CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 26 novembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sF3108B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; 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 } .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 } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { 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-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8BF9F9FB { width:7.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDEA351A4 { width:7.61pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s191D4665 { width:1.5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s9A6E8000 { width:6.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD4F9A385 { width:4.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6EB62E48 { width:10.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4A0E26D7 { width:3.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .s507990D1 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB9BE2 { 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-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sF900A6B { width:28.55pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s8A9246ED { width:158.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   FOURTH SECTION CASE OF A.P. v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 1718/21)     JUDGMENT   Art 2 (procedural and substantive) • Effective investigation into the death of the applicant’s son during a “heat march” while performing his compulsory military service • Insufficient evidence that the authorities’ acts or omissions were responsible for his death • Not shown that the reasonable measures the authorities failed to take would have had a real prospect of altering the outcome or mitigating the harm • Preventive positive obligation under Art 2 not breached   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 26 November 2024   FINAL   28/04/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of A.P. v. Austria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Tim Eicke , President ,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Faris Vehabović,   Branko Lubarda,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   Anne Louise Bormann , judges , and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 1718/21) against the Republic of Austria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Austrian national, Ms A.P. (“the applicant”), on 22 December 2020; the decision to give notice to the Austrian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the death of the applicant’s son during his compulsory military service and his treatment prior to his death, the investigation into the events in question and his right to physical and psychological integrity, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 20 February and 15 October 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     This case concerns the death of the applicant’s son while performing his compulsory military service and the criminal investigation into the circumstances leading to his death. It raises primarily issues under Article 2 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna. She was represented by Mr H. Graupner, a lawyer practising in Vienna. 3.     The Government were represented by their then Agent, Ambassador H.   Tichy, head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs. 4.     The facts of the case, as follows from the material in the case file submitted by the parties to the Court, may be summarised as follows.         Background to the case 5.     The applicant is the mother of T.P. who was born on 28 August 1997 and died on 3 August 2017. 6 .     On 30 January 2015 T.P. was declared fit for military service after undergoing the relevant medical examinations. 7 .     On 10 July 2017 T.P. commenced his compulsory military service, having been assigned to undertake his “basic training 1” ( Basisausbildung 1 ) as a member of the guard company in Horn. According to the standard medical examination to which he was subjected that day, he weighed 115 kg, measured 192 cm and had a blood pressure reading of 162 over 86. 8 .     On 28 July 2017 – that is, after the start of his military service – T.P. received two booster vaccinations (Boostrix against diphtheria, tetanus pertussis, and a second vaccination against polio).       The events of 3 August 2017    The morning exercises 9 .     On the morning of 3 August 2017 T.P. and his fellow conscripts participated in “station training” ( Stationsübungen ) starting at 7.40. They marched a distance of around 2 km to a shaded training location (in an area of forest) where certain skills in which they had been trained were tested; they returned on foot to the barracks at around 11.45 for their lunchbreak, which they spent in the shade. During the lunch break, the platoon commander – Warrant Officer (third class) M.G. – asked the conscripts how they felt and whether they were fit. No one reported any problem to him.    The afternoon march 10.     A 15-km-long cross-country “heat march” ( Hitzemarsch ) was scheduled to take place in the afternoon, as ordered by the company commander, First Lieutenant K.K., with the conscripts being divided into three different marching groups. T.P. was assigned to the second group. 11 .     In view of the predicted heat (well over 30˚C – see paragraphs 53 and 56 below) K.K. granted a lightening of the uniforms to be worn and equipment to be carried (which weighed a total of 24.73 kg – see paragraph   52 below). Extra water and fruit were also handed out, and water supply stations were set up along the route. Medical support was to be provided by an army emergency medic (Corporal M.S.) and by an army medic (Staff Sergeant O.M.) – with both, however, remaining at the barracks. The reason for M.S. remaining at the barracks was that another platoon was also carrying out a march that same day; O.M. remained at the barracks because he was on call for military ambulance duties that day. The first part of the march route was set to be in open terrain and the second part in a wooded valley, as cloudy skies had been forecast for late afternoon. 12.     Another fourteen conscripts – together with the squad leader, Lance Corporal A.W. – participated in the same marching group as T.P. They were questioned after T.P.’s death and reported the following. 