CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 30 août 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s53D4691F { width:35.23pt; display:inline-block } .sCBDE14CE { width:114.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt }   FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PÂRVU v. ROMANIA (Application no. 13326/18)     JUDGMENT   Art 2 (substantive) • Use of force not absolutely necessary during police operation where individual, wrongly identified as dangerous fugitive, was fatally shot • Doubts as to whether shooter honestly believed lives of other officers were in danger, given deficiencies in domestic investigation • Inadequate planning and control of operation to reduce to a minimum recourse to lethal force Art 2 (procedural) • Effective investigation • Lack of reasonable expedition and thoroughness of criminal investigation lasting eleven years Art 46 • Execution of judgment • General measures required   STRASBOURG 30 August 2022   FINAL   30/11/2022   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pârvu v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,   Tim Eicke,   Faris Vehabović,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc,   Yonko Grozev,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   13326/18) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Romanian national, Ms   Ana ‑ Bianca Pârvu (“the applicant”), on 7 March 2018 ; the decision to give notice to the Romanian Government (“the Government”) of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 28 June 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applicant complained that her husband was killed by the police on 26 September 2009 in breach of Article 2 of the Convention and that the national authorities had subsequently failed to carry out an effective investigation into the killing of her husband. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Brăila. She was represented by Ms Nicoleta Tatiana Popescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, most recently Ms   O.-F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The events of 26 September 2009 5.     On 26 September 2009 the applicant’s husband, Mr Sorin Pârvu, who at the material time was thirty years old, was driving the car of a friend, I.A.S., in Brăila, accompanied by the latter. At around 1.30 p.m., Mr Pârvu approached a crossing and stopped the car in the standard way at the red traffic light. 6 .     Suddenly, two vehicles arrived which did not have any particular markings on them. The first vehicle moved in front of the car driven by Mr   Pârvu, to block it. Four armed men dressed as civilians jumped out of the vehicles. It later turned out that they were police officers from the General Inspectorate of the Romanian Police ( Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române – “IGPR”). According to the Government, those men ordered Mr   Pârvu and I.A.S. to get out of their car. According to the applicant, relying on eyewitness testimony, the police officers opened fire without warning. At that moment, according to what the applicant had later learned from I.A.S., not knowing that the men were police officers on a mission, and believing that he and his friend were being attacked by an armed gang, Mr   Pârvu tried to escape by driving his car backwards. The car driven by Mr   Pârvu hit the second vehicle that had been positioned to block it from behind. Three other armed men dressed as civilians jumped out of the second   vehicle. One of the three men from the car behind, namely the police officer D.G., opened the back door on the left-hand side of the car driven by Mr   Pârvu and shot him in the head, while he was still sitting in the driver’s seat. I.A.S., who was sitting in the front passenger seat, witnessed the tragic event. 7.     According to the applicant, a few minutes later, the head of the Brăila Police arrived at their location and asked the other police officers who were dressed as civilians, “What have you done?” ( Ce aţi făcut? ). One of the police officers participating in the operation answered, “We missed the target.” ( Am greșit ţinta ). 8.     According to the Government, immediately after Mr   Pârvu had been shot, one of the police officers noticed that the victim was not the person the police were looking for to arrest that day. 9.     The eyewitness, I.A.S., was handcuffed and taken to the police station until that evening. 10 .     An ambulance arrived fifteen minutes later and after unsuccessfully trying to resuscitate Mr Pârvu, it transported him to the Brăila emergency hospital, where the applicant herself was employed as a medical worker. 11 .     According to the applicant, a co-worker told her that her husband, who had been shot in the head, was being admitted to the hospital in a very severe condition. The applicant informed Mr   Pârvu’s parents and brother, who arrived at the hospital. According to the applicant, the back entrance to the hospital was guarded by armed forces and the family was not allowed to see Mr Pârvu, nor did they receive prompt information about his condition. A hospital employee gave the applicant a small bag containing the personal effects found on her husband, including his identity document, driving licence, mobile telephone and some money, and she was left to wait for several hours with no initial official information about her husband. Later that day, the hospital sought her consent to transfer the victim to Galaţi hospital, owing to the extreme severity of his condition. At around 4 p.m., Mr Pârvu was taken to Galaţi hospital in an ambulance, accompanied by an armed forces vehicle. State agents guarded Mr Pârvu during his entire stay at Galaţi hospital. At around 3 a.m. on the following night, the applicant was allowed by the State agents to see her husband for one minute, because the medical doctor on duty insisted that she be given permission to see him. 12.     