CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 7 décembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s945796C9 { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s538D183F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sD37EA1D5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .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 } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sADAE7E8B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:55.95pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:8.4pt; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sABFE26FE { margin:6pt 1.8pt 6pt 21.25pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6A237920 { margin:6pt 1.8pt 6pt 55.95pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:8.4pt; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC7411871 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF74FAE64 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8.5pt } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s316E9F12 { 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-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s599F5480 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4B52A9A9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5DCE77A9 { 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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s8D17D8A5 { width:127.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F528BB2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6EED30A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF V v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC (Application no. 26074/18)     JUDGMENT Art 2 (substantive) • Life • Positive obligations • Use of force • Patient admitted for acute care in psychiatric hospital, unsuccessfully restrained in prone position by police, dead following repeated tasing and nurse’s administration of tranquiliser • Absence of strategy and measures to prevent and limit use of means of restraint • State’s failure to put in place appropriate legal and administrative framework Art 2 (procedural) • Inadequate investigation   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 7 December 2023   FINAL   07/03/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of V v. the Czech Republic, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georges Ravarani , President ,   Lado Chanturia,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   María Elósegui,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   26074/18) against the Czech Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Czech national (“the applicant”), on 30 May 2018; the decision to give notice to the Czech Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by the Czech Public Defender of Rights, who was granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; the decision to grant anonymity to the applicant   ; Having deliberated in private on 19 September and 7 November 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the death of the applicant’s brother, hospitalised in a psychiatric hospital following the use of a taser by the police and administration of a tranquiliser by a hospital nurse, as well as the ensuing criminal investigation into the circumstances of his death (Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention). THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Brno. She was represented by Mr M. Matiaško, a lawyer practising in Prague. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5 .     The applicant’s brother P.Z., suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, was a long-term outpatient of the Psychiatric Clinic of Olomouc University Hospital (“the clinic”). EVENTS AT THE CLINIC 6 .     On the evening of 5 November 2015, a member of P.Z.’s family called an emergency line, stating that P.Z., who was 30 years old at the time, had become aggressive and had been threatening members of his family. At 9.30   p.m. he was taken by ambulance – accompanied by a police patrol – to the clinic and was then admitted to its acute care unit. The staff on duty that night comprised one female doctor, two female nurses and one medical orderly. After the doctor examined him and established his medical history – noting, inter alia , that he had been treated for paranoid schizophrenia since 2005 and for hypertension since 2015 and that he had taken an unspecified drug – P.Z., who had already calmed down by that time, agreed to be administered anti-psychotic medication (Haloperidol and Apaurin) and was placed in an ordinary room. The Government submitted in their observations that all the intensive care rooms had been fully occupied at the time. 7 .     Early the next morning, at around 4 a.m., P.Z. (who was 1.88 m tall and weighed 127 kg) began to grow restless, so the nurses started preparing an intensive care room for him (equipped with a solid metal door and a bed with magnetic straps to restrain aggressive patients) by moving another patient out. Following a verbal altercation with the staff, P.Z. began to destroy fixtures and furnishings, breaking a washbasin and several doors (including the doors to other patients’ rooms). When the orderly tried to prevent him from grabbing a fire hose, P.Z. knocked him to the ground and started beating him severely, shoving a doctor out of the way. According to subsequent accounts of the incident given to the police by the staff on duty that day, P.Z. had tried to strangle the orderly with the fire hose; he had clearly been highly agitated and capable of killing when he had attacked the orderly, causing him to fear for his life. He had then started ripping out ceiling tiles and pulling out electrical wires and spraying water onto them. After two security guards (not armed) called by the staff had tried and