Constitutional Court

The Applicant alleges that as the father of the deceased girl is an authorized person to file a Referral before this Court and he cites the case-law of the ECtHR to back up his allegation,The Applicant claims that four years of investigations have elapsed without any proof of substantial action by the Prosecution, to identify any suspect who committed the homicide, to file an indictment or suspend it, or to close the case altogether, The Applicant claims that he has received an “informative report” issued by the General Police Directorate for the Prishtina District Prosecutor, from which “one cannot draw a single explanatory bit of information regarding the death of his daughter,”, The Applicant alleges that the Prosecution has denied his rights to have access, as the next-of-kin of the deceased person, into the investigation dossier of the Prosecution, The Applicant claims that the said rights are afforded to him as an injured party, by Article 143 [Inspection of files] of the Provisional Criminal Procedure Code of Kosovo (hereinafter: PCPCK), and Article 40 [Public hearings and access to documents] of the Convention, The Applicant respectfully requests the Court to order an oral hearing in accordance with Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure, The Court considers that, based on the case-law of the ECtHR, the Applicant as the parent of the deceased girl is an indirect victim and therefore is authorized to file a referral before this Court, (See the case of Gakiyev and Gakiyeva v, Russia Application no, 3179/05, Judgment of 6 November 2009), As to the Applicant’s allegation of the breach of Article 1 [Obligation to respect human rights], Article 2 [Right to life] in conjunction with Article 13 [Right to an effective remedy] of the Convention, regarding the excessive length of investigation proceedings, by the public authorities of Kosovo, the Court notes that based on the case-law of the ECtHR, the State has both substantive and procedural obligations to protect the life of all persons under its jurisdiction, meaning that the right to life must be protected by law as a substantive obligation on one hand, and by development of an adequate investigation as a procedural requirement on the other, The Court notes that, based on the case-law of ECtHR, there are several elements that secure the “essential purpose” of the investigation, namely: i) the obligation of public authorities to initiate an investigation once the matter has come to their attention, independently from a formal complaint lodged by the next-of-kin, ii) independence and impartiality in law and practice of the persons that are responsible for the investigation, iii) the investigation must be adequate in the sense that it must be capable of leading to a decision as to the cause and circumstances of death, […] and the “identification and punishment of those responsible,” , It follows that the referral is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected as inadmissible as well as the Applicant’s request for holding an oral hearing to be rejected as inadmissible