According to the applicant, she did not receive any official information regarding her husband the following morning. The hospital’s press officer later told television reporters present on the premises that the victim had died at 12.25 p.m. A cousin who found out about this on television called the applicant to express her condolences, and this is how the applicant learned that her husband had died. Later Mr Pârvu’s family was officially informed of his death. CRIMINAL INVEstigations in respect of Mr   PÂRVU 13 .     At 10 p.m. on 26 September 2009, the prosecutor attached to the Brăila County Court decided to open a criminal investigation ( începerea urmăririi penale ) in respect of Mr Pârvu based on Article 239 § 1 of the Criminal Code – committing an offence against a public servant ( ultraj ), (that legal qualification was later changed into attempted murder - see paragraph   44 below), on the following grounds: “Having regard to the preliminary investigations carried out regarding Pârvu Sorin, residing in Brăila ... who was identified on 26 September 2009 around 1.30 p.m. driving a car ... on the intersection of Dorobanţi and Şcolilor streets by an IGPR and Police Inspectorate of Brăila police squad, which was on a mission to execute a European arrest warrant, [and those preliminary investigations being] corroborated by data resulting from the on-site search of the event ( coroborate cu datele rezultate din cercetarea la faţa locului a evenimentului produs ), the result was that there were indications that Pârvu Sorin had committed an offence ( ultraj ) against public officials, namely the police in the exercise of their authority.” 14 .     The prosecutor’s decision did not include any other details of the incident of 26 September 2009 involving the shooting of Mr Pârvu by the police. In particular, it did not mention the way in which the police officers were said to have been subject to an offence committed by the applicant, or if they had been injured in the mission. CRIMINAL investigation into the killing of Mr Pârvu 15.     On 28 September 2009 an autopsy was conducted by a State forensic doctor from the Galaţi Forensic Service ( Serviciul de Medicină Legală Galaţi ). The autopsy report indicated that the victim’s death was due to his being shot from behind by gunfire, in the cervical region of his head. 16.     In addition to the introduction and the conclusions, the autopsy report included four sections: I. Case history ( Istoricul cazului ); II. Autopsy findings; III.   Anatomopathological diagnosis; and IV.   Complementary examinations. 17 .     Under Section I., Case history, the autopsy report indicated: “From the information provided by the prosecutor’s office, it appears that on 26.09.2009, while [the victim] was driving a Ford Mondeo car in Brăila and had stopped at the red traffic light on the third lane before a street crossing, he received a legal warning from police officers, and he tried to escape the police checks and to run away by hitting the two police vehicles placed in front and at the back of the vehicle he was driving. At that moment, one of the police officers managed to open the Ford’s left ‑ hand side back door, and asked the victim to stop the car. That police officer was hit by the car door when the victim drove backwards. Because [the police officer] was holding a gun, when he lost his balance, the police officer instinctively pulled the trigger, shooting the victim in his superior-median cervical zone.” 18.     The investigation into the killing of the applicant’s husband was first conducted by the prosecutor’s office attached to the Galaţi Court of Appeal. 19 .     On 6 November 2009 the applicant submitted a civil claim to the above-mentioned prosecutor’s office. 20.     On 16 March 2010 a forensic report was produced by the National Institute of Forensic Expertise ( Institutul Naţional de Expertize Criminalistice ), which described the gun used to shoot Mr   Pârvu and the dynamics of the gunshot. 21.     On 10 May 2010 the Chief Prosecutor at the prosecutor’s office attached to High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ) decided to take over the criminal investigation because of its complexity. That decision noted that the police officer who had shot the victim had claimed that the gunshot was accidental because the arm in which he had been holding the gun had been hit by the open back door of the victim’s car. 22 .     On 11 June 2010 a prosecutor at the prosecutor’s office attached to the HCCJ decided to open a criminal investigation ( începerea urmăririi penale ) for qualified murder ( omor calificat ), based on Articles 174-175 of the Criminal Code, in respect of the police officer, D.G., who had shot Mr   Pârvu in the head. 23.     