CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 juin 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 87 June 2006 Yaşaroğlu v. Turkey - 45900/99 Judgment 20.6.2006 [Section II] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Suspect accidentally shot dead by police officer pursuing him: no violation   Facts : The applicant’s husband ran away when two plain-clothes police officers arrived at his house and identified themselves. He continued running despite verbal warnings and warning shots by the police officers who gave chase. After two kilometres, as they were entering a field, one of the officers tripped over causing his gun to discharge and wound the applicant’s husband, who was approximately 30 metres away. The policemen immediately took him to hospital, where he died. The police officer concerned, who was charged with intentional homicide and detained pending trial, claimed that he had tripped and fallen to the ground when the victim was lethally wounded. A full investigation was launched. The Assize Court found that the officer’s account was implausible and sentenced him to over six years’ imprisonment for involuntary manslaughter. The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, in particular on the ground that there was no firm evidence to refute the police officer’s version of events. The case was remitted to the Assize Court, which found that there was no case to answer on the grounds that the forensic report did not rule out the possibility – favourable to the defendant – that the weapon had discharged when he fell to the ground; that there was no evidence to contradict that defence; and that he had been acting in the course of his duties. The Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. The applicant was awarded compensation by an administrative court in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. Law : Article 2 – The Court could not find any reason to call into question the facts as established by the domestic courts. The suspect’s escape had obliged the police officers to react immediately to the situation and adapt their conduct quickly. The officers had ordered the fugitive to stop and had then resorted to firing warning shots to force him to stop. It was only later on, when the police officer had tripped or fallen over, that the lethal shot had been fired accidentally. There was no evidence to suggest “beyond all reasonable doubt” that the killing had been intentional or that death had occurred in circumstances that were liable to engage the State’s responsibility. There had been no violation of Article 2 under its substantive head. The authorities had taken action on the very day of the death. They had identified the suspect, initiating criminal proceedings against him and remanding him in custody, and had taken all necessary measures to gather evidence (conclusive autopsy, numerous expert reports – including to examine the various possible explanations – fact-finding visit, interviewing of eyewitnesses). They had conducted a judicial investigation that satisfied the requirements of Article 2. The applicant had been able to play an active part in the Assize Court proceedings as an intervening party, going as far as commenting on the expert reports. There had been no violation of Article 2 under its procedural head. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 13 – The requirements of Article 13, which went further than the obligation under Article 2 to carry out an investigation, had been satisfied in this case by the identification of the person responsible, his trial in a criminal court and the administrative court’s award of compensation to the family of the deceased for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage: manifestly ill-founded .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes