CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 3 mars 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s21DA24D5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s7BB60D65 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s60636784 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s55D550F5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAF0B4C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDFC5B1C5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA845BF37 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s9DAED311 { width:4.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s99668499 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s209E2111 { width:7.77pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s28CB84DD { width:17.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s86C2B265 { width:33.76pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s48D61AB0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEC533701 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s48F37204 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s97B7A20 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s70114485 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s2D581A96 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s98DFCB70 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sFE6327B5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE4026F79 { width:6.94pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC2E0339F { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .sD46FFE5D { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s91007E6D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s71BC72F4 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sC32CB04D { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB12058F2 { width:8.11pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD107E55B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC124C46D { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s527A9694 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s87844051 { width:34.71pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s22AD998E { width:35.27pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s33C27281 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sEEF140E1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF288D251 { width:0.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF0B473AD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sB3DB1E9C { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .sFF5A8F72 { width:4.93pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s625422E3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFB30C84 { width:4.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1C90AC38 { width:6.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9C864DC2 { width:5.6pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9F7AB5CD { width:7.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s814F32B5 { width:29.22pt; display:inline-block } .sC4D9D191 { width:200.81pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 52391/99 by M. RAMSAHAI and Others against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3   March 2005 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   B.M. Zupančič , President ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky ,   Mr   David Thór Björgvinsson , judges ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen, ad hoc judge , and Mr M. Villiger , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 September 1999, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, and the further observations submitted by the Government and the applicants respectively, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are all Netherlands nationals resident in Amsterdam. They are represented before the Court by Mr G.P. Hamer, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam. The respondent Government are represented by Mr R.A.A. Böcker and Ms J. Schukking of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The first two applicants, Renee Ghasuta Ramsahai and Mildred Viola Ramsahai, are the grandfather and grandmother, respectively, of Moravia Siddharta Ghasuta Ramsahai, deceased (hereinafter Moravia Ramsahai). They were both born in 1938. They were the latter's guardians until he reached his majority at the age of eighteen. The third applicant, Ricky Moravia Ghasuta Ramsahai, born in 1960, is the father of the late Moravia Ramsahai. Moravia Ramsahai was born on 6 December 1979. He died on 19   July   1998. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.     The circumstances surrounding Moravia Ramsahai's death In the evening of Sunday 19 July 1998, during the “Kwakoe” festival in the Bijlmermeer district of Amsterdam (a celebration by the Surinamese immigrant community of the abolition of slavery in Suriname 135 years earlier), Moravia Ramsahai forced the owner of a scooter at gunpoint to give up his vehicle. Having gained control of the scooter, he then made off with it. The owner of the scooter notified a police officer who reported the robbery to the Flierbosdreef station of the Amsterdam police by radio. The duty police officer in turn alerted police patrolling in the area. Some five minutes later, two uniformed police officers, Officers Brons and Bultstra, patrolling in a marked police car, saw a scooter driven by a person fitting the descriptions given them stopping near a high-rise building by the name of “Huigenbos”. They stopped the car and got out. Officer Bultstra ran towards the person whom they had seen riding