D.G was questioned on two consecutive days in July 2010. The police officers who had accompanied him were questioned twice. Three civilians were questioned (just once), out of whom one had been indicated by the claimants in the civil proceedings, namely the applicant and her in-laws. 24.     On 20 January 2011 the prosecutor wrote to a private bank whose surveillance camera might have captured the sequence of events leading to the shooting of Mr Pârvu. 25.     On 9 March 2011 the prosecutor dismissed a request for the admission of evidence which was made by the applicant and two of the victim’s relatives. 26.     The eyewitness I.A.S. was not questioned during that period and no reconstruction seems to have been performed during that time, according to the letter of 2 August 2019 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the HCCJ, which summarised the investigative acts carried out. 27.     On 7 July 2011 the above-mentioned prosecutor’s office decided to terminate the criminal investigation ( scoaterea de sub urmărire penală ) in respect of D.G., considering that the death of Mr Pârvu was accidental. 28 .     The above-mentioned decision noted that the police had intended to enforce a European arrest warrant from the Italian authorities against   X, for murder and robbery; the police had received information that he was present in Brăila that day and was hiding in someone else’s flat. The police had had information that X was part of a criminal gang also frequented by I.A.S., the owner of the Ford Mondeo driven by the applicant on 26   September 2009. In order to find and arrest X, nine police officers from Bucharest had arrived in Brăila that day by car. Two of them had gone to the church where they had expected to see X arriving that day, while the   other seven, accompanied by two police officers from Brăila who said they knew   X, went to the block of flats where I.A.S.’s Ford Mondeo was parked. At around noon, the victim and I.A.S. had arrived at the car and had driven away. A police officer, H.E.R., who was participating in the operation was filming with a video camera, and some other police officers had watched the two men with binoculars and believed that they saw X. The decision noted that the accused police officer, D.G., was the head of the operation, and he had decided to follow the car driven by Mr Pârvu, believing that he was following X. During the incident in question, while trying to stop Mr. Pârvu, D.G. had managed to open the rear left-hand side door of the Fort Mondeo and, while holding his gun, he was slightly hit in the elbow and had lost his balance, with the consequence that he had shot Mr Pârvu by accident. The prosecutor noted that immediately after the shooting and before the ambulance arrived, the police officers had realised that the man who had been shot in the head was not the one they wanted to arrest, namely X. 29 .     On 21 December 2011 the Galaţi Court of Appeal granted an appeal by the applicant against the prosecutor’s decision, quashed that decision, and decided to send the case back to the prosecutor’s office to continue the criminal investigation, considering that not all the factual and legal aspects of the case had been clarified during the initial investigations. In particular, regarding the dynamics of the shooting by D.G., the Court of Appeal noted in its decision that it appeared from the photographs taken by the police, as well as from the record of the on-site investigation, that the right corner of the Ford Mondeo’s front bumper was touching the front left side ( “este lipit de aripa stângă faţă” ) of the police vehicle which had been placed to block the Ford Mondeo. Given this contact position, the court concluded that the backwards movement of the Ford Mondeo, which followed the initial forwards movement, and which was described in the prosecutor’s decision as accidentally leading D.G. to lose his balance, was of very limited significance. In those circumstances, it had not been explained if the open back door of the vehicle had still been able to hit D.G.’s arm with such an intensity so as to accidentally pull the trigger. The Court of Appeal also noted that the expert opinion produced during the investigations had not answered the question under point f) of the questionnaire given to the forensic expert by the investigators, about the possibility that the shot was accidental ( “care este opinia expertului în legătură cu posibilitatea ca focul să fi fost declanșat accidental” ). Instead, the expert had indicated that the opinion of a forensic doctor or a specialist neurologist was required to determine whether such an accidental shooting was possible. The Court of Appeal also noted that there were at least five gunshots before the fatal one, all five fired by different policemen from the police special intervention squad. The first gunshot was a warning shot in the air; three more gunshots were directed at the car’s front left tyre, that got flat and a fifth gunshot was directed at the rear right tyre of the car, which it had missed. 30.     