4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Novoyavorivsk, Lviv Region. 5.  In the late evening of 1 April 2006 the applicant’s husband and his friend (P.) were attacked in a street of Novoyavorivsk by a group of young men. The applicant’s husband sustained grievous head injuries, including fractures to his skull. His friend sustained bruises and abrasions to his face, a fractured nose, brain concussion and other less serious injuries. Following the incident the applicant’s husband was placed in hospital and remained there in a vegetative state. 6.  On 2 and 3 April 2006 the police interviewed K., Dz. and Sh. who stated that they had beaten up the two men. 7.  On 11 April 2006 the investigator of the Yavorivsk District Police Department of Lviv Region (“the District Police Department”) opened an investigation into disorderly conduct by a group under Article 296 § 2 of the Criminal Code. In the course of further questionings and confrontations, Dz., Sh., and K. gave details as to their scuffle with the two men. 8.  On 28 April 2006 the investigator reclassified the case as individual disorderly conduct under Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code as only K. had behaved in a disorderly manner in respect of the applicant’s husband. On the same day K. was charged with individual disorderly conduct under Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 9.  On 29 May 2006 the investigator additionally charged K. with the individual infliction of grievous bodily injury on the applicant’s husband under Article 121 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 10.  On 30 May 2006 the investigator refused to open criminal proceedings under Article 121 of the Criminal Code against Dz. and Sh. noting that they had not inflicted any injuries on the applicant’s husband and that they had only been nearby when K. was beating the applicant’s husband. 11.  On 5 June 2006 the applicant submitted a civil claim against K. for damages caused by the crime. The civil claim was joined to the criminal case. 12.  On 12 June 2006 the Yavoriv District Court of Lviv Region (“the District Court”) committed K. for trial. 13.  On 25 July 2006 the authorities instituted another set of criminal proceedings under Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code against Dz. for individual disorderly conduct during the incident on 1 April 2006 which resulted in injuries inflicted on P. (the applicant’s husband’s friend). 14.  On 27 July 2006 the investigator refused to open criminal proceedings against Sh. for disorderly conduct as the latter had not done anything wrong during the incident on 1 April 2006. 15.  On 31 July 2006 the applicant’s husband died as a result of the head injury sustained on 1 April 2006. 16.  On 10 August 2006 the District Court committed Dz. for trial in respect of charges of individual disorderly conduct. 17.  On 3 October 2006 the District Court consolidated the criminal cases against K. and Dz. in a single set of proceedings noting that the charges against the two defendants were inextricably linked to each other and the consolidated proceedings were necessary for the comprehensive and objective examination of the charges. 18.  On 16 March 2007 the District Court remitted the case for additional investigation after finding that the facts suggested that the defendants should be charged with more serious offences. 19.  On 26 April 2007 a forensic medical expert issued a report stating that the death of the applicant’s husband had been caused by an open head injury which was accompanied by skull fractures. 20.  On 7 May 2007 the investigator reclassified the case. He charged K. with inflicting bodily injury and disorderly conduct, both as part of a group, as provided for in Articles 121 § 2 and 296 § 2 of the Criminal Code. Dz. was charged under Article 296 § 2 of the Criminal Code. 21.  On 1 June 2007 the case was referred to the District Court for trial of K. and Dz. 22.  On 23 June 2008 the District Court ordered the compulsory attendance of K., noting that he had earlier failed to appear without a valid reason. 23.  On 3 July 2008 the District Court found that K. had failed to appear at court hearings without a valid reason and his whereabouts were unknown. The court therefore ordered a search for K. and issued an arrest warrant for him. 24.  On 31 July 2008 K. was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention. 25.  On 23 December 2008 the District Court remitted the case for additional investigation after finding that the investigator had not clarified the role of the two defendants in the incident. Moreover, the refusal to open criminal proceedings against Sh. had been groundless. The District Court further released K. under a written obligation not to abscond. 26.  On 3 April 2009 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 23 December 2008 and remitted the case to the District Court for trial. 27.  On 16 June 2009 the District Court resumed the proceedings. 28.  Between October 2009 and July 2011 the District Court scheduled a number of court hearings which, however, were adjourned for the reasons that K., lawyers, witnesses or victims failed to appear, or that the judge was ill or that it was necessary to arrange an audio recording of the hearing. 29.  On 15 August 2011 the District Court found that it was necessary to carry out a reconstruction of the events and take other measures by the investigating authorities to verify and clarify the circumstances of the incident. 30.  On 25 October 2011 the District Court resumed the proceedings after the investigatory measures had been completed. 31.  On 26 December 2011 the District Court found that K. had failed to appear at a court hearing without a valid reason. The court ordered a search for K. and issued an arrest warrant against him. 32.  On 26 March 2012 K. was arrested. 33.  On 27 March 2012 the District Court placed K. in pre-trial detention. 34.  On 29 March 2012 the District Court terminated the criminal proceedings against Dz. (who was charged with disorderly conduct under Article 296 § 2 of the Criminal Code) as time-barred. 35.  On 23 May 2012 the District Court delivered a judgment in the criminal case against K. It established that K. had inflicted grievous bodily injuries on the applicant’s husband which caused the latter’s death. The court found K. guilty of crime provided for in Article 121 § 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The court also ordered K. to pay pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the victims of the crime. The charges of disorderly conduct against K. were dropped as time-barred. 36.  On the same day the District Court issued a separate ruling noting that there had been a number of shortcomings during the pre-trial investigation and requesting the Yavorivsk District Prosecutor and the head of the District Police Department to take relevant measures. The court considered that the investigation was not appropriate in the first days following the incident; it noted in particular that the police officers seized Sh.’s jacket with blood spots and then returned the jacket without examination of blood spots failing thereby to establish if Sh. had participated in the crime. 37.  On 21 September 2012 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the District Court of 23 May 2012.