the scooter, later identified as Moravia Ramsahai, and tried to arrest him. It appears that Officer Bultstra saw Moravia Ramsahai draw a pistol from his trouser belt. Officer Bultstra then drew his service pistol and ordered Moravia Ramsahai to drop his weapon. This Moravia Ramsahai failed to do. Officer Brons, the driver of the patrol car, then approached. He also drew his service pistol. It appears that Moravia Ramsahai raised his pistol and pointed it at Officer Brons, who fired. Moravia Ramsahai was hit in the neck. At 10.03 p.m. Officer Brons radioed to the Flierbosdreef police station that he had shot someone and asked for an ambulance to be sent. When the ambulance arrived on the scene, at approximately 10.15 p.m., the ambulance crew found Moravia Ramsahai already dead. Upon his return to the Flierbosdreef police station, Officer Brons was seen by the commanding officer of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police force, Police Commissioner Van Riessen. Local police secured technical evidence and took the names of a number of witnesses. Later that night a special operations platoon ( Mobiele Eenheid , “Mobile Unit”) of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police questioned all residents of the Huigenbos building found at home. No one could give any relevant information. An autopsy was performed on Moravia Ramsahai's body on 20   July   1998, after which the body was released to his next of kin. Also on 20 July 1998 the Amsterdam/Amstelland public information bureau published a press release in the following terms: “ Police shoot down armed scooter thief Last night, at around 10 p.m., an eighteen-year-old youth who drew a firearm was shot down close by the Huigenbos building by a policeman. Shortly afterwards he died there of his wounds. The victim had shortly before been present at the location of the Kwakoe festival. There he had gone up to a young man who was in possession of a brand new scooter. He had pushed a pistol into the young man's side and thereby forced him to hand over the scooter. He had also forced the owner to tell him how the alarm worked and had then made his escape. The owner of the scooter reported the robbery to two police surveillance officers. They set off in pursuit of the thief and asked for assistance via the police radio room. The thief managed to start the vehicle and make a rapid escape. Shortly afterwards the suspected thief was noticed with the scooter on the Huntumdreef by the crew of a police car. The fellow ( knaap ) rode the scooter off the shoulder and crossed the lawn towards one of the entrances of the Huigenbos building. Having arrived there he rode the scooter into the hallway. The passenger of the police car followed the suspect on foot and also ran towards the entrance. As he arrived there, the suspect came out again. The man drew a pistol. The policeman called out several times 'Drop the gun'. By this time the other policeman had also reached the entrance of the building. He saw that the suspect was starting to aim the firearm at his fellow officer ( het vuurwapen op zijn collega begon te richten ) and forestalled that danger with a shot from his service pistol. The suspect was hit and died shortly afterwards. The suspect's pistol, which was loaded, has been seized. The State Criminal Investigation Department ( Rijksrecherche ) has begun an investigation into the shooting incident.” Subsequently, as the applicants allege, Police Commissioner Van Riessen was quoted in the mass circulation daily newspaper De Telegraaf as having said that he would not co-operate with any further fact-finding body ( “Wat voor een onderzoekscommissie er daarnaast ook wordt ingesteld, ze komen er bij mij niet in” ). Officers Brons and Bultstra were back on duty a few days after the shooting incident. A criminal investigation was ordered, during which – as the applicants allege – Officers Brons and Bultstra were assisted by a single advocate retained by the police, Mr L.J.B.G. van Kleef. Ultimately the public prosecutor responsible, finding that Officer Brons had acted in legitimate self-defence, decided that no prosecution should be brought. The applicants brought two sets of proceedings, one before the Court of Appeal ( gerechtshof ) of Amsterdam aimed at obtaining a court order overturning the public prosecutor's decision not to prosecute Officer Brons, the other before the Police Complaints Board ( Commissie voor Politieklachten ) to obtain redress for what they considered deficiencies in the way in which the Amsterdam/Amstelland police had acted in the wake of the death of Moravia Ramsahai. Neither set of proceedings produced the result which they sought. B.     The police investigation 1.     The questioning of the inhabitants of the Huigenbos building During the night of Sunday 19 July 1998, a platoon of police officers belonging to a mobile special operations unit and commanded by a police superintendent went door to door seeking statements from the inhabitants of each of the 135 apartments in the Huigenbos building. According to the official report drawn up the following day by Detective Sergeant Wouter Barend Nicolaas Dolman of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police, three apartments had been uninhabited. The inhabitants of 75   apartments had been away. The inhabitants of 47 apartments had been at home, but had seen or heard nothing. The inhabitants of nine apartments had heard the shot fired. In one apartment a twelve-year-old girl was found, named Sangeeta Edwina Pamela Mungra, who stated that when she had got out of the lift on the ground floor, the door of the lift had struck a scooter lying on the floor. As she had got out of the lift she had heard a bang. She had seen two police officers and heard them say: “I have fired.” She had seen a male victim lying on the ground. She had panicked, fled into the lift and gone back home. 2.     