.  On 23 July 2004 A.J. was interrogated as a suspect and he was informed that he could not change his registered place of domicile. Av.J., D.J. and B.L. were questioned as witnesses. 22.  A couple of days later, M.N. and Ma.N. were again interviewed about the red vehicle parked in the courtyard of S.J.’s home. Both indicated that they had believed the vehicle to be the one driven by A.J. 23.  Throughout the following months witnesses were interviewed, including A.J. (who was questioned repeatedly), his relatives and acquaintances, S.J.’s relatives (including the applicant), the couple’s neighbours, a number of police officers, S.J.’s employer and some of her colleagues, her household workers and her dentist. The General Prosecutor’s Office also instructed the OCCD to order further forensic tests, although records indicate that many were in fact ordered by the Ventspils State Police. 24.  Attempts were made to establish the exact time of death but on 11 August 2004 the forensic expert indicated that “considering that the forensic medical examination of S.J.’s body had been performed four days after it was found and that livor mortis appears within the first hour of death, a more precise time of death could not be established”. 25.  A.J.’s uniform and the seat covers of his service car were seized on 9 August 2004 and DNA samples were taken from him. On 9 September 2004 the expert reported that there were several different DNA samples on the rope used to hang S.J. but none belonged to A.J. The expert was unable to establish the gender identification of the samples. On 16 September 2004 an expert concluded that some fibres found on S.J.’s coat possibly came from A.J.’s car seat but the results were inconclusive. 26.  Further tests were also carried out on S.J.’s body, but no injuries were found which would indicate a struggle or self-defence. 27.  Furthermore, S.J.’s bank records were requested, as were details of all red vehicles matching the description of the one seen at the scene of the crime. S.J.’s family members were also questioned repeatedly about whether or not she had kept a personal diary. On 23 March 2005 the diary appears to have been handed over to the police and attached to the criminal file. 28.  On 1 December 2006 a further forensic traceology report suggested that there was a “high probability” that if S.J. had committed suicide the grooves on the top of the door would not have appeared as they did. 29.  On 21 March 2007 A.J. was again declared a suspect. Further DNA tests were performed on the rope and experiments were carried out to determine the driving time from Ventspils Police Station to S.J.’s home. The results of the latter test appeared to confirm A.J.’s alibi and on 13 November 2008 the decision to once again declare him a suspect was quashed. 30.  On 11 January 2011 a new OCCD investigator (“A.Jo.) assumed jurisdiction over the case file. 31.  On 20 August 2007 the OCCD acknowledged D.J. (the applicant’s granddaughter) as a victim in the criminal proceedings. 32.  On 26 May 2004 the applicant wrote to the Head of the OCCD alleging that S.J. had been murdered. The OCCD informed the applicant on 2 July 2004 that the circumstances of S.J.’s death were still being investigated. 33.  The applicant subsequently submitted further complaints to the Prosecutor’s Office concerning the conduct of the investigation. In the course of these complaints, he implied that A.J. was directly or indirectly implicated in S.J.’s murder and that his colleagues on the police force were deliberately obstructing the investigation. 34.  On 22 December 2004 A.Mi., a senior Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Kurzeme Regional Court, informed the applicant that an in-depth investigation was being carried out. It was being conducted in an impartial manner and there was no evidence of any deliberate obstruction by the police. A.Mi. noted that the investigation was complicated and was supervised by another prosecutor from the same office (“A.L.”). 35.  On 23 May 2005 a Prosecutor from the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the investigation was still ongoing and that the evidence which had been gathered was not sufficient to bring charges against any specific persons. The Prosecutor admitted that A.G. had not carried out the initial examination of the scene of S.J.’s death “qualitatively”, that both A.G. and A.M. had violated the requirements of the laws on criminal procedure and that the two officers had received disciplinary penalties. In addition, criminal proceedings had been initiated against A.G. for criminal inaction of a State official (section 319 of the Criminal Law) and for the forgery of official documents (section 327 of the Criminal Law). However, on 14 March 2005 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Kurzeme Regional Court had decided to release A.G. from criminal liability pursuant to Article 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 36.  On 17 July 2007 the applicant wrote to A.L., the supervising Prosecutor, and asked to see certain expert reports and other specific information concerning the investigation into S.J.’s death. More particularly, he asked for additional information concerning the violations committed by the police officers A.M. and A.G. He also enquired when the case would be sent to a court. 37.  On 20 August 2007 the Prosecutor replied to the applicant. He informed him that the pre-trial investigation was still ongoing and a forensic biological analysis of DNA was being carried out. Further investigative steps would be planned after receiving the results of that analysis and it was therefore impossible to predict the date of the completion of the pre-trial investigation. The applicant was further informed that under the Law of Criminal Procedure he had no right to read the case file or to receive copies thereof. The only persons who had such a right were the accused and the victims, but only after the completion of the criminal proceedings. With regard to the violations committed by the police officers, the applicant was advised to contact the Ventspils State Police. 38.  On 10 September 2007 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Prosecutor General concerning the Prosecutors’ responses of, inter alia, 22 December 2004, 23 May 2005 and 20 August 2007. He principally complained that the investigation was being deliberately delayed in order to protect S.J.’s murderer(s). 39.  The applicant’s complaint was forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Kurzeme Regional Court. On 1 October 2007 he received a response from A.Mi. informing him that the investigation and the gathering of evidence were continuing “in order to establish important facts”. Unspecified expert reports had apparently been ordered and their results were expected no earlier than December. Finally, the applicant was informed that his “allegation that the investigator and the supervising Prosecutor were not sufficiently active and were uninterested in establishing the truth were unfounded”. 40.  On 26 October 2007 the applicant submitted a further complaint to the Prosecutor General. He criticised the Office of the General Prosecutor’s decision to forward his complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Kurzeme Regional Court. He also denounced the response of 1 October 2007 as “passive and unfounded” and considered that the fact that it did not address the substance of his complaints demonstrated that A.Mi. was not interested in establishing the truth about S.J.’s murder. 41.  On 13 November 2007 the Prosecutor General gave a final response to the applicant’s complaint. In the relevant parts of the response the applicant was informed:
“... [the senior prosecutor A.M.] in his response of 1 October [2007] informed you that the investigation of the criminal case ... was ongoing, that expert reports had been ordered, and that after receiving expert reports further investigative steps would be planned. While criminal proceedings are pending, the materials in the criminal case file are an investigative secret (section 375 of the Law of Criminal Procedure), which is why it is impossible to give you more specific information concerning the investigative steps that have been taken and will be taken. It might be for that reason that you have formed an incorrect opinion that the investigation is being intentionally delayed and not conducted with the aim of establishing the culprit; however, such an opinion does not find support in the steps actually taken in the criminal proceedings.
In the course of the pre-trial investigation of the criminal case ... a sufficient amount of investigative steps were carried out: more than 15 expert reports were ordered and received and the need to order [additional] expert reports and the planning of further investigative steps was determined by the [findings of the] expert reports already received. In addition, the preparation of expert reports took significant time; more than 40 witnesses were questioned and other investigative steps carried out. Unfortunately the pre-trial investigation to this date has not allowed us to establish the circumstances [of S.J.’s death] or the culprit.”