On 24 February 2012 the prosecutor notified D.G. of a change to the legal classification of the criminal charge brought against him to that of aggravated murder ( omor deosebit de grav ) under Article 174 and Article 175 §   1 (i) and (g) of the Criminal Code. 31.     D.G and the police officers who had accompanied him during the incident that led to the shooting of Mr Pârvu were questioned again by the prosecutor. 32.     On 10 July 2013 the prosecutor questioned I.A.S. as a witness. The prosecutor subsequently dismissed another request for the admission of evidence which was made by two of the victim’s relatives. 33.     On 30 August 2013 the prosecutor’s office attached to the HCCJ again decided to terminate the criminal investigation ( scoaterea de sub urmărire penală ) in respect of D.G., considering that he was not responsible for the death of Mr Pârvu, which had occurred accidentally by D.G.’s hand. 34 .     On 5 February 2014 the Galaţi Court of Appeal granted an appeal by the applicant against the above-mentioned prosecutor’s decision, quashed that decision, and decided to send the case back to the prosecutor’s office to continue the criminal investigation, considering that many factual and legal aspects of the case were still to be investigated. The Court of Appeal listed on four full pages all the aspects that had still to be determined through further criminal investigation, including the admission of the evidence suggested by Mr Pârvu’s relatives, who had the procedural standing of civil claimants; that evidence included, for example, the statement of the owner of a nearby kiosk who had witnessed the incident. 35.     On 28 August 2014 the prosecutor decided to change the legal classification of the criminal charge brought against D.G. to murder under Article 188 of the new Criminal Code. That change in classification was notified to D.G. on 10 September 2014, when the prosecutor questioned him again. 36 .     On 23 September 2014 the applicant and three close relatives of Mr   Pârvu were questioned by the prosecutor. Other witnesses were questioned in February and March 2015. The prosecutor included a record and a transcription in the investigation file after viewing a “video recording concerning D.G.”. 37 .     On 29 April 2015 the prosecutor ordered a reconstruction of the events at a shooting range ( efectuarea unei reconstituiri în poligonul de tragere ). 38 .     On 3 July 2015 the prosecutor’s office attached to the HCCJ decided for the third time to end the criminal investigation ( clasarea ) against D.G., considering that he had acted in legitimate self-defence. An administrative appeal brought by the applicant against that decision was dismissed by the Chief Prosecutor on 12   October 2015. 39 .     On 26 February 2016 the Brăila County Court granted an appeal by the applicant against the above-mentioned prosecutor’s decision, quashed that decision and decided to send the case back to the prosecutor’s office to continue the criminal investigation, considering that the prosecutor had not followed or had only followed in part and superficially the indications given by the Galaţi Court of Appeal in its decision of 5 February 2014. In particular, the County Court noted: “- The preparation and execution of the police operation were not completely elucidated, nor their compliance with the applicable legal requirements. - The operational procedures that must be followed by the police when they want to stop a car in road traffic, including the prescribed methods to stop the person they are looking for, are missing from the file. On this last point, the argument in the prosecutor’s decision of 12.10.2015 (at page   20, paragraph 4), according to which this document (operational procedures) is classified as secret ( secret de serviciu ) and only covers the procedures for offenders caught in flagrante delicto , cannot be accepted because with appropriate clearance and in conformity with the legal requirements even these documents have to be scrutinised. - The manual for the use of the 9 mm semi-automatic Glock pistol, of the type used by [D.G.] was not included [in the file] in order to see the recommended use. - The reason for the intervention of [D.G.], who belonged to the squad whose mission was to identify and locate the suspect ( compartimentul ţinte urmărite ), knowing that SI[I]AS [1] fighters, whose mission was to immobilise the suspect were also participating in the operation. - [The prosecutor] failed to seek the expert opinion of a neurologist to determine if a hit to the elbow such as the one described in the present case could have led to a reflex contraction of the fingers of such an intensity that the pistol trigger was pulled – despite the fact that this investigative act was ordered by the Galaţi Court of Appeal in both decisions nos. .../2011 and .../2014. - [The prosecutor] failed to identify and seek information from the O. television company regarding a videotape that could make a contribution to the elucidation of the case – as was requested by the Galaţi Court of Appeal in decision no. .../2014. - The confrontations ordered by the same decision were not carried out (page 60, paragraph 5 (e))” 40.     The County Court also stated in the above-mentioned decision that the investigations that the Court of Appeal had requested to be carried out were compulsory, not mere recommendations. According to the County Court, the failure to comply with those requirements rendered the investigations incomplete. 