Statements taken by various members of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police force a.     Statement by Vinod (or Vinodkumar) Hoeseni dated 19 July 1998 Mr Hoeseni reported the theft of his scooter to the Amsterdam/Amstelland police on 19 July 1998 at approximately 11.15 p.m. His statement was taken by Senior Police Officer Benthem of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police force. Mr Hoeseni had bought the scooter earlier that week. The night of 19   July 1998 he had ridden it to the Kwakoe festival where he had met his girlfriend. While he was with her, a youth unknown to him had come up to him and said: “Get off. Get off. I shoot you, I shoot you.” ( “Deraf. Deraf. Ik schiet jou, ik schiet jou.” ). Mr Hoeseni had felt something being pushed against his right side. Looking down, he had recognised the object as a lady's pistol. He had been unwilling to give up the scooter but his girlfriend had advised him to lest he be shot. He had then let go of the scooter and run towards the first policeman he saw. Mr Hoeseni had told the police officer that his scooter had been stolen at pistol-point and that they should run after it. He had given a description of the scooter and the thief. Mr Hoeseni and the two police officers had gone after the thief with the scooter, but he had ridden off. He had heard, on the police officers' two-way radio, that the scooter had been found. Together with the police officers he had gone to a lawn where he had heard the scooter's alarm. He had seen his scooter surrounded by police and identified it as his. He had not recognised the thief as anyone he knew. b.     Anita Andjiedewie Bhondoe, questioned on 19 July 1998 Ms Bhondoe was questioned by Detective Sergeant Wouter Barend Nicolaas Dolman of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police force on 19   July   1998 at 11.15 p.m. Ms Bhondoe had gone with her brother to the Kwakoe festival, where she had met her boyfriend Vinob (or Vinod, or Vinodkumar). Vinob had just bought a new scooter. Ms Bhondoe's brother had gone to fetch something to drink for the three of them. After about fifteen minutes she and Vinob had been approached by a youth whom she had noticed looking at her and the scooter. The youth had said to Vinob: “Get off, get off” ( Stap af, stap af ) and had pressed an object resembling a firearm against Vinob's belly. She had thought at first that this was a friend of Vinob's playing a prank, but had realised from Vinob's facial expression that this was not the case. She had prevailed on Vinob to get off the scooter when the youth had said: “Get off, get off, or I will shoot” ( Ga eraf, ga eraf, anders ga ik schieten ). Vinob had then run off to get help, whilst the youth had bump-started the scooter and made off with it. Vinob had returned with two police officers and the three of them had run after the youth on the scooter. Ms Bhondoe had joined them for a bit but had been called back by her brother. Together they had run in the direction taken by the police officers. Arriving at the Huigenbos building, they had seen a large number of cars. Vinob had told them that the youth had been caught and that the police had shot him. After Vinob had spoken with the police, she and he had been taken to the police station to make a statement. c.     Petrus van den Heuvel, questioned on 19 July 1998 This witness was questioned by Police Sergeant Maria Cornelia de Bruijn of the Amsterdam/Amstelland Regional Police Force. He stated that he lived on the fifth floor of the Huigenbos building. Happening to look down from the walkway, he had seen a policeman run towards the doorway. He had seen a coloured man with a shaved head come out of the doorway. He had seen the policeman try to grab the coloured man by his arm. The coloured man had made a sideways movement with his arm, as if to say that he did not want to go along with the policeman, and the policeman had not been able to hold on to him. The coloured man had then drawn a pistol or a revolver, whether out of his pocket or out of his trouser band Mr van den Heuvel could not see. The weapon was a silver grey colour with a dark coloured grip. Mr van den Heuvel's instinctive reaction had been to dive for cover behind the balustrade of the walkway. As he glanced over briefly out of curiosity, it had appeared to him that the policeman had taken a few steps sideways. The coloured man had still had the weapon in his hand. He had not pointed it in any particular direction, but he had not dropped it either. All this happened very quickly, perhaps in less than half a minute. In the meanwhile a second policeman had come running. He had heard “Drop it” being shouted very loudly at least four times. The coloured man must have heard it, but ignored it. Mr van den Heuvel did not remember the second policeman standing still after he had reached the scene of events. He had heard a bang and he had seen the coloured man collapse. The weapon had fallen to the ground a few metres away. The first policeman had walked up to the coloured man to inspect. The second policeman had spoken into some device or other, after which help had arrived. He had tried to call the police on his telephone, but had been told that help was on the way. He had stood and watched awhile longer, then gone down and given his name to the police as a witness. d.     