CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 octobre 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 11 October 1999 Grams v. Germany (dec.) - 33677/96 Decision 5.10.1999 [Section IV] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Loss of evidence during an inquest into the death of the applicants’ son during his arrest: inadmissible The applicants are the parents of a presumed member of the Red Army Fraction who was killed while the police were trying to arrest him. Following his death, the applicants decided to lay a criminal complaint of intentional homicide by a person or persons unknown. A large number of forensic investigative measures took place in order to establish the exact circumstances of the death, which were of essential importance in the investigation given that there had been no eye witnesses. On the basis of a very detailed report of the investigation (itself drawn up on the basis of forensic reports) and of evidence from some sixty witnesses, the public prosecutor concluded that it had been a case of suicide and decided, in consequence, not to prosecute anyone. The applicants, who opposed that decision, applied to the Principal Public Prosecutor, submitting their own expert reports. They also pointed to a number of flaws in the investigation, flaws which had resulted in the loss of evidence supporting the homicide theory. The decision not to pursue the matter was, however, upheld. The applicants then applied to the court of appeal to have the police officers charged. Their application was dismissed on the ground that the investigation had not uncovered enough evidence to charge the officers. The court held that the flaws in the investigation relied on by the applicants were not of a kind to cast doubt on the suicide theory and thus to justify reopening the case. Inadmissible under Article 2: The authorities had responded to the applicants’ criticisms of the way in which the investigation had been handled, even admitting that there had been some shortcomings. However, they had established that those shortcomings, when weighed against all the evidence supporting the suicide theory, had not justified charging the police officers. The fact that the investigation had not been able to progress beyond hypotheses had been essentially due to the absence of eye witnesses to the applicants’ son’s death. Both the public prosecutor and the court of appeal had given ample reasons for their decisions, referring, in particular, to numerous expert reports. Thus it was not clear that, if the investigation had not been flawed, its results would have supported the homicide, rather than the suicide, theory. Hence, the comprehensiveness, impartiality and thoroughness of the investigation could not be regarded as having been significantly prejudiced: 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