41 .     On 15 July 2016 the superior body to the National Institute of Forensic Medicine ( Comisia de Avizare și Control de pe lângă Institutul Naţional de Medicină Legală ) upheld a forensic report of 2   October 2009, which stated that “any unexpected impact on the arm with fingers compressed on an object can lead to an unconditional reflex of increasing the fingers’ flexion; there was no need in practice for a strong impact on the hand of the suspect to generate the unconditional reflex of contracting his hand, as referred to in his statement of 12.11.2012” ( “orice lovire bruscă a membrului superior cu degetele în compresiune asupra unui obiect poate conduce la un reflex necondiţionat de accentuare a flexiei degetelor, practic nefiind nevoie de o lovitură puternică a mâinii suspectului pentru declanșarea reflexului necondiţionat de strângere a mâinii la care a facut referire suspectul în cadrul depoziţiei din 12.11.2012. ”). 42 .     On 3 August 2016 the prosecutor requested that the Ministry of the Interior communicate the operational procedures which applied to the police. On 30   August 2018 the manual for the use of semi-automatic Glock pistols was also requested from the police, and on 19 September 2018, a translation of that document was requested. Other documents relating to the preparation of the police operation were further requested for the first time during the investigations into the shooting of Mr Pârvu. 43 .     On 7 June 2018 the prosecutor’s office attached to the HCCJ decided for the fourth time to end the criminal investigation ( clasarea ) in respect of the police officer, D.G., considering that he had acted in legitimate self ‑ defence to defend the life of the three other police officers participating in the operation, namely H.E.R, S.A. and M.L., who had been endangered by Mr   Pârvu moving his car backwards and forwards. According to the prosecutor, the fact that, thanks to their skills, the three police officers had managed to avoid the impact and to avoid suffering serious traumatic injuries could not cast any doubt on Mr Pârvu’s intent and could not change the nature of the attack that he had carried out against the police officers. 44 .     By the same decision of 7 June 2018, the prosecutor’s office attached to the HCCJ decided to end the criminal investigations in respect of Mr Pârvu for the attempted murder of a State agent, because of his death. 45 .     On 6 March 2019 the Brăila County Court allowed an appeal by the applicant against the prosecutor’s decision of 7 June 2018, quashed that decision, and decided to send the case back to the prosecutor’s office to continue the criminal investigation, considering that some of the investigative measures required by previous judicial decisions were still missing and many aspects of the case had still not been elucidated, including the confrontation between the witnesses needed in order to solve the contradictions between their previous statements, despite that investigative measure having been ordered twice by previous court judgments of 5 February 2014 and 26   February 2016. 46.     In 2019 and 2020 the prosecutor organised confrontations between the police officers who had witnessed the incident and other witnesses who did not work for the police. 47 .     On 25 June 2020 the prosecutor’s office attached to the HCCJ decided for the fifth time to end the criminal investigation ( clasarea ) in respect of D.G., considering that he had acted in legitimate self-defence to stop the attack carried out by Mr Pârvu by moving his car back and forth, that had endangered the life of three police officers, namely H.E.R., S.A. and M.L., while also maintaining that the shooting had been accidental. The prosecutor concluded that the fact that none of the three police officers had suffered serious injuries and they had all managed to avoid any impact with the car could not change the nature of the attack perpetrated by Mr Pârvu. The prosecutor further concluded that the police operation had relied on the action plan to identify the international fugitive X, and that action plan had been drafted and regularly approved. The plan had included the participation of the Independent Special Interventions and Actions Service ( Serviciul Independent pentru Intervenţii și Acţiuni Speciale ), which, on 28 September 2009, had approved the group of four police officers. The prosecutor noted that the participation of the special police force had been requested by telephone on an unspecified date, in the knowledge that the police internal procedures allowed for its registration even after the mission had been completed. The prosecutor further noted that it appeared from their statements that the police officers from Bucharest had relied on the fact that the two police officers from Brăila had indicated that they recognised the fugitive X when Mr Pârvu had come out of the building to approach the Ford Mondeo. The prosecutor also noted that one of the police officers from Brăila had stated that he knew the suspect X and, when looking through the camera without a zoom lens, filming from a distance of 50 or 60 metres, he had seen someone of the size and shape of the suspect. The other police officer from Brăila had stated that he did not know the fugitive very well. The prosecutor further noted that police officers from the special forces had fired warning shots ( foc de avertisment în plan vertical ) and into the tires of the Ford Mondeo, while avoiding being hit by the car driven by Mr Pârvu. Several witnesses present in the area, and not related to the police, stated that they had not heard the warning “Police”. Some of them had only heard the police officer say “Stop”. The prosecutor further considered that these witnesses were not eyewitnesses and their statements were not reliable. 