Police Officer Bas Dekker, questioned on 20 July 1998 Officer Dekker was heard by Senior Police Officer Benthem of the detective section ( afdeling recherche ) of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police force and based at the Flierbosdreef police station. At around 10.05 p.m. the night before, Officer Dekker had been patrolling the Kwakoe festival with Officer Boonstra. He had been addressed by a young man whom he did not know, who told him that he had been dragged off his scooter and that his scooter had been taken from him; this had happened less than a minute earlier. The young man had given him the insurance papers of the scooter and indicated the direction in which the thief and the scooter had gone. Officers Dekker and Boonstra, together with the young man, had run in the direction indicated by the latter. While running Officer Dekker had radioed through the description of the scooter to other police officers. At this point he had not been aware that the thief had used a weapon; the owner of the scooter had not mentioned it. Officer Dekker had assumed that the thief had used physical force only, the owner of the scooter having stated that he had been dragged off his vehicle. The thief had managed to start the scooter as they had caught sight of him. They had continued running but the scooter had been faster. Officer Dekker had radioed through his own description of the scooter and its rider, the possible directions in which they might have gone and its insurance plate number. They had continued running; upon reaching the pedestrian underpass Officer Dekker had heard, on his radio set, another policeman reporting a shooting incident and shortly after calling an ambulance. Officer Dekker estimated the lapse of time between his transmitting his description of the scooter and the report of the shooting at approximately one minute but he could not be sure. As Officers Dekker and Boonstra stood wondering whether there was any connection between the shooting and the theft of the scooter, the owner of the scooter, who had apparently overheard the police radio, had told them that the thief had a small silver coloured pistol. Officers Dekker and Boonstra and the owner of the scooter had made their way to the scene of the shooting in front of the Huigenbos building. They had seen a person lying supine on the ground, two uniformed police officers kneeling beside him. They had advanced and recognised the scooter. Officer Dekker had taken the particulars of the owner of the scooter and made arrangements for him and his companion to be taken to the police station so that they could make a statement. e.     Police Officer Paulus Antonius Braam, questioned on 20 July 1998 Police Officer Braam was questioned by Police Sergeant Theodorus Johannes Gerarda Limbeek of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police, detective support bureau of the Flierbosdreef police station. His work consisted of, among other things, following and dealing with two-way radio traffic. On 19 July 1998 at 9.55 p.m. Officer Braam had been sitting at his plotting table when he had heard a report come in by two-way radio from a supervising police officer that he was following a youth who had just stolen a scooter. A little later this officer had radioed in to say that the thief had managed to bump-start the scooter, and to give an indication of the direction in which he had gone. The officer had sounded unemotional, as if there were nothing the matter other than an “ordinary” robbery of a scooter. The officer being on foot, he had requested the assistance of a motorised colleague. In so doing he had given a description of the scooter. Officer Braam had asked a colleague on a motorcycle to go in the direction indicated. As the motorcycle policeman had been about to leave the courtyard of the police station, Officer Braam had heard Officer Bultstra from his marked police car report that he had seen the scooter with the thief go into the doorway of the third lift of the Huigenbos building and would go after them. Officer Bultstra too had sounded unemotional. Perhaps four or five minutes later, perhaps less, Officer Braam had heard Officer Bultstra saying: “The suspect has been shot, I want an ambulance”. Again, Officer Bultstra had sounded calm and businesslike. At this, Officer Braam had summoned the appropriate services. Officer Braam had not heard Officer Brons take part in the radio conversation. This reflected standard practice, namely that the driver of a police car – in this case Officer Brons – had his two-way radio set to the frequency of the central incident room, whereas the “passenger” – Officer Bultstra – had his radio set to the frequency used by the local team. f.     