CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 décembre 2010

.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. 136 December 2010 Mižigárová v. Slovakia - 74832/01 Judgment 14.12.2010 [Section IV] Article 2 Positive obligations Article 2-1 Effective investigation Alleged suicide of a Roma suspect while in police custody and lack of independent and effective investigation: violations   Facts – The applicant’s husband, a twenty-year old Roma man in good health, was arrested on suspicion of theft. He was questioned by four policemen and then by a lieutenant, an off-duty officer with whom he had had previous encounters. During the latter interrogation, he was shot in the abdomen with the lieutenant’s service pistol. He died four days later in hospital. The investigation concluded that he had forcibly taken the gun from the lieutenant and shot himself. Subsequently, the lieutenant was convicted of injury to health caused by negligence in the course of duty and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, suspended for a two-and-a-half-year probationary period. The applicant’s claims for damages were dismissed by the courts. Law – Article 2 (a)     Substantive aspect – Even if the Court were to accept, despite the improbability of such a hypothesis, that the applicant’s husband had committed suicide, the obligation of the authorities to protect the health and well-being of persons in detention encompassed an obligation to take reasonable measures to protect them from harming themselves. There was insufficient evidence to enable the Court to establish whether the authorities had been aware of a suicide risk. However, there were certain basic precautions which police and prison officers should be expected to take in all cases in order to minimise any potential risk. First, compelling reasons had to be given as to why the interrogation of a suspect had been entrusted to an armed police officer. Second, the regulations required police officers to secure their service weapons in order to avoid any “undesired consequences”. The domestic courts had held that the lieutenant’s failure properly to secure his service weapon had amounted to negligence which had resulted in the death of the applicant’s husband. Consequently, even if he had committed suicide as alleged by the investigative authorities, they had been in violation of their obligation to take reasonable measures to protect his health and well-being while in police custody. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). (b)     Procedural aspect – The initial forensic examination of the crime scene had been conducted by local police officers. Officers from the Ministry of the Interior had not arrived until the following day. However, even after they had taken over the investigation, the officers and technicians from the lieutenant’s district had continued to be involved. The investigation had therefore not been sufficiently independent. Moreover, no attempt appeared to have been made to investigate the allegation made by the applicant’s husband himself that the lieutenant had given him the firearm. No gunpowder residue test had been conducted in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, which could have excluded or confirmed the possibility that the lieutenant had pulled the trigger. Thus, there had been a failure by the investigators to take reasonable steps to secure evidence which had, in turn, undermined their ability to determine beyond any doubt who was responsible for the death. Finally, the authorities had failed to investigate the applicant’s allegation that her husband had been ill-treated by the police officers, even though the autopsy report indicated that he had injuries to his face, shoulder and ear. In sum, no meaningful investigation had been conducted at the domestic level capable of establishing the true facts surrounding the death of the applicant’s husband. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 14 in conjunction with Article   2 (a)     Substantive aspect – While the lieutenant’s conduct during the applicant’s detention called for serious criticism, there had been no evidence that it had been racially motivated. The Court did not consider that the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the alleged racist motive for the incident should shift the burden of proof to the Government. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one). (b)     Procedural aspect – The Court noted with concern the international reports concerning police brutality towards Roma in Slovakia. In respect of persons of Roma origin, it would not exclude the possibility that in a particular case the existence of independent evidence of a systemic problem could, in the absence of any other evidence, be sufficient to alert the authorities to the possible existence of a racist motive. However, in the present case the Court was not persuaded that the objective evidence was sufficiently strong in itself to suggest the existence of such a motive. Moreover, the applicant had not made an allegation of racial bias at any point during the investigation. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one). Article 41: EUR 45,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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