Russian Federation responsible for the death of a Moldovan citizen at peacekeeping checkpoint
JUDGMENT:
Pisari v. Moldova and Russia 21.04.2015 (no. 42139/12)
SUMMARY:
Russia is responsible for the unjustified action of its soldier to kill ac Moldovian at a peacekeeping checkpoint although the latter worked outside the borders.
PROVISION:
Article 2
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants, Simion Pisari and Oxana Pisari, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1970 and 1973 respectively and live in Pirita in the Republic of Moldova. Their case concerns the death of their son at one of the peacekeeping checkpoints located on the Dniestr River in Moldova.
Early in the morning on New Year’s Day 2012, the Pisaris’ 18-year-old son, Vadim, and a friend decided to cross the Dniestr River from their village Pîrîta to the town of Vadul lui Vodă to refuel another friend’s car. To reach the petrol station they needed to cross a bridge which had peace keeping checkpoints at either end. Although both towns are under the control of the Moldovan Constitutional authorities, these checkpoints form part of the security zone which was put in place following an agreement to end the military conflict in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova in 1992.
Each checkpoint was manned by eight soldiers, four from Russia, two from Moldova and two from the self-proclaimed territory of Transdniestria. A Russian sergeant known as V.K was in command of the check point on the east bank, he was the only soldier with a loaded machine gun at the time of the incident. Vadim Pisari failed to stop at the checkpoint and hit a stop sign and barrier as he went through it. The other passenger later explained that the windscreen was partly covered by ice giving the driver limited visibility. The car continued through the next checkpoint to the petrol station.
Twenty minutes later they drove back through the first checkpoint where no effort was made to stop the car. As the car approached the check point of the east bank, which had been partially obstructed with spikes, V.K ordered Vadim Pisari to stop, but instead the car accelerated through the checkpoint, avoiding the obstruction. V.K shouted at the driver to stop or he would shoot. He shot once in the air and then several times at the car. One bullet hit the car, which continued a short distance before it stopped, the door opened and Mr Pisari fell out, injured. He died from his wound several hours later.
The shooting was investigated by the Moldovan police, a joint commission of the peacekeeping forces and the Russian military. The Moldovan authorities instituted a criminal investigation but in 2013 decided to discontinue it as they had completed the investigations and V.K, who had been transferred to another military unit in Russia, had effectively absconded from their jurisdiction.
The joint commission produced a report accusing Mr Pisari of breaching the rules of conduct at checkpoints, although the Moldovan members of the commission did not sign the report, meaning it had no legal effect. The Russian military issued an initial report stating that V.K had acted in accordance with the applicable rules for checkpoints. Although the Russian Military Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation for manslaughter, it also informed Mr and Ms Pisari that Russia would not extradite V.K., a Russian citizen. In December 2012 the Moldovan Prosecutor General informed the Pisaris that he had learnt that V.K had been cleared by the military prosecutor and proceedings terminated. Mr and Ms Pisari twice requested a copy of the decision from the Russian prosecutors but were refused on the grounds that they were not a party to the proceedings, their earlier requests to be recognised as victims in the proceedings conducted by the Russian authorities having been rejected.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Article 2 (right to life and investigation)
The Court first examined the question of jurisdiction. Neither the Russian Federation nor the Republic of Moldova had disputed their jurisdiction in this case. The Court noted that when State servicemen are deployed in another State’s territory, the extra territorial force they use may extend a State’s jurisdiction to cover those affected by their servicemen’s actions. In this case the Court noted that it was a Russian soldier who had shot Vadim Pisari at a checkpoint which was situated in a security zone manned and commanded by Russian soldiers in accordance with the agreement putting an end to the military conflict in the Transdniestiran region of Moldova. Therefore the Court found that Vadim Pisari was under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation when he was shot.
On the other hand, Vadim Pisari’s parents considered that the Moldovan authorities had not been responsible for their son’s death and had done everything they reasonably could to investigate his death; they therefore no longer wished to continue their application against the Republic of Moldova. The Court, which was satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the European Convention and its Protocols did not require it to continue examination of this part of the applicants’ complaints, therefore accepted that wish and decided to strike out of its list of cases the part of the application directed against the Republic of Moldova.
Next, the Court found that the danger posed by Vadim Pisari – who had effectively failed to stop at three checkpoints – to the soldiers manning the checkpoints had not warranted the use of a machine gun and that the use of force had not been absolutely necessary in this case. The Court stressed that the lack of appropriate equipment to stop vehicles at the checkpoints did not justify soldiers resorting to firing at vehicles unless there were very serious or compelling reasons to do so.
Lastly, the Court noted that an effective official investigation was necessary when State servicemen kill someone. In particular, it had stressed on many occasions that the involvement of the next of kin in an investigation was important as it served to ensure public accountability and to safeguard the victim’s interests. However the Russian Federation had not explained why Mr and Ms Pisari had been refused victim status in the criminal proceeding opened following their son’s death or why they had not been informed about or involved in the Russian investigation into their son’s death.
The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 2 against the Russian Federation as concerned both the killing of the Pisaris’ son and the ensuing investigation.
Article 41 (just satisfaction)
The Court held that the Russian Federation was to pay Mr and Ms Pisari EUR 35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,580 in respect of costs and expenses(echrcaselaw.com editing).
