Background
On 19 June 2021, police in the Czech Republic responded to reports of S.T., a Roma man, fighting and damaging vehicles while intoxicated. Three officers arrived and arrested S.T. by placing him in a prone position (face down on the ground). Officer M.Š. placed his knee on S.T.’s upper back or neck area while S.T. remained handcuffed behind his back. S.T. was held in this position for over four minutes with the officer’s full weight pressing on him. Commander Z.V. was wearing a body camera but did not activate it, claiming insufficient time. A witness recorded the intervention on video.
Approximately 5 minutes into the restraint, S.T. lost consciousness. The officers did not check his vital signs. When the ambulance arrived at 3:11 p.m., paramedics found S.T. in cardiac arrest with no pulse. Resuscitation efforts failed, and S.T. was pronounced dead at 3:45 p.m. The cause was determined to be methamphetamine intoxication, but the court found significant issues with the investigation into the police response itself.
The applicant, S.T.’s sister, challenged the police intervention and the subsequent investigations by the Criminal Police and the General Inspection of Security Forces (GISF), arguing failures to adequately investigate the manner of restraint, the timing of emergency medical response, and any potential racial motive.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights held that the Czech Republic violated Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment) on both substantive and procedural grounds, and violated Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3. The Court found that the manner in which the prone position was executed—maintaining pressure on S.T.’s body while handcuffed, intoxicated, and injured for over four minutes—exposed him to an imminent risk of death or serious health impairment. The domestic legal framework at the time lacked clear, adequate instructions on the safe use of prone positioning with or without kneeling. The State had failed to adequately train its law enforcement officers to ensure they possessed the requisite competence when employing such restraint techniques. Additionally, timely medical assistance was not provided once S.T.’s condition deteriorated.
On procedural grounds, the Court found the investigations ineffective. The Criminal Police investigation, which initially handled the case, lacked independence. The investigation was incomprehensive and failed to explore contradictory evidence, particularly paramedics’ statements that S.T. was in cardiac arrest upon their arrival versus police claims that he remained conscious and responsive. The forensic experts’ report, which concluded the prone position could not have contributed to death, did not engage at all with the potential dangerousness of prolonged kneeling on a restrained, intoxicated individual in extreme heat. The applicant’s requests for additional expert examination were rejected without adequate justification.
The Court further held that although there was a prima facie case of potential racial bias against the applicant’s brother—a Roma man subject to a forceful intervention in a Roma-populated area—the authorities failed to take all reasonable steps to investigate any racist motive. The formal investigation contained no evidence of systematic inquiry into potential racial dimensions of the intervention or whether institutional racism influenced the officers’ conduct. The overall response conveyed an impression that the matter was not taken sufficiently seriously.
Key Takeaways
- States must establish clear, detailed protocols for the use of prone positioning and kneeling restraints, with specific emphasis on minimizing risks to health and life, particularly when restraint subjects are intoxicated, injured, or in extreme environmental conditions.
- Law enforcement officers must receive adequate, specific training on the physiological dangers of prolonged kneeling and prone restraint to ensure competence and reduce risks of asphyxiation or cardiac complications.
- Body camera non-activation during contentious police interventions must be adequately explained and investigated; unexplained gaps in video evidence undermine the integrity of police accountability processes.
- Investigations into deaths following police use of force must be truly independent, comprehensive in scope, and must seriously engage with evidence that contradicts official police accounts, including paramedic observations.
- When a person of a racial or ethnic minority dies or is seriously injured following police intervention, authorities must conduct a thorough, proactive investigation of potential racial discrimination or bias, not merely a passive “open-source review.”
Why It Matters
This judgment establishes significant European human rights standards for police use of prone restraint techniques. It reinforces that States cannot rely solely on expert opinions commissioned by the investigating police force and must ensure investigative independence when officers’ conduct may have contributed to death. Crucially, the Court rejected the argument that intoxication or prior misconduct on the part of the restraint subject absolves the State of its obligation to ensure safe restraint practices and prompt medical intervention. The decision sends a strong message that unexplained deaths following police restraint require genuine, independent scrutiny and cannot be dismissed through preliminary autopsy reports or uncritically adopted expert conclusions.
The discrimination findings are particularly significant. The Court did not require proof that the officers consciously harbored racist animus, but rather that authorities take proactive steps to investigate racial dimensions when a Roma person is subjected to severe force. This establishes an affirmative investigative duty regarding potential systemic or institutional bias. The judgment aligns European jurisprudence with concerns raised globally—especially following George Floyd’s death in the United States—about the risks of kneeling restraints and the importance of investigating whether such techniques are applied disparately based on race or ethnicity.