failed to subdue P.Z., at 4.53 a.m. a nurse had called a police emergency line; four police officers – P., S., Š. and   T. – had subsequently arrived at the hospital at around 5 a.m. According to the applicant, who cited the below-mentioned report issued by the Public Defender of Rights (see paragraph 26 below), P.Z.’s behaviour had, in principle, been defensive and had indicated an increased level of restlessness, given that he had been acting calmly until he had realised that the nurses were preparing a seclusion room for him (upon which he had engaged in a verbal confrontation with the medical orderly). Indeed, his posture at the time in question would have indicated his wish to maintain a clear space around himself rather than a desire to launch an attack; moreover, he had not a priori attacked the orderly – rather, he had simply not wanted to allow the orderly to take the fire hose away from him, which was why a fight over it had begun. He had only started damaging the ceiling and the wiring at a later point, when he had seen the police officers approaching. The police officers had acted very quickly and had only briefly first consulted one of the nurses, who had not witnessed the attack and who had told them only that P.Z. had been aggressive and presented a “severe psychosocial disability”; his health status, in terms of medication or hypertension, had not been discussed, and nor had there been any attempt to communicate with P.Z. or to turn off the water or electricity supply. The Public Defender of Rights (see paragraph 26 below) acknowledged that P.Z. had posed a serious threat to the paramedics and the doctor, but considered that the latter had already been out of danger by the time the police officers had arrived. According to her report, there had been no imminent threat to others at that point because he had not been “moving in” on them. P.Z. had nevertheless posed a threat to the property of the clinic and, given that he had been spraying water on exposed cables, had created a risk of short circuit. 8 .     The subsequent police intervention took place in a 2.25-metre-wide corridor right outside the patients’ rooms. According to the police officers, they had had to intervene without delay (after only briefly conferring with each other), since P.Z.’s spraying water on electrical wires had threatened the lives of all those present. Using a mattress as a shield, two of them had approached P.Z. (who had ignored their warnings to desist in his behaviour), and had forced him to the ground. Owing to his physical strength and the intensity of his resistance, they had been able neither to restrain him nor to force his hands behind his back; the two other police officers –   P.   and   T. – had been unable to help them owing to the fact that there had been only restricted space in which to manoeuvre. Deeming that all the conditions for using a taser had been met, and given that other means of coercion (tear gas, stun grenade, firearms) could not be used or would have been ineffective, T. had decided to fire his taser (but only after first warning P.Z. to desist in his behaviour), aiming at the lower back area from a range of about 1.5   meters. Although the two taser darts had connected with P.Z.’s body and should have delivered a shock, P.Z. – who had still been lying down and holding the fire hose – had continued to put up active resistance, which had prevented officers S. and Š. from securing his hands and getting him under control. Accordingly, at S.’s request, T. had fired the taser again several times until S. had managed to partially immobilise P.Z.’s arm; this had enabled a nurse to administer two injections (Apaurin and Tisercin) to P.Z. (as instructed by the doctor). 9 .     The police officers’ description of the events tallies with the accounts given by the hospital security guards and by the doctor and the nurses on duty. They confirmed that (i)   P.Z.’s attack on the medical orderly had been very serious, leaving the latter in pain and in a state of shock (according to a subsequent forensic medical opinion, the orderly’s life had been in imminent danger – in particular because of the strangulation to which he had been subjected), (ii)   the police officers had been unsuccessful in subduing P.Z. and (iii)   P.Z. had still been screaming and trying to shake them off when the nurse had administered the medication to him at 5.05 a.m. According to the nurse, when P.Z. had been turned over onto his back after the injections had been administered, he had been slightly “cyanotic” in the face and had had no palpable pulse; the medical staff (assisted by the police officers) had therefore immediately embarked upon efforts to resuscitate him, using, among other things, an automated external defibrillator and adrenaline. A specialised team had arrived a few minutes later and had pursued the standard resuscitation procedure for forty-five minutes, but to no avail. At 6.08 a.m. the resuscitation efforts had been terminated and P.Z. pronounced dead – presumably as the result of a cardiac arrest. 10 .     On the very day of the intervention the four police officers drew up an official record regarding the coercive measures employed against P.Z. –   namely, various types of grips and holds, together with blows, kicks and the use of a taser. Concerning the latter measure, on 21 November 2015 T. added to the record the fact that he had used his taser in order to overcome P.Z.’s resistance, because P.Z. had posed an imminent threat to the life and health of all the persons present (including other patients), and also to prevent him from further damaging medical facilities and equipment. In T.’s view, under the circumstances, it had been clear and beyond doubt that, given P.Z.’s physical stature, less severe means would not have been effective. 