Police Officer Renate Quirina van Daal, questioned on 20 July 1998 Officer Van Daal was questioned by Senior Officer Petrus Wilhelmus Martinus Leerkes of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police force. Officer Van Daal was a uniformed police officer on the basic police assistance staff. The previous night she had been seated at the plotting table from 8.15 p.m. until midnight. Until the shooting it had been a quiet night. She had sat there with Officer Braam and Police Superintendent Casper Sikking. At around 10 p.m. she had heard, on the radio frequency used by the district police, that a police officer was chasing a scooter, and also which direction the scooter had taken. She did not remember the precise wording, nor any description given of the rider. Shortly afterwards she had heard the voice of Officer Bultstra, reporting the sighting of the scooter. A second or two later Officer Bultstra had reported seeing the scooter in a doorway of the Huigenbos building. Superintendent Sikking had called by radio: “All right boys, everyone go to Huigenbos.” ( Jongens met z'n allen naar Huigenbos ). Very shortly afterwards Officer Bultstra had said: “I want an ambulance, I have fired” ( Ik heb geschoten ). Superintendent Sikking had asked him to repeat that. Officer Bultstra had repeated: “I have fired.” Hereupon most of the police officers present had gone out and Officers Van Daal and Braam had contacted the appropriate emergency services. Officer Van Daal had later heard Officer Brons say that the ambulance was needed urgently because the suspect was in a very bad way. It was only later that Officer Van Daal had been informed by other police officers that it was in fact Officer Brons who had fired. g.     Police Officer Bruin Jan van Dongen, questioned on 20 July 1998 Police Officer Van Dongen was a police dog handler holding the rank of police sergeant whose duty station was the Flierbosdreef police station. He was questioned by Police Sergeant Lof of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police force. Officer Van Dongen had been on duty the previous night, with his police dog. He had heard, by two-way radio, that a scooter had been stolen at the Kwakoe festival. The direction in which the thief had driven off was given. The description was of a coloured male, dressed in black, riding a red scooter. Officer Van Dongen had gone in the direction indicated. Officer Van Dongen's car was passed by a marked police car containing two police officers, of whom he had recognised the driver, Officer Brons, but not the passenger. He had seen the car being parked and the passenger emerge. Officer Van Dongen had also parked his car, intending to look for the thief if he could. He had been getting the police dog out when he had heard a pistol shot. He had run with the dog in the direction from which the sound of the shot had come. Having reached the Huigenbos building, he had met Police Officer Brons coming towards him. He had seen Officer Bultstra kneeling near the head of a male who was lying flat on the ground. He had asked Officer Brons what had happened. Officer Brons had replied that there had been shooting. Officer Van Dongen had asked who had fired. Officer Brons had replied that a pistol had been aimed at them and the police had fired. Officer Brons had pointed out a silver coloured pistol lying on the ground close to the man. Officer Bultstra had been administering first aid. Officer Van Dongen had not been able to see any injury. He had had to keep his distance from the man because of the dog. The man on the ground fitted the description given of the person who had stolen the scooter. There had been a red scooter in the doorway of the building and so Officer Van Dongen had understood that this was the person suspected of having committed the robbery. Officer Van Dongen had heard Officer Brons notify the local health authority and the police superintendent on duty. Officer Van Dongen had guarded the area until the arrival of the criminal investigators ( recherche ) and the forensic technical experts. He had stayed on the spot until they had finished and had returned to the police station at midnight. h.     Police Officer Klaas Boonstra, questioned on 20 July 1998 Police Officer Boonstra, a police officer serving a one-year apprenticeship and based at the Remmerdenplein police station, was questioned by Detective Sergeant ( brigadier-rechercheur ) Dolman of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police force. Officer Boonstra had been assigned, together with Police Officer Bas Dekker, to patrol the Kwakoe festival, their task being to observe and to maintain a preventive presence. At a certain moment, a Hindustani [1] male had come up to them running and had motioned to them to follow him. Because the Hindustani had given the impression that something was the matter, they had followed him. While running he had told Officer Dekker what the matter was. Officer Boonstra had been following at a distance of about ten metres. Officer Boonstra had heard on his two-way radio that a scooter had been stolen. It had not been immediately clear to him that the scooter belonged to the Hindustani. At a certain moment they had seen the scooter thirty metres ahead of them, being ridden slowly. Officer Dekker had told Officer Boonstra that that was the scooter which had been stolen. The person riding the scooter had noticed the police officers but instead of stopping, had increased speed. Moving in the direction of the Huigenbos building, they had heard it said on two-way radio that there had been a shooting incident. They had not immediately linked the shooting to the stealing of the scooter. Still accompanied by the Hindustani, they had continued in the direction of the Huigenbos building, where they had noticed three or four police cars. The Hindustani had recognised his scooter. i.     