CASE OF BOPKHOYEVA v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova
4. The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Galashki, Ingushetia Republic. 5. On 11 December 2009 the applicant was abducted by S. with intent to marry her. The applicant’s mother opposed the marriage and on the same day S.’s relatives took the applicant back to her mother’s house. 6. On 12 December 2009 the relatives of the applicant’s deceased father made the applicant go back to S.’s, because of the presumed consummation of the marriage. They also threatened to kill S., should the applicant decide to leave him. 7. The applicant had to live with S.’s family as his wife. The marriage was not officially registered. She was kept locked in a room without being able to communicate with people outside S.’s family. S. moved to a different town. On rare occasions S.’s sister let the applicant use her mobile phone so that she could call her mother. She complained that S.’s family, especially her mother-in-law, treated her poorly. She did not feel well and complained about dizziness, numbing of the lower jaw and difficulty to breathe. According to the applicant’s mother, the applicant told her once that her mother-in-law did not let her see S. and claimed that the applicant would not last living with them longer than two months. On several occasions the applicant lost consciousness and foamed at the mouth. 8. On 28 December 2009 the applicant was taken to a municipal hospital. The doctor diagnosed her with renal colic. 9. On 29 December 2009 during another visit to hospital the applicant was diagnosed with poisoning by unknown substance. 10. On 1 February 2010 the applicant foamed at the mouth again and was taken to hospital. She was released on the same day. 11. On 2 February 2010 the applicant lost consciousness and was taken to hospital. A general practitioner and a neuropathologist examined her. She was diagnosed with stress and overdose of sedatives and placed in an intensive care unit. Subsequently she was diagnosed with post-hypoxic encephalopathy and vegetative state. She has not regained consciousness since then. 12. In April 2010 the applicant was released to her mother’s care. 13. On 23 September 2010 the applicant’s mother complained to the local police department and prosecutor’s office that the applicant had been forcefully held by S.’s family in inhuman conditions which led to deterioration of her health and coma. 14. On 10 October 2010 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against S.’s family on the charges of incitement of suicide and causing damage to health. 15. On 24 October 2011 the applicant’s mother lodged another complaint with the local police department alleging that the applicant had been poisoned while staying at S.’s house. She also stated that the applicant had been repeatedly beaten up and deprived of her liberty. 16. According to the forensic medical report completed on 8 November 2011, a vegetative state, similar to the applicant’s, could be caused primarily by intoxication. The expert, however, was unable to determine the cause of the applicant’s condition. 17. On 24 November 2011 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against S.’s family. The applicant appealed. 18. On 29 July 2012 the supervising prosecutor quashed the decision of 24 November 2011 and ordered further inquiry into the matter. 19. On 3 August 2012 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on the charges of attempted murder. 20. On 1 October 2012 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on the charges of causing serious damage to health. The applicant appealed. 21. On 26 July 2013 the Sunzhenskiy District Court of the Ingushetiya Republic quashed the decision of 1 October 2012. The court noted that the inquiry had been incomplete. The investigator had failed (1) to question a number of important witnesses and (2) to determine the cause of the applicant’s condition. 22. On 26 September 2013 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings reiterating verbatim his reasoning set out in the decision of 1 October 2013. 23. On 15 January, 14 March and 21 May 2014 the deputy head of the district police department ordered a new inquiry noting that the previous inquiry had been incomplete. 24. On 18 January and 18 March 2014 the investigator refused to open a criminal investigation reproducing verbatim the earlier decisions of 1 October 2012 and 26 September 2013. 25. On 21 May 2014 the investigator again refused to open a criminal investigation. In addition to his earlier findings, he studied the applicant’s medical case-file and concluded that it did not contain information accounting for the cause of her medical condition. 26. On 28 February 2015 the district deputy prosecutor quashed the decision of 21 May 2014 and ordered a further inquiry. 27. The case-file materials submitted by the Government contain two decisions dated 6 March 2015. The first decision was taken by the investigator who refused to institute a criminal investigation in the applicant’s case. The second decision was taken by the district deputy prosecutor who ordered a new inquiry. The Government did not inform of the outcome of the proceedings.