11 .     The incident was recorded on several video cameras in the clinic building; the footage showed, inter alia , P.Z. attacking the orderly and the doctor, handling the fire hose and spraying water onto live electrical wires, and being approached by police officers holding a mattress in front of themselves. The video camera whose footage directly captured the police officers’ intervention against P.Z. stopped working at 5.02 a.m. on the day of the intervention; according to a subsequent expert opinion, the outage had been caused by P.Z. spraying water. 12.     According t o the software record of the taser used in the incident, it was fired three times: the first discharge lasted for eight seconds, the second for eleven seconds, and the third for ten seconds. ENSUING INVESTIGATION General Inspectorate of the Security Forces and the prosecution authorities 13 .     P.Z.’s death was directly reported to the General Inspectorate of the Security Forces (hereinafter “the GISF”), which immediately initiated criminal proceedings for negligent homicide ( usmrcení z nedbalosti ). 14 .     On 6 November 2015 the GISF examined the scene of the incident and secured evidence (including the above-mentioned taser record and video recordings) and requested an expert opinion regarding the time and cause of the damage to the video camera that had been recording the police intervention (see paragraph 11 in fine above). The intervening police officers were instructed to draw up official reports on the use of coercive measures (see paragraphs 8 and 10 above), which they did on the very same day; an autopsy of P.Z.’s body was performed at 10 a.m., and experts in forensic medicine and toxicology were commissioned to produce an expert report (see paragraph 18 below). 15.     Between 20 and 24 November 2015 the GISF asked the Olomouc Regional Police Directorate to produce documents relating, inter alia , to the training undergone by the intervening police officers, to the taser used and to the supplier thereof; it also asked the Directorate to provide it with the audio recording of the call made to the police on 6 November 2015 by the clinic staff to report P.Z.’s aggressive behaviour. 16 .     Between 25 November and 8 December 2015 the GISF interviewed the nurses, the doctor and the hospital security guards who had been on duty on the day of the incident, and the police instructor who had trained officer   T. in the use of tasers. Officers T., S. and Š. were heard on 26 November 2015, and officer P. on 2 December 2015. After they had provided their account of events, questions were posed to them by the investigator regarding (i)   whether they had received training in the use of tasers and been instructed as to the circumstances in which tasers should not be used, (ii)   whether and when the water valve had been shut off, and (iii)   their assessment of P.Z.’s frame of mind and behaviour before the intervention. 17 .     Subsequently the GISF requested information and material pertaining to: taser testing on humans; the training programme and the content of the training provided to Czech police officers in the use of tasers; the technical information registered on the memory chip of the taser used in the present case; the audio recording of the phone call made by P.Z.’s brother on 5   November 2015; a full copy of P.Z.’s medical records; and a copy of the above-mentioned expert opinion regarding the injuries suffered by the medical orderly. 18 .     On 2 March 2016 an expert report was drawn up by three medical experts, according to which the immediate cause of P.Z.’s death had been cardiac arrhythmia, which had disrupted the supply of blood to all organs, so that it had not been possible to restore a regular heartbeat by means of resuscitation. The experts deemed that, in this particular case, the absence of pertinent data rendered it impossible to establish unequivocally whether and to what extent the death had been due to natural causes. On the other hand, cardiac arrhythmia could have many causes, ranging from hormonal disorders, stress and strain (which could be generated by a psychotic episode), to side-effects of certain drugs – including those used by and administered to P.Z. Furthermore, P.Z.’s autopsy had revealed anomalies in the course of the blood vessels supplying the heart muscle with blood ( anomálie v průběhu tzv. věnčitých tepen srdečních, tj. cév, zásobujících srdeční sval krví ), but the experts were unable to establish the relevance of that anomaly to P.Z.s sudden death. Lastly, the experts noted that the fact that P.Z. had been repeatedly tasered (even though the electrical discharges had not been directly aimed at the chest and heart area) might be viewed as a possible contributory cause of his uncontrollable arrhythmia disorder. The experts were not asked to comment on any possible interaction between the medication that had been administered to P.Z. and the use of the taser. 19 .     On 6 April 2016, the GISF issued a decision setting aside the case of suspected negligent homicide by T., holding that the investigation had led to the unequivocal conclusion that the police intervention against P.Z. had been in accordance with applicable law and internal police regulations. The GISF noted that T. had been authorised to use a taser and properly trained in that respect, and that his choice to use it had been fully in line with the rules on the use of coercive measures. In their view, P.Z.’s behaviour had posed a direct threat to the lives of the intervening police officers and other persons in the vicinity, and there had been no other way of eliminating that risk. Moreover, because P.Z. had continued to actively resist even after the initial tasering, T.   had continued to fire the taser repeatedly (in compliance with all safety precautions and rules), aiming at points away from the heart and other vital organs. In the light of the above, the GISF concluded that no blame for P.Z.’s death could be attributed to any particular person or action. 