Long term judicial investigations regarding the issue of homicide do not violate the right to life
JUDGMENT
Sarbyanova and Pashaliyska v. Bulgaria (application no. 3524/14) 12.01.2017
SUMMARY
Great duration regarding the investigation of intentional homicide. Mother and daughter sought shelter at the ECtHR, protesting the length of the investigations into the murder of her husband (first applicant) and father (second applicant). In order to complete the file, collect the data, initiate the criminal proceedings and convict the perpetrator 15 years flied by. The applicants relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights complained that the length of the investigation regarding the killing of their relative during the pre-trial and procedural proceedings was excessive . The ECtHR, however, considered that there was no violation of the specific provisions of the Convention
USE
The great length of the investigations regarding manslaughter does not violate the right to life.
PROVISIONS
Aricle 2
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants, Niya Sarbyanova-Pashaliyska and Maria Pashaliyska, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1960 and 1999 respectively and live in Sofia. The case concerned their complaint about the excessive length of the investigation into the murder of Ivan Pashaliysky, their husband and father, respectively.
On 2 June 2000 Mr Pashaliysky was killed in an office in a hotel in Sofia. The authorities arrested a suspect the same night and opened criminal proceedings against him the following day. The suspect was indicted a few days later. The investigation was brought to court three years later, higher prosecutors having returned the case to the investigators during that time in order for a number of shortcomings to be redressed. The accused ended up being convicted at first instance in 2007. However, in July 2008 the case was sent back to the investigation stage by the appeal court due to a procedural defect, namely the indictment had not contained a description of how the accused had killed the victim. This defect was remedied and in August 2008 the suspect was indicted again and fresh proceedings were opened against him. 16 hearings subsequently took place, at which the applicants made numerous requests for evidence to be gathered and witnesses to be heard. Changes in the composition of the bench meant that the trial had to be restarted again. Those proceedings eventually led to the accused’s conviction in December 2013 and his being sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. The guilty verdict and sentence were ultimately upheld in a final judgment by the Supreme Court of Cassation in November 2015. Both applicants were named as private prosecutors throughout those proceedings. The second applicant, who had also been recognised as a civil party seeking damages during the proceedings, was ultimately awarded 8,000 euros in damages.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained about the excessive length of the
investigation into their relative’s murder, both at the pre-trial and trial stages.
No violation of Article 2
No violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2
