CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 septembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 22 September 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 2264/12 Rosalba AINIS and others against Italy lodged on 23 December 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicants’ relative from an acute cocaine intoxication while he was in police custody following his arrest on suspicion of drug-related offences. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a failure to protect the life of the applicants’ relative, Calogero Carmelo, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, did the competent authorities know or ought they to have known of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the applicants’ relative’s life and did they fail to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk ( Osman v.   the United Kingdom , 28 October 1998, § 116, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII)? 2.     Even if it is not established that the competent authorities knew or ought to have known about any such risk, are there basic precautions which the competent authorities failed to take in order to minimise any potential risk to the applicants’ relative’s life (see Mižigárová v. Slovakia , no.   74832/01, §   89, 14 December 2010, and mutatis mutandis , Keller v.   Russia , no.   26824/04, § 82, 17 October 2013)?