20 .     P.Z.’s family lodged a request for review of that decision, which the Ostrava Regional Prosecutor’s Office rejected as ill-founded on 2 May 2016. The Office found no wrongdoing (either on the part of the police officers or the hospital), deeming that the use of a taser had been justified in view of the fact that the scene of the intervention had been too confined for all the police officers present to participate in subduing P.Z.; it further found that the repeated firing of the taser had been necessary because of P.Z.’s continuing resistance. Furthermore, given the circumstances of the present case, neither the police officers nor the doctor on duty could have foreseen P.Z.’s cardiac anomaly. 21 .     The applicant challenged that decision by means of lodging a request for supervision with the Olomouc High Prosecutor’s Office. She was informed on 13 October 2016 that no shortcomings had been determined in the procedure followed by the police and the Ostrava Regional Prosecutor’s Office, whose conclusions could thus be upheld. 22.     On 21 November 2017, the Constitutional Court (by decision no.   IV.   ÚS 4150/16) dismissed as manifestly ill-founded a constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant. It held that the investigation authorities had not breached their statutory obligations and had based their decisions on sufficient and comprehensive rea soning. Other authorities 23 .     On 6 March 2017, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Olomouc Regional Authority regarding the poor standard of the healthcare services afforded to P.Z. during his hospitalisation at the clinic. 24 .     In an expert psychiatric opinion, an independent medical expert found that the procedure followed by the medical staff in this case had been entirely lege artis and that there had been no direct link between P.Z.’s death and his medical treatment, which had included an injection of standard anxiolytic medication. 25 .     On 26 October 2017, referring to that opinion, the regional authority dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded. 26 .     The circumstances of P.Z.’s death were also examined, on her own initiative, by the Public Defender of Rights. In her report of 26 May 2017, which was based on the written material available and the investigation file, she stated (emphasis removed): “A.     Object and outcome of the examination Regarding the issue of the nature of a taser as a means of coercion in the legal system of the Czech Republic: A taser should be perceived as a law-enforcement device [carrying] a lower risk of causing death (less lethal) [but] a high risk of causing unnecessary pain – not as an inherently non-lethal device, as it is currently perceived by Czech law and the common practice of the Czech Republic’s police force. Czech legislation should therefore reflect the real risks associated with the use of tasers as a means of law enforcement and with its actual nature as a less lethal weapon, but [one which is nevertheless] unequivocally lethal. In my opinion, it is completely inappropriate for tasers to be legally classified [as being] among the ordinary law enforcement devices provided by the Police Act, as its nature and level of dangerousness are more akin to [those of] weapons. This should also be reflected in the legal requirements and conditions [governing] its use in practice – including, of course, the corresponding training and education of police officers who are equipped with tasers, as well as [that of] their colleagues and their supervisors. The training of police officers itself is currently burdened by three basic deficiencies. Firstly, officers are not given full and realistic information about the dangers of tasers, which they consequently regard as a non-lethal means of law enforcement, without being aware of the actual and real risks associated with its use. The training of police officers in this respect also lacks emphasis on [the need for] special caution when dealing with persons [who pose] risk factors. Furthermore, I consider that it is not sufficient to train only those police officers who are physically in possession of [a taser]. I consider it essential that training should also be extended to [those] colleagues of these officers and [those of] their supervisors who may come into contact with tasers in practice or who have a duty to monitor the use of a taser by a subordinate officer. Last but not least, I believe that ... police officers who are to be in possession of a taser and be authorised to use it should be [selected] according to predetermined criteria – including a high level of resistance to stress. As regards the investigated intervention [undertaken by] the Czech Republic’s police force and the subsequent [investigation into] the use of a taser: ... In the case under investigation, the supervisors of the intervening officers did not in fact carry out [any investigation into] the use of coercive measures –or [if they did, they] did so in only a formalistic manner, as they had in fact no objective information at their disposal. The official records [drawn up by] the intervening officers regarding the use of coercive measures lacked a detailed description of the events, on the basis of which it would have been possible to assess the appropriateness of their use. Oversight mechanisms within the police therefore need to be improved in respect of the use of tasers. Records of their use should be sufficiently detailed and informative (and include a record of the time and duration of each discharge and a description of the situation