48.     The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision on the grounds, among others, that the prosecutor’s conclusion of both legitimate self-defence and accidental shooting were incompatible. 49 .     On 8 April 2021 the Brăila County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the prosecutor’s decision of 25 June 2020, considering that there was no contradiction in the prosecutor’s decision, as the conclusions concerning legitimate self-defence and accidental shooting “were reached with regard to different moments in time and under different hypotheses” ( cele două elemente din cadrul ordonanţei nu sunt incompatibile, fiind reţinute în momente diferite și în ipoteze diferite ). In particular, the County Court noted that, given the use made by Mr Pârvu of the car that he had driven so as to intentionally hit the police officers who were surrounding him, it was in legitimate self-defence that D.G. had first cocked his gun, as a reasonable precaution. Subsequently, when he had lost his balance because of the backwards movement of the open left-hand side back door of the Ford that had hit his left elbow, the cocked pistol had been discharged unintentionally (In continuare s-a reţinut că ulterior acestui moment în care suspectul a intervenit cu pistolul armat și a deschis ușa din spate stânga a autoturismului marca Ford, a intervenit al doilea moment în care a avut loc descărcarea accidentală a pistolului, eveniment nedorit de suspect care utiliza pistolul doar ca măsură de precauţie, de autoapărare, datorat reculului ușii autoturismului marca Ford care a lovit accidental cotul mâinii stângi a suspectului în care acesta ţinea pistolul.) . RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 50 .     The relevant legal provisions concerning the use of firearms by the police, in the version in force at the material time, can be found in Soare and Others v. Romania (no. 24329/02, § 94, 22   February 2011) and Andreea ‑ Marusia Dumitru v. Romania (no. 9637/16, §§ 62-64, 31 March 2020). 51 .     The provisions governing the organisation and functioning of the special forces units of the police are described in Ciorcan and Others v.   Romania (nos. 29414/09 and 44841/09, §§ 71-72, 27 January 2015). 52.     The applicable legal provisions of the Romanian Criminal Code, including those relating to murder and self-defence are described in Ciorcan and Others (cited above, § 73). RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE and INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL United Nations 53.     Excerpts   from   the relevant parts   of   the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials can be found in Soare and Others   (cited above,   § 102). Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 54 .     Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)106 on the execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in three cases against Romania ( Gheorghe Cobzaru v. Romania and 2 other cases , nos. 6978/08, 14974/09 and 40374/11) adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 June 2021 at the 1406th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, in its relevant parts, reads as follows: “ ... Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention due to the unjustified use of firearms by police during interventions or the lack of appropriate planning to prevent excessive use of force during an operation involving special intervention units, and the lack of effective criminal investigations and proceedings into these incidents; Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required: - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and - of general measures preventing similar violations; Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation; ... Recalling that the question of general measures required to prevent unjustified use of potentially lethal force during law enforcement interventions and operations and to guarantee effective criminal investigations and proceedings into such incidents continues to be examined within the framework of the Soare and Others group of cases and underlining that the closure of these cases in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures; DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases as regards the individual measures and DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.” 55.     