Najima Boujedaine, questioned on 21 July 1998 Ms Boujedaine was questioned by Senior Police Officers Petrus Wilhelmus Marinus Leerkes and Anthonius Petrus Lof, both of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police force. Ms Boujedaine worked as chief cashier at a Burger King restaurant located on the Leidseplein in Amsterdam. On 19 July 1998 she had been on the night shift, from 6.30 p.m. until 5 a.m. the following day. She had noticed the presence of a particular youth from 6.30 p.m. onwards. She described him as being of Surinamese or Antillean descent, eighteen years old, bald-headed with two golden teeth, dressed in a black tee-shirt and trousers and black shoes and wearing a golden chain around his neck. From 7.30 p.m. onwards she had noticed him distracting one of the cashiers, a young woman called Nancy. Taken to task for failing to concentrate on her work, Nancy had explained to Ms Boujedaine that the youth was her boyfriend. The youth had reacted angrily, telling Ms Boujedaine to go easy on Nancy or else. After having told Nancy, jokingly, that she might have to stay a little longer, Ms Boujedaine had seen the youth staring at her fixedly. This had frightened her, but she had not wished to show fear. Just before she had turned round to draw a soft drink she had seen his right hand move towards the band of his trousers. Ms Boujedaine's sister Mimount (or Mimout), who also worked at that restaurant, had then said: “Najima, he was aiming a pistol at you!” Ms   Boujedaine had turned round and had seen the youth stick something down the band of his trousers. Mimount had later described the pistol as a small silver-grey model known as a “ladykiller”. A Surinamese girl had then asked the youth a question in her own language and he had replied. She had then told Ms Boujedaine that she had asked the youth whether he was carrying a pistol, to which he had replied in the affirmative. The youth had looked as though he might have been smoking cannabis, but Ms Boujedaine could not be sure of that. He had continued to bother Nancy in her work. He had left several times and come back. At a certain moment he had returned on a brand new silver-grey scooter. The youth had struck up a conversation with Ms Boujedaine in which he had indicated that he wanted to clear out the safe after closing time; he had wanted her to give him the codes of the safe. In the course of this conversation he had been eyeing the drawers of the cash registers. Several times he had repeated that it was already 9 p.m. and Ms   Boujedaine should close Nancy's cash register. Ms Boujedaine had felt uncomfortable and frightened, particularly after the youth had signalled his intention to wring the manager's neck. The youth had become angry again at 9 p.m., when Ms Boujedaine had terminated the conversation. Ms Boujedaine had then locked up Nancy's cash register and secured the tray. She had seen him and Nancy leave at around 9.30 p.m., on the scooter on which he had arrived earlier. j.     Ronald de Getrouwe, questioned on 22 July 1998 Mr de Getrouwe had come forward after hearing of the shooting incident at the Huigenbos building. He wished to report having been threatened. His statement was taken down by Police Sergeant Wouter Barend Nicolaas Dolman of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police force. On Sunday, 19 July 1998 at 8.15 p.m. he had been on the Kwakoe festival ground with his wife and some friends. There had been a group of youths behind them, one of whom had been seated on a scooter or moped ( bromfiets ). Mr de Getrouwe described the vehicle as having a blue fairing. At a certain moment this youth had started the engine and repeatedly opened the throttle, releasing large quantities of exhaust gases. This had given rise to complaints from Mr de Getrouwe's group. Mr de Getrouwe himself had then gone up to the youth and asked him either to ride off or to turn off his engine, because he was poisoning everyone with his noxious fumes. The youth had turned off the engine and approached Mr de Getrouwe, saying: “You're smoking [a cigarette], you're going to die too.” Mr de Getrouwe had thought that the youth wanted to discuss the matter like a reasonable person. Instead, the youth had taken a small metal-coloured pistol out of his right-hand trouser pocket and said: “Nobody's going to tell me what to do. I do as I please, we're all going to die anyway.” Mr de Getrouwe's wife, greatly upset by the sight of the pistol, had pulled Mr de Getrouwe away. The youth had got back onto the scooter. None of the bystanders, who had been many, had offered any assistance. They had clearly been deterred by the sight of the pistol. k.     Sanchaai Kumar Bhondoe, questioned on 22 July 1998 Mr Bhondoe was questioned by Senior Police Officer Lof of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police force. On Sunday 19 July 1998, between 8.30 p.m. and 10 p.m., he had been at the Kwakoe festival in the company of his sister and his friend Vinod. He had left them to fetch something to drink for the three of them. He had heard shouting, and he had seen Vinod run towards some police officers present. He had run after Vinod and asked him what the matter was. Vinod had answered that he would tell him later. He had found his sister in tears and asked her what had happened. She had told him how Vinod had been forced at gunpoint to hand over his scooter. Mr Bhondoe's sister had taken fright and had fled to Utrecht. Friends of the thief were out looking for Vinod, who was planning to go into hiding. l.     Najima Boujedaine, questioned on 23 July 1998 Ms Boujedaine was questioned a second time, this time in her own home, by Senior Police Officers Petrus Wilhelmus Martinus Leerkes and Piet Wouda of the Amsterdam/Amstelland police. She indicated that she was afraid of reprisals by the youth's family and asked the police officers to remove her statement from the file. Ms Boujedaine's sister Mimout (or Mimount), who had witnessed the events in the Burger King restaurant on the Leidseplein, felt similarly. This had made the police officers decide not to question her. C.     