and the person’s behaviour throughout the intervention in question). Supervisors must not take a formalistic approach to assessment and should be adequately trained for this purpose ... In respect of preventive and methodological activities in the field of the protection of persons suffering from mental disorders: From the case under investigation, it is clear from a strategic and methodological point of view that it would be very useful in future to coordinate the practices of police officers and medical staff in hospitals in the event of an intervention. This means ensuring [that there are] both sufficient methodological guidance and functioning oversight mechanisms within the Czech Republic’s police force and medical institutions through the Ministry of Health, as well as establishing cooperation and coordination between those two segments, whose members shall then deal with the situations that arise in practice. In the Czech Republic, increased attention should be paid to protecting persons with mental disorders. Among other things, regular training should be provided to persons who may come into contact with persons suffering from mental disorders during their work, and appropriate methodological guidance [should be provided] by the relevant public authorities ... C.     Evaluation of the matter ... For the above-noted reasons I am inclined to the view of the [European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment] and Amnesty International that a taser is to be seen as a means of coercion [carrying] a lower risk of causing death (being less lethal) [but carrying] a high risk of causing unnecessary pain, but not [as a means of coercion that is] inherently non-lethal, as it is currently perceived by Czech law and the [common] practice of the Czech Republic’s police force ... Legitimacy and proportionality of the police intervention in the case under examination In the case under examination – in which the police intervention was aimed at protecting lives and health of persons in the hospital – the police officers used against the victim a degree of force that was from the very beginning capable of amounting to ill-treatment and, under certain circumstances, also [causing] death ... However, as described above, police officers are not trained in the use of tasers in such a manner as to be made aware of the above-mentioned health risks ... Firstly, I would like to point out that I generally consider that the use of a taser in situations where the person concerned is on the ground, and two police officers are kneeling on top of him, as unreasonable and unacceptable. In my view, a taser cannot be used to facilitate the physical restraint of a person and as a substitute for the force [used in] other means of coercion. It can only be justified by the existence of a realistic and imminent threat to life or a danger of serious injury. In the case under review, such a reason appears to me to have [applied by reason of] the danger [posed by] the damaged power lines. Although I have paid great attention to reconstructing the course of events, I cannot say with certainty, in hindsight, whether this danger was in point of fact real or why the officers should not have considered it to be real and imminent. [P.Z.] posed a serious threat to the paramedics and the doctor, but when the officers entered the ward, they were already out of danger. A threat to others was not imminent because the patient was not ‘moving in’ on them. He [posed] a threat to the property of the clinic and the peace of the ward – given that he was shouting and spraying water – but this could have been dealt with by the police by turning off the water mains ... and perhaps – with a shield in the form of a mattress – they could have entered through the door and started negotiating. [P.Z.], however, at the sight of the officers, began to tear down the ceilings and spray water into the electrical wiring, and the officers unanimously stated that they had taken this into consideration [in reaching] their decision to act very quickly. This constitutes a very specific circumstance ... When it came to the use of force, the police officers at first chose a means of restraint other than a taser. A subsequent examination of the victim did not show that he had been subject to significant ill-treatment (that is, beating). The taser was used three times. All the police officers stated that the taser had been used while [P.Z.] had been putting up active resistance ... I believe that the intervening police officer acted according to how he had been trained ... I can only assume that the death of P.Z. was the result of an unfortunate combination of circumstances ... I also note that the experts gave their opinion on the [use of a] taser but not on the issue of positional asphyxia, which should have been examined in the instant case ... Therefore my conclusion is that in general terms, I consider it to be disproportionate to use a taser against a person who is lying on the ground and whom two or more police officers are trying to secure unless the situation is marked by exceptional, special circumstances that justify the need to secure the person [in question] and to end the situation in the shortest possible time. Such circumstances may include, for example, a risk of electric shock posed to officers, the secured person or other persons by exposed cables in a wet environment. Preventive and methodological activities in the field of police interventions in healthcare facilities aimed at protecting persons suffering from mental disorders ... The above-noted [evaluation] shows that the Czech Republic lacks sufficient analytical and strategic measures to protect persons with mental disorders, including regular training and methodological guidance [provided] by the relevant administrative authorities. The aim of such [measures] should be to prevent situations in which it is necessary to request the intervention of the Czech Republic’s police force. However, if police intervention is necessary, this activity should be aimed at minimising the use of force and [at developing,] through the use of appropriate tactics, alternatives to the use of force ... by the Czech Republic’s police force, the proper coordination of paramedics and police officers, etc. The legal expression of this objective is the above-mentioned positive obligations of the State arising from the right to life and the prohibition of ill- treatment.” RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE POLICE ACT (LAW NO. 273/2008) 27 .     