The issue of deficiencies in the legislative framework governing the use of potentially lethal force during law enforcement interventions and operations and the lack of effective criminal investigations and proceedings into allegations of unjustified use of lethal or potentially lethal force, has been on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers for several years. For example, during the 1406th meeting held on 7-9 June 2021, the Ministers’ Deputies adopted the following decision CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-24 concerning the Soare and Others group v. Romania (Application No. 24329/02): “The Deputies 1. recalled that these cases mainly concern deficiencies in the legislative framework governing the use of potentially lethal force during law enforcement interventions and operations; the unjustified deployment of special intervention units in routine operations; and the lack of effective criminal investigations and proceedings into allegations of unjustified use of lethal or potentially lethal force, including their failure to address allegations of racist motives behind the treatment complained of by some of the applicants; ... As regards general measures 4. noted the sustained efforts made by the authorities to bring the legislative framework governing the use of potentially lethal force by the police into line with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention, as laid down in these judgments; recalled further their conclusions that regulations adopted in 2009 on the operation of special intervention units appeared capable of ensuring that their deployment was duly justified; 5. requested the authorities rapidly to make sure that the law restricts the use of firearms by law enforcement officials in all cases only to situations when this is absolutely necessary to avert a risk to life and limb and to take adequate measures guaranteeing that law enforcement operations, including those involving special intervention units, are planned and directed so as to avoid, as far as possible, the use of potentially lethal force; 6. noted further with satisfaction the measures recently adopted by the General Prosecutor to improve the effectiveness of criminal investigations into cases concerning use of lethal or potentially lethal force by law enforcement officials; called upon the authorities closely to follow up the impact of these measures and provide, in due course, a qualitative analysis to enable the Committee to assess whether these have sufficed to guarantee non repetition of the procedural violations found; 7. noting that the cases also disclose an insufficient judicial review of such investigations and regretting the prolonged absence of information in this regard, urged the authorities to inform the Committee about the steps taken or envisaged to address this issue; ... 9. requested the authorities to provide information on the individual measures in Soare and Others, Ciorcan and Others and Andreea-Marusia Dumitru and on the general measures referred to at paragraphs 5 and 7 by 15 December 2021 at the latest.” 56 .     The general measures taken by the Romanian authorities to restrict the use of potentially lethal force during law enforcement operations and to improve the effectiveness of criminal investigations, court proceedings and domestic remedies were under detailed consideration during the above-mentioned meeting held on 7-9 June 2021 (CM/Notes/1406/H46-24 ) (footnotes omitted): “... Status of execution The Committee of Ministers’ previous examination of the cases then under its supervision took place in September 2017 (see CM/Notes/1294/H46-21). The authorities submitted new information on the individual and general measures on 16   April 2021 (DH-DD(2021)403), summarised below. ... General measures: 1) Measures to restrict the use of potentially lethal force during law enforcement operations ... In their latest submissions, the authorities provide information on new steps taken to improve the relevant legal framework. They refer to amendments brought in 2019 to the Police Act to regulate in more detail all the means of restraint (physical force, immobilisation devices, non-lethal devices and weapons, lethal weapons) the police can resort to, in which conditions and how. This Act now prescribes that police must resort to these gradually; give warning and time to conform (except when imminent danger of violence); make sure that their use does not exceed, in intensity and duration, the real needs to achieve the aim of the intervention; and stop using them as soon as this has been done. Use of non-lethal devices and weapons is restricted to situations where physical force is not apt to prevent or neutralise violent actions which may endanger life, limb or health. Use of potentially lethal force (firearms) is authorised in case of necessity in the situations and conditions regulated by the Firearms Regime Act. Like the 2016 amendments in respect of firearms, the 2019 amendments prescribe mandatory training for police staff in the manner and conditions of use of all means of restraint. They also specify that this training must take account of the relevant case-law of the national courts and of the European Court. A handbook issued in December 2019 provides practical instructions to police staff on applying the main police measures. By-laws issued by the Minister of Interior in 2007 and 2010 regulate the planning of patrol and other police operations and set up a “coordination and task tracing” group, inter alia , to review such operations and identify possible dysfunctions. As regards the application of the legislative framework, the authorities indicate that over the past four years, the Romanian Police General Inspectorate (“RPGI”) registered 666 incidents in which police staff used firearms. In 36 cases, the suspects were injured and in 8, the suspects lost their lives. Police were injured in 17 cases and one officer lost his life. This, in the authorities’ view, shows that the measures adopted have been effective in restricting the use of potentially lethal force. ... 