5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Dudarkiv. 6.  On 30 April 1997 Oleksandr Lanetskyy, the applicant's son, was beaten up by A.Y., an acquaintance. The next day he felt ill and was admitted to hospital for in-patient treatment. On 14 May 1997, after several operations, Oleksandr Lanetskyy died in hospital. 7.  On 15 May 1997 the Bilozerskyy District Prosecutor's Office instituted criminal proceedings against A.Y. for inflicting grievous bodily harm on Oleksandr Lanetskyy. On the same day the applicant was granted leave to join the proceedings as an injured party. 8.  On 19 May 1997 A.Y. was placed under an obligation not to abscond. 9.  On 20 May 1997 a medical expert gave an assessment, according to which Oleksandr Lanetskyy's death was a direct effect of the injuries inflicted on him by A.Y. 10.  On 16 October 1997 another forensic assessment was carried out by a panel of experts, which confirmed the direct link between the injuries and Oleksandr Lanetskyy's eventual death. 11.  On 27 October 1997 the applicant's civil claim was accepted for examination by the court. 12.  Between May and November 1997 the investigative authorities carried out numerous interviews of witnesses, two reconstructions of the crime scene and other measures. On 17 November 1997 the case was referred to court for trial. 13.  On 20 March 1998 the Nova Kakhovka Town Court referred the case back for additional investigation on account of numerous procedural shortcomings in the investigation. 14.  On an unspecified date A.Y. went into hiding and on 16 April 1998 he was placed on the wanted list. 15.  On several occasions the applicant complained to various authorities about omissions by the police during their inquiries into A.Y.'s whereabouts, in particular their failure to react promptly when she had notified them of his probable home visits. 16.  Following A.Y.'s disappearance the criminal proceedings against him were suspended. However, on several occasions they were reopened in order to carry out certain investigative measures, such as the examination of additional witnesses. 17.  On 27 August 2000 and 20 November 2001 the General Prosecutor's Office acknowledged that the police had failed to take all the necessary steps to trace A.Y. 18.  On 16 October 2002 the failings of the police were further acknowledged by the Kherson Department of the Ministry of the Interior, which decided to transfer responsibility for the investigation to the Kherson Regional Police and advised them of additional measures to be taken to establish A.Y.'s whereabouts. 19.  In May 2003 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Kherson Regional Police and the State Treasury, seeking damages on account of the police's omissions in investigating the case against A.Y. Her claims were rejected by the courts at three levels of jurisdiction, the final decision being taken on 5 October 2005 by the Supreme Court of Ukraine. 20.  In the meantime, on 19 June 2003 A.Y. was arrested in the Magadan Region of the Russian Federation and detained pending extradition to Ukraine. 21.  On 6 October 2003 the Magadan Regional Court released A.Y. following the expiry of the time-limit established by the provisions of a relevant bilateral treaty concerning extradition for preparation of the necessary paperwork. 22.  On 17 November 2003 the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation consented to the extradition of A.Y. 23.  On 8 June 2004 A.Y. was arrested in Samara (Russian Federation). 24.  In August 2004 A.Y. was extradited to Ukraine. 25.  On 10 November 2004 the case was sent for trial in the Komsomolsky District Court of Kherson. 26.  On several occasions in 2005 the court ordered the appearance of witnesses G., S. and R., and instructed the local police to ensure their appearance. On 4 May 2005 the court addressed a letter to the Ministry of the Interior, noting that its instructions had repeatedly not been fulfilled and requesting the Ministry's intervention to ensure the taking of the necessary measures to establish the witnesses' whereabouts and summon them for the hearings. 27.  In August 2005 the court ordered a new forensic assessment of the causes of Oleksandr Lanetskyy's death, finding that the previous assessments had lacked some important details. 28.  On 30 November 2005 the new panel of experts concluded that there was no direct causal link between the applicant's son's injuries and his death. Instead, the injuries caused by A.Y. were of intermediate gravity and had not been life-endangering at the time they had been inflicted. Oleksandr Lanetskyy's eventual death had resulted from post-surgery intussusceptions and inflammatory processes. 29.  On an unspecified date in April 2006 the Komsomolsky District Court issued a separate ruling (окрема ухвала) to the Komsomolsky District Prosecutor, noting that the latter's representative had come to the hearing of 28 April 2006 unprepared for the deliberations, thus making it necessary to adjourn the hearing. The court requested the prosecutor to take measures to prevent such incidents in the future. 30.  On 3 May 2006 the Komsomolsky District Court convicted A.Y. of inflicting grievous bodily harm on the applicant's son, resulting in his death. It noted that the conclusion of the last forensic expert assessment concerning the lack of a direct link between the injuries and the death contradicted other evidence in the case file and should therefore be disregarded in this part. The court further sentenced A.Y. to seven years' imprisonment and partly allowed the applicant's civil claim against him. 31.  On 1 September 2006 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal modified that judgment. It found that the final medical expert assessment should take precedence and that there was no direct causal link between A.Y.'s actions and Oleksandr Lanetskyy's death in hospital after several operations two weeks after the incident. The court reclassified A.Y.'s actions as inflicting moderate bodily harm and sentenced him to almost two and a half years' imprisonment[2]. It further remitted the applicant's civil claim to the trial court for fresh consideration. 32.  On 27 November 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed the decision of 1 September 2006, finding that the Court of Appeal had re-evaluated the facts without having explored them at a hearing, and remitted the case to that court for a fresh examination on appeal. 33.  On 4 April 2008 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal sentenced A.Y. to almost two and a half years' imprisonment[3] and remitted the civil claim to the trial court for fresh consideration. 34.  On 26 May 2009 the Supreme Court quashed that decision and remitted the case for a fresh appellate review. It noted, in particular, that the Court of Appeal had not duly complied with its previous instructions and had failed to substantiate its preference for the 2005 forensic expert assessment over other evidence in the case file. 35.  On 4 August 2009 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal quashed the sentence of 3 May 2006 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration. It found, in particular, that the first-instance court had failed to substantiate its preference for the 1997 forensic expert assessment over the one conducted in 2005. 36.  On 29 March 2010 the Komsomolsky District Court convicted A.Y. of having inflicted grievous bodily harm on the applicant's son and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment. It further awarded the applicant 3,534.50 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in respect of pecuniary damage and UAH 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 37.  On 13 July 2010 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. 38.  The parties have not informed the Court whether the Court of Appeal's judgment has become final or whether a cassation appeal has been lodged against it.