Under section 51, a police officer is authorised, during an intervention, to use coercive measures and weapons that he or she has been trained to use. 28 .     Section 52 provides a list of coercive measures that a police officer is entitled to use; these include discharging a device with temporarily incapacitating effects that has the characteristics of a “firearm”, as defined by the Firearms Act. According to a commentary (Vangeli, B., 2 nd edition, 2014, C. H. Beck) cited by the Government, these devices are classified, in terms of their effects, as non-lethal devices , and include “flash-balls” (hollow rubber balls fired against the body of the perpetrator), and “tasers” (two dart projectiles –   electrical contacts carrying a conductive wire, which, after contact with the perpetrator’s body, create an electrical circuit and deliver an incapacitating electrical discharge to the body). All these devices are used principally to subdue perpetrators of violent crimes or perpetrators who are intoxicated or armed with a weapon [that is not a firearm]. They are therefore particularly useful in dangerous situations that would otherwise require the use of a firearm to maintain a safe distance from the perpetrator. 29.     Under section 53(1) and (3), police officers are entitled to use coercive measures to protect public order or their own or another person’s safety or property and to choose the coercive measure which will enable them to achieve the objective of the intervention in question and which is necessary to overcome the resistance of or an attack by the person concerned. Section   53(2) requires a police officer, before using a coercive measure, to call on the person concerned to desist from acting unlawfully, failing which coercive measures will be used; such a warning may be omitted if an individual’s life or health is in danger and the intervention cannot be delayed. Under section   53(4), police officers have the right to use an electrical coercive device only if the use of a different coercive measure would obviously not be sufficient to achieve the aim pursued by the intervention. Under section 53(5), when using coercive measures police officers must be sure not to cause such harm to the person concerned as would be disproportionate to the nature and level of dangerousness presented by that person’s unlawful conduct. 30.     Section 56(1) defines situations in which a police officer is authorised to use a weapon. These include (a)   for the purpose of self-defence or through necessity, (b)   situations in which a dangerous perpetrator refuses to surrender when called upon to do so by a police officer, and (c)   preventing the escape of a dangerous perpetrator whom the police officer in question would otherwise be unable to apprehend. 31 .     Under section 58(1), devices which have a temporarily incapacitating effect and which have the “characteristics of a firearm” cannot be discharged against evidently pregnant women, elderly persons, persons with an evident physical impairment or disease, or persons who are evidently under 15 years of age, unless there is an imminent threat to the life or health of a police officer or another person or there is a risk of substantial property damage that cannot be otherwise averted. INTERNAL POLICE REGULATIONS 32 .     According to a document entitled “Specific Police Training Programme P2/0232 – Training in the use of a taser as a coercive measure”, which was issued by the training division of the Police Presidium of the Czech Republic and which has been applicable since 1 September 2013, the aim of that training is to ensure that police officers use tasers in a safe and proficient manner. Point 3 of the document stipulates that the course’s target group is officers in the position of instructor responsible for the in-house training of a unit that has been assigned a taser for the exercise of duties. The criteria according to which the competence of participants in the training (once they have completed the course) is assessed include: the ability (i)   to recall and apply in practice the safety rules governing the use of a taser, (ii)   to describe the components of a taser and to handle it safely in practice, (iii)   to describe the different types of taser darts and their use and to explain their distribution with respect to their effectiveness, and (iv)   to explain the health risks associated with the use of a taser, and to use a taser correctly in practice. At the end of the training, the participants take an examination comprising a written test and a practical test of their ability to safely handle a taser in a simulated test situation. 33 .     The requirements and content of the training in the form that it has taken since 1 May 2018 are described in a document entitled “ Police Training Programme P2/0232 – The taser as a coercive measure”, issued by the police force’s education and in-house training unit. According to that document, the training should cover the health risks of using a taser and the safe handling of a taser; focus should also be placed on individuals who present risk factors in respect of the health-related risks of using a taser. 