The investigation by Detective Chief Superintendent Van Duijvenvoorde of the State Criminal Investigation Department Detective Chief Superintendent of the State Criminal Investigation Department ( hoofdinspecteur van politie-rijksrecherche ) Van Duijvenvoorde was put in charge of the investigation. He drew up a report of his actions and findings and took the statements summarised below. Detective Chief Superintendent Van Duijvenvoorde's investigation report states that after 1.30 p.m. on 20 July 1998 the Amsterdam/Amstelland police force only carried out investigations at the request of the State Criminal Investigation Department “in the periphery of Moravia Ramsahai”. 1.   Statements taken by Detective Chief Superintendent Van Duijvenvoorde a.     Petrus van den Heuvel, questioned on 21 July 1998 Supplementing his earlier statement, Mr van den Heuvel, now questioned by Detective Chief Superintendent Van Duijvenvoorde, described what he had seen from the fifth floor walkway of the high-rise building. He had seen a uniformed police officer running towards the doorway. He had seen a coloured male go to meet the policeman from the doorway. This man was walking very slowly, at a snail's pace. The police officer had wanted to grab hold of the man, by his left arm, as it appeared to Mr van den Heuvel. The coloured man made a gesture as if to repulse the police officer. He hit the police officer, knocking him off balance somewhat, which enabled the coloured man to pass. After he had passed the police officer, the coloured man had drawn a pistol or a revolver, a firearm at any rate, which he had held in his right hand. He had held his arm slanted downwards, thus pointing the pistol towards the ground, and had tried to continue on his way. Mr van den Heuvel had not seen the police officers draw their pistols. Feeling threatened by the pistol which the coloured man had drawn and not wishing to be hit by a stray bullet, he had dived for cover. He had therefore not witnessed the actual shooting, but he had heard shouts of “Drop it”, several times. b.     Police Officer Brons, questioned on 22 July 1998 Police Officer Brons, by then under investigation as a suspected perpetrator of a criminal act, was questioned by Detective Chief Superintendent of the State Criminal Investigation Department Van Duijvenvoorde in the afternoon of 22 July 1998. Officer Brons had joined the Amsterdam municipality police ( gemeentepolitie ), as it existed at the time, in 1984. He had been promoted to operational police officer ( agent ) in 1985 and had been based at the Flierbosdreef station from the beginning. He had been promoted to the rank of police sergeant on 1 February 1996. He was a traffic safety professional. Officer Brons and Officer Bultstra had completed some assignments and were on their way back to the police station. They were in a marked police car, with Officer Brons driving. They had then received the radio call about the theft of the scooter. They had been told the make of the scooter and its colour and had been given a summary description of the thief and the direction in which he had fled. They had not been told that he was armed. Driving in the direction given, Officers Brons and Bultstra had seen a scooter and a driver fitting the description given them turning into the doorway of a lift of the Huigenbos high-rise building. This had surprised them, because they would have expected him to try and evade arrest on noticing that he was being followed by a marked police car. Officers Brons and Bultstra had agreed that Officer Bultstra would go after the thief while Officer Brons parked the car. Officer Bultstra had run towards the doorway holding a two-way radio. When Officer Bultstra was at a distance of between twenty and twenty-five metres from the doorway, the thief had emerged and run for a short distance. He had stopped and raised his hands when he had seen Officer Bultstra and shouted something unintelligible. Officer Bultstra had taken hold of the thief with both hands and had tried to turn him towards the building. The thief, however, had resisted. Officer Bultstra had shouted something to him which Officer Brons had been unable to understand. Officer Brons had understood that the thief would not come quietly and that Officer Bultstra needed help; he had therefore left the car and run towards them. He had reached a point about five or seven metres distant from the thief when the thief managed to tear himself loose and ended up at a distance of about three metres from Officer Bultstra. Suddenly Officer Brons had seen the thief holding a silver-coloured weapon which he had not seen him draw. It was a small pistol and it was pointed towards the ground. Officer Brons had not seen whether or not the pistol was cocked. It had seemed to him that Officer Bultstra had also seen the pistol, because Officer Bultstra had stepped backwards, drawing his service pistol and adopting a defensive posture. He had heard Officer Bultstra shouting “Drop that weapon. Don't be silly, man.” ( “Laat vallen dat wapen. Doe nou normaal man.” ) at least twice. The thief had not reacted by dropping his pistol, much to the surprise of Officer Brons seeing that Officer Bultstra had him covered. Given that the thief was armed and apparently had no intention of doing as he was told, Officer Brons had considered that Officer Bultstra was under threat. He had