The Government of Moldova was obliged to pay over €13,000 damages in two cases lost at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Info-Prim Neo reports, quoting the Court's website. In the case of Anusca versus Moldova, the applicant Liuba Anusca's son was found dead, lying under a tree with a broken cord around his neck, the other end of which was tied to a branch, in October 2004, while he was performing his mandatory military service. Shortly before, he had been reprimanded by one of his superiors and had left a short written note with a farewell message with another soldier. A few hours later, the military prosecutor started an investigation. A forensic examination of the body a few weeks later concluded that the cause of death had been asphyxia caused by strangulation. The military prosecutor closed the investigation in December 2004, finding that the death had been caused by suicide, and that no crime had been committed. The investigation into the soldier's death was then opened and closed several times. In 2006, the Balti court ruled that the applicant’s rights under criminal procedural law, including the right to submit evidence, the right to challenge the decisions of the investigator and the right to become acquainted with the contents of the file, had been seriously violated. It nevertheless rejected the applicant’s complaint on procedural grounds. The investigation was closed for the last time in May 2008, concluding again that no crime had been committed. The Court found that there were no elements before it that would cast doubt on the conclusion that the applicant’s son had committed suicide by hanging. However, the Court was struck by the fact that the Prosecutor General's Office had considered it necessary to intervene three times, ordering the military prosecutor on each occasion to reopen the procedure and conduct further enquiries into significant issues. The Court accepted the Moldovan Government’s argument that the actions of the Prosecutor General's Office ultimately cured the deficiencies in the investigation, but they could not make up for the delay. The total time of three years and seven months until the investigation was finally concluded could not be justified by its complexity or any objective difficulties. The Court unanimously concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) in its procedural aspect. Under Article 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court awarded the applicant €8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In the second case, the applicant, Vilen Vetrenko, was sentenced to 16 years in prison for the alleged participation in a murder committed in 1997. He complained of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, in particular that the domestic courts had given insufficient reasons for his conviction and that it had been based on self-incriminatory statements he had made without having access to the lawyer chosen by him. The court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) and awarded the applicant €5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €650 costs and expenses.