CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 avril 2014

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; 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 No. 173 April 2014 Marro and Others v. Italy (dec.) - 29100/07 Decision 8.4.2014 [Section II] Article 2 Positive obligations Death of prisoner as a result of drugs overdose: inadmissible Facts – The applicants are the relatives of a detained drug addict who died in prison as a result of an overdose. They alleged that they themselves had lodged a complaint against him, in order to distance him from the drug addicts with whom he was spending his time. When he entered prison in August 1995 the applicants’ relative stated that he had taken drugs two days before his arrest. About three weeks later, he informed that prison doctor that he had not taken drugs for approximately two years. He died eight days later. According to the forensic medical report, the cause of death was an overdose. Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants blamed the authorities for failing to prevent their relative from obtaining the substances which led to his death. Law – Article 2: The applicants had not alleged that the authorities were aware of information which could have led them to believe that their relative was in a particularly dangerous position compared to any other prisoner suffering from drug addiction and that, by using drugs, he ran a potentially higher risk of suffering fatal consequences. What was at stake was not therefore the requirement of personal protection of one or several individuals identifiable in advance as the potential target of a threat to life, but rather the obligation to afford general protection to a vulnerable group of people, namely imprisoned drug addicts. This was particularly true in the present case, since the applicants’ relative had himself stated, one week before his death, that he had not taken drugs for a long time, and since he had given no indication that he was suffering from psychological problems or was in a situation of particular vulnerability. In those circumstances, the single objective fact that a deceased detainee was able to obtain access to illegal drugs could not in itself be considered to amount to a failure to comply with the State’s positive obligations under Article   2 of the Convention. Admittedly, in order to protect the health and lives of citizens, the authorities were required to take measures in order to combat drug trafficking, the more so when this scourge occurred or could occur in a secure setting such as a prison. Nevertheless, they could not guarantee with absolute certainty that drugs would not be circulated, and they had a wide discretion in the choice of the means to be used. In this respect, they were therefore bound by an obligation of means, not of result. In the present case, the applicants had not challenged the Government’s assertions that, at the material time, the prison in which their relative was held had forbidden not only drugs, but also various products – specifically, powdered or granulated products, soap and syringes –, from being brought in; in addition, everyone entering the prison was searched and all parcels were inspected, and visitors, prison staff and prisons had been required to go through an electromagnetic detector. By implementing those measures, the State had complied with its obligation to take action against drug trafficking in prisons. In contrast, having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to the authorities, Article   2 could not be construed as requiring a State to use sniffer dogs in any area – such as a prison – where drugs were likely to be in circulation. The applicants’ relative, whose drug addiction was known to the authorities, had been placed in a cell with another prisoner who was accused of drug trafficking, and who had tested positive for drugs. The applicants rightly emphasised this point; nonetheless, this factor could not be considered as having caused the death of the their relative. Indeed, the manner in which he had obtained the drugs remained unknown; thus, it was impossible to identify with any precision the loophole which had enabled drugs to be introduced and circulated in the prison, and whether the cellmate in question had been involved in any way in the events. Moreover, having regard to the number of prisoners in Italy who suffered from drug addiction, it could prove difficult in practice for the authorities systematically to separate drug addicts from occasional drug users and drug traffickers. In addition, criminal and disciplinary investigations had been opened immediately after the discovery of the body, and an autopsy had been carried out in good time. The applicants had not alleged any shortcomings in those investigations. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considered that the fact that the applicants’ relative, although detained in prison, had been able to obtain and make use of drugs could not, in itself, render the State liable for the death in question. In those circumstances, no appearance of a violation of Article   2 could be found. Conclusion : inadmissible (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