34 .     The system of organising and providing training to police officers on the use of tasers is governed by instruction no. 3/2015 of 29 October 2015 issued by the head of the Czech police’s education and in-house training unit. Under its Article 3, police officers are authorised to use a taser if they have completed a training course delivered by a properly certified instructor or lecturer under the police’s “TASER Training” programme. They are required to attend such training every two years and to take part in practical taser training at least twice a year. 35 .     Police Guide no. 1/2017 on the use of coercive measures and weapons by officers of the Czech Republic’s police force (updated on 1 July 2018), issued by the head of the Riot Police Service Directorate of the Police Presidium of the Czech Republic, details the conditions governing the use of coercive measures. It includes (in Part II) a description of a special procedure applicable to vulnerable persons. Part III of the guide deals, inter alia , with the use of electrical means of temporarily incapacitating a person (including tasers). According to the guide, police officers use electrical devices primarily against armed or aggressive individuals who have disobeyed a police officer’s command or instruction. The guide notes that the principle of subsidiarity applies also to the use of tasers: that is, in the event of an intervention in which other coercive measures have failed to overcome active resistance, the use of a taser constitutes a measure of last resort before a weapon is used. Moreover, when used from a distance, a taser should not be aimed at the facial area of the head, and medical treatment should be administered to an individual on whom a taser is used. law no. 349/1999 on the public defender of rights 36 .     Section 1(3) provides that the Public Defender of Rights carries out systematic visits to places where persons are deprived of their liberty, with a view to strengthening the protection of such persons from ill-treatment. Such places include healthcare facilities, facilities providing institutional care or protective treatment and social services facilities. 37.     Under section 9, the Public Defender of Rights can act upon an individual complaint, at the instigation of one of the chambers of the Czech Parliament and of their members, or at his or her own initiative. CASE-LAW OF THE CZECH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT 38 .     In its judgment no. I. ÚS 1974/14 of 23 March 2015, concerning a judicial review of the involuntary hospitalisation of a mentally disabled person, the Constitutional Court observed that, in the past, the rights of mentally disabled persons had often been overlooked and that such persons had been the object of stigmatisation, ostracisation, prejudice and serious human-rights violations; however, such marginalisation was no longer acceptable. The Constitutional Court was of the view that the fact that, historically, mentally disabled persons had constituted a vulnerable group should be reflected by adopting a particularly cautious interpretation of legal provisions concerning them, and that that interpretation should be fully compliant with their fundamental rights. Mentally disabled persons enjoyed all human rights; that fact ensured that they enjoyed the protection of and respect for their natural human dignity. 39 .     In its judgment no. I. ÚS 860/15 of 27 October 2015, which concerned the execution by the police of an order for the administrative expulsion of an alien, the Constitutional Court noted that such an act had to be conducted in a humane and respectful fashion. Like any other State security forces, the police were obliged to carry out interventions not only with respect for the dignity and rights of the persons concerned but also in a manner that enabled them to calm possible conflict-laden situations rather than escalating tensions or generating conflict. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS RECOMMENDATION REC(2004)10 OF THE COMMITTEE OF   MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE DIGNITY OF   PERSONS WITH MENTAL DISORDERS (ADOPTED ON   22   SEPTEMBER 2004) 40 .     The relevant parts of this Recommendation read as follows: Article 11 – Professional standards “1.     Professional staff involved in mental health services should have appropriate qualifications and training to enable them to perform their role within the services according to professional obligations and standards. 2.     In particular, staff should receive appropriate training on: i.     protecting the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with mental disorder; ii.     understanding, prevention and control of violence; iii.     measures to avoid restraint or seclusion; iv.     the limited circumstances in which different methods of restraint or seclusion may be justified, taking into account the benefits and risks entailed, and the correct application of such measures.” Article 32 – Involvement of the police “1.     In the fulfilment of their legal duties, the police should coordinate their interventions with those of medical and social services, if possible with the consent of the person concerned, if the behaviour of that person is strongly suggestive of mental disorder and represents a significant risk of harm to him or herself or to others. 2.     ... 3.     Members of the police should respect the dignity and human rights of persons with mental disorder. The importance of this duty should be emphasised during training. 4.     Members of the police should receive appropriate training in the assessment and management of situations involving persons with mental disorder, wh