considered it highly possible that the thief would use his weapon against Officer Bultstra. He had been completely fixated on the thief. He had seen only the thief, holding a pistol with his finger on the trigger. At that point Officer Brons had not yet considered it necessary to draw his own service pistol because the thief was covered by Officer Bultstra. His hand had been close to, but not on the holster. Officer Brons had then seen the thief turn to the right, towards him, and turn the front of his body in his direction at a distance of five to seven metres. He had seen the thief raise his pistol and point it in his direction. Afraid that the thief would fire at him, Officer Brons had drawn his pistol from its holster with lightning speed ( bliksemsnel ) and had immediately fired one shot at the thief. He had had no time to aim at any particular part of the body. He remained convinced that if he had not fired first, the thief would have shot him. Officer Brons had thought at the time that he had hit the thief high in the chest. Only later had he learned that he had hit the thief in the neck. The thief had remained on his feet for a short while longer; he had then tottered and collapsed, dropping the pistol. He had tried to stand up, milling his arms about. Officer Brons had pushed the thief's pistol away with his foot to prevent him from grabbing it. Officer Bultstra had approached the man as he lay on the ground. Seeing that the thief was no longer a threat, he had put up his pistol. Officer Brons had contacted the police station by two-way radio and had asked for the intervention of the local health authority ( Gemeentelijke Geneeskundige en Gezondheidsdienst , “GG&GD”). Feeling that they were long in coming, he had again called the police station and asked them to hurry up. Officer Bultstra had concerned himself with the victim. He, Officer Brons, had removed himself from the scene. He had seen a man trying to enter the doorway and had asked him not to do so because the area had to be fenced off for investigation. Officers Brons and Bultstra had been taken back to the police station by a fellow officer. Officer Brons had handed in his pistol there. Officers Brons and Bultstra had received assistance and comfort from fellow officers and superiors and had been informed about the further procedure. Officer Brons had only fired once. It had never been his intention to shoot to kill, but only to end the life-threatening situation. He felt that he had had no choice. He greatly regretted that the thief had died. Officer Brons identified the thief's pistol on photographs. c.     Officer Bultstra, questioned on 22 July 1998 Officer René Bultstra had begun his police career in 1988 in the airport police. In 1992, after the duties of the airport police had been taken over by the Royal Military Constabulary, he had been transferred to what was then the Amsterdam municipal police force. He had been appointed as an operational police officer in 1994, after training. He had been promoted to senior police officer ( hoofdagent van politie ) in the Amsterdam/Amstelland police force on 1 June 1997. He and Officer Brons had been on their way back to the Flierbosdreef police station after completing an assignment when they had received word by two-way radio that another policeman was pursuing on foot a thief who had just stolen a scooter. They had heard the description of the scooter and the thief, and the direction the thief had taken. It had not been mentioned that the thief was armed. They had then gone to intercept the thief. Seeing a person and a vehicle matching the description given travelling towards a particular high-rise building, they had decided to park the car and arrest him. They had agreed that Officer Bultstra would leave the car immediately and pursue the man, after which Officer Brons would lock up the car and join Officer Bultstra. Officer Bultstra had seen the man on the scooter ride into the doorway of the building. Having closed to a distance of twenty metres from the building, Officer Bultstra had seen the man come running out of the doorway. Seeing Officer Bultstra, the man had called: “So what's the matter then? What's the matter then?” ( “En wat nou? En wat nou?” ) His arms had been dangling along his body. He had raised them slightly when asking that question. Officer Bultstra and the man had approached each other. The man had glanced sideways to the right and left, apparently looking for a way to evade capture. His preference appeared to be for an underpass through the building, so Officer Bultstra had gone to head him off. His intention had been to grab the man and arrest him. Officer Bultstra had grabbed the man by his left arm and pushed him bodily against the building. The man had made an aggressive impression on him because of his posture and his way of talking, and had appeared intent on resisting arrest. He had managed to tear himself loose and turn around. He had then taken two steps backwards, towards the doorway. His hands had been close to his body and his body had been poised forwards, and his posture had been threatening. The man had then brought his right hand towards the left of his chest or his belly, as a person would who was about to draw a firearm from there. He had looked Officer Bultstra straight in the eye and said: “So what's the matter then?” ( “En wat nou?” ). Officer Bultstra had not seen him stick his hand inside his clothing. Seeing the gesture, Officer Bultstra had thought that the man was acting like someone who was about to draw a weapon. His common sense