Background
Police arrested the applicant’s 31-year-old son on 25 July 2010 after neighbours reported an attempted basement theft. He was heavily intoxicated, with a recorded blood-alcohol level of 3.9‰, and spent the night in a police holding cell. The next morning, instead of being released without further police supervision, he was escorted toward another police station. He collapsed in the street while accompanied by police officers and was taken to hospital, where he died later that day.
A post-mortem examination attributed his death to a severe craniocerebral injury involving a skull fracture, bleeding above the dura mater and cerebral contusions. Numerous other bruises and abrasions were found on his body. Experts considered that the fatal injury could have resulted from a backward fall onto a hard surface, but also stated that a person sustaining such an injury could not have moved independently or performed purposeful actions. That conclusion was not satisfactorily reconciled with evidence that the applicant’s son remained conscious and communicated with medical personnel after his alleged fall.
The ensuing proceedings lasted more than six years. Investigators repeatedly terminated the case, while domestic courts repeatedly identified unresolved questions concerning the legality of the detention, the origin of the injuries, conflicting witness accounts and the circumstances of the collapse. The original CCTV footage said to show the fall was neither preserved nor produced; only a brief written description remained. The final termination decision of 31 October 2016 was not challenged by the applicant, who considered the investigation ineffective.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously found violations of the substantive limbs of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Because the applicant’s son remained under police control and supervision while in an especially vulnerable condition, the authorities bore responsibility for his safety and had to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for his fatal injuries. The unexplained chronology, missing CCTV footage, unresolved forensic contradictions and uncertain origin of his numerous injuries meant that the Government had not discharged that burden. The Court therefore could not accept the Government’s account as established beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court also unanimously found violations of the procedural limbs of Articles 2 and 3. A full criminal investigation began only after almost two months of a limited pre-investigation inquiry, and an investigation specifically addressing the death and bodily injuries did not begin until three years after the incident. The proceedings included unjustified inactivity, lasted more than six years and never remedied deficiencies repeatedly identified by domestic courts. The Court dismissed the Government’s non-exhaustion objections, holding that a damages claim was not an adequate substitute for an effective investigation and that the failure to challenge the final termination decision did not bar the complaints in these circumstances.
Under Article 41, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 40,000 in non-pecuniary damages, plus any applicable tax, and dismissed the remainder of her claim.
Key Takeaways
- When a vulnerable person suffers fatal injuries while under police control, the State must provide a satisfactory and convincing account of how those injuries occurred.
- Possible accidental causation does not discharge that burden when critical evidence is missing and material conflicts in the medical and witness evidence remain unresolved.
- An effective investigation must begin promptly, examine the death and injuries directly, preserve important evidence and remedy deficiencies identified by domestic courts.
Why It Matters
The judgment underscores that Convention responsibility may arise without a definitive finding identifying the officer or act that caused a fatal injury. Where the authorities exercise continuous control over a particularly vulnerable detainee, unexplained injuries and evidentiary failures can establish substantive violations of Articles 2 and 3.
It also reinforces that prolonged or repeatedly reopened proceedings are not effective merely because investigative steps were formally taken. Authorities must address contradictions, preserve decisive evidence and establish the material circumstances with sufficient thoroughness to permit accountability.