3) Measures to improve the effectiveness of criminal investigations, court proceedings and domestic remedies - As regards criminal investigations: At the previous examination, the authorities referred to measures adopted by the General Prosecutor’s Office for the execution of judgments concerning the lack of effective investigations into allegations of torture or ill-treatment of persons placed under the authority of State agents (police staff and gendarmes), whose supervision had been closed by the Committee (see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)150 in Barbu Anghelescu (No. 1) group). As these measures, however, did not cover all investigations concerning the use of potentially lethal force by the police, the Committee encouraged the authorities to extend their application accordingly. In their latest submissions, the authorities indicate that this was done in April this year. The Prosecutor General issued new instructions that investigations into all offences against life and limb committed through use of weapons by State agents would be henceforth carried out by specially appointed prosecutors . These investigations are moreover subjected to a two-tiered monitoring first by specially appointed prosecutors in the offices attached to the Courts of Appeal and then by the GPO [General Prosecutor’s Office], whose specialised department can, if necessary, issue general guidance to improve their effectiveness. Cases involving use of weapons by State agents must be reported, from registration to the CPO’s criminal investigation and forensic section. - As regards court proceedings: At the previous examination, the Committee invited the authorities to indicate whether measures had also been taken or were envisaged to guarantee an effective judicial review of the relevant investigations. The authorities have not provided new information on this question. - As regards remedies: The authorities consider that the measures adopted to guarantee the effectiveness of the investigations will enable victims or their next-of-kin to obtain redress through a civil action brought against the agent responsible or the State within criminal proceedings or subsequent to them. ... Analysis by the Secretariat ... 1) Issues related to the use of potentially lethal force and the planning and control of law enforcement operations ... - the law still lacks any provisions aimed at guaranteeing that law enforcement operations, including those involving special intervention units, are prepared and directed in such a way as to avoid, as far as possible, the use of potentially lethal force. This gap in the legal protection of the right to life was at the origin of the violation in Andreea-Marusia Dumitru , where the Court noted the lack of preparation, direction, and assessment of the possible risks entailed by the operation which had put the applicant’s life in danger. It moreover appears that the lack of such provisions in the primary legislation may lead to impunity for the State agents responsible for the planning and direction of operations, following the Constitutional Court’s 2016 ruling clarifying the conditions in which officials can be held criminally accountable for negligence in performance of their duties. The authorities could be requested rapidly to address these remaining deficiencies in the legal framework. 2) Issues related to criminal investigations and court proceedings and civil law remedies - As regards criminal investigations: The Court did not criticise the legal framework but the manner in which the investigations at issue had been carried out. It noted significant delays, shortcomings in the taking of evidence and insufficient public scrutiny and protection of the applicants’ interests during the investigation. Where the investigation concerned an operation involving special intervention forces, the Court found it insufficiently thorough because the relevant authorities had failed to address the issue of the planning and control, including whether the presence of the special forces had been necessary and in accordance with the law ( Ciorcan and Others , § 126). As noted at its previous examination, the Committee had deemed adequate the measures adopted by the authorities to address similar shortcomings in the investigation of allegations of serious human rights violations at the hands or under the control of law enforcement officials ( Anghelescu Barbu (No. 1) group). It is therefore positive that, in response to the Committee’s last decision in the present cases, the General Prosecutor has recently ensured that all cases concerning use of lethal or potentially lethal force by law enforcement officials are likewise assigned to experienced prosecutors and that the manner these investigations