5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Chişinău. 6.  On 13 June 1999 the applicant’s seventeen-year-old daughter (C.) was found dead in P.’s office in a gas company. 7.  On 14 June 1999 a forensic medical report concluded that C.’s death had resulted from medicinal intoxication. The following lesions were also found on the victim’s body: an ecchymosis on her left leg and a haemorrhage on the anal mucous membrane and on the vestibule of vagina, caused by a blunt and hard object at least several but not more than 30-40 minutes before death. 8.  On 26 October 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted to investigate the crime of incitement to commit suicide under Article 94 (1) of the Criminal Code, which was in force at the time of the events. 9.  Six persons were heard as witnesses. Three of them confirmed that C. had spent the night from 12 to 13 June 1999 at a party and that she feared punishment from her parents because she had not informed them she was going there. They confirmed that at 8 a.m. on 13 June 1999 C. had come to the company’s office together with P. and M. and had decided to wait there for a friend before going home. P. and M. had left the premises soon afterwards. A security employee of the company, I., stated that C. had looked tired and that she had gone to sleep in an office after P. and M. had left. He also stated that he had gone into the office twice to see how C. was. The first time he had been able to hear her breathing, but when he had come back after another thirty minutes, C. had already stopped breathing and had had no pulse. He then called upon V., an unqualified fellow worker, to assist him and to call an ambulance. All the witnesses denied having had sexual intercourse with C. and stated that there was no outsider on the company’s premises who could have had intercourse with her. 10.  On 24 December 1999 the Centru District prosecutor closed the criminal investigation, finding as follows:
“Having investigated the suicide, and also the theory that C. had committed suicide after having been raped, it was found that:
-  according to witness statements, from 8.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. on 13 June 1999 no outsider other than C. was on the company’s premises;
-  according to the medical forensic examination report no. 881 of 14 June 1999, no traces of semen were found in C.’s cavities;
-  according to the same forensic report there were no injuries on C.’s body or face.
... It was impossible to establish when C. had obtained and used the medication. The investigation did not reveal any reasons or causes which would determine C.’s death as violent; it concludes that this was a fatal accident: that C., being very worried about her unexplained absence from home on the night from 12 to 13 June 1999, tried to avoid punishment from her parents by getting hospitalised with "poisoning", but due to the negligent use of medication, had died of an overdose.
Therefore ... there are no elements of a crime under article 94 (1) of the Criminal Code. ” 11.  In 2005 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office that she had never been informed about the prosecutor’s decision of 24 December 1999 and had found out about it only in December 2004. She argued that the investigation had been superficial and inefficient, and requested that the investigation be reopened. She alleged in particular that the investigation had essentially pursued the suicide theory and had failed to establish the circumstances which had resulted in the lesions on her daughter’s body or the time when the medication could have been ingested. 12.  On 17 March 2005 the First Deputy Prosecutor General annulled the decision of 24 December 1999 and ordered the reopening of the criminal investigation, finding, inter alia:
“...the proceedings were closed after a superficial and incomplete investigation... No forensic medical expert examination of the body was ordered, the active substance with which [C.] was poisoned or overdosed herself was not established, the investigation did not answer how [C.] had obtained the medication and in what circumstances 30-40 minutes before her death the injuries on her left leg, anal mucous membrane and vestibule of the vagina were caused; the investigation did not investigate the possible complicity of P., M., I, and V. in committing a crime.” 13.  On 4 May 2005 the applicant was acknowledged as her deceased daughter’s successor and as an injured party in the criminal proceedings. 14.  On 22 September 2005 the First Deputy Prosecutor General transferred the criminal file from the Centru police to the Chisinau prosecutor’s office, citing the undue delay and the unprofessional conduct of the investigation. 15.  On 17 October 2005 a forensic medical expert report was issued, according to which death from a 40-pill overdose would have occurred at the latest within two hours of ingestion. 16.  On 20 February 2006 the applicant obtained an answer to her complaint about the ineffective investigation into C.’s death, which stated:
“...the investigation has been delayed because certain persons who need to be questioned are out of the country.” 17.  On 20 May 2008 the Prosecutor General’s Office suspended the criminal investigation for failure to establish whether a crime had been committed and if so, the identity of the alleged perpetrators. The decision referred to a forensic medical expert report of 21 June 2005 which concluded that death had resulted from medicinal intoxication with the sedative Dimedrol. The same decision stated that a request to carry out other investigative and operative search measures had been addressed to the police. According to the Government, a copy of this decision was sent to the applicant’s home address. The applicant denied having received this decision before it was presented by the Government in the proceedings before the Court. 18.  On 3 June 2012 the investigation was resumed on the ground that “the reasons for suspending the investigation had disappeared and it became possible to conduct certain investigative actions”. 19.  On 12 June 2012 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General about the inefficient investigation and about not having been informed of its progress. On 10 July 2012 the applicant obtained the following answer:
“...the investigation is still pending... you will be further informed once a decision is taken on the case; you will be summoned if a need for your participation in the investigation arises.” 20.  On 2 August 2012 the Prosecutor General’s Office suspended the investigation on the same grounds as before. According to the Government, a copy of this decision was sent to the applicant. The applicant denied having received this decision before it was presented by the Government in the proceedings before the Court.
21  On 22 October 2012 and 1 March 2013, the applicant submitted renewed complaints about the inefficient investigation, about not being informed of the progress of the investigation and thus being unable to exercise her procedural rights under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Those complaints remained unanswered. 22.  On 18 March 2014 the applicant appealed to the Prosecutor General against the decision of 2 August 2012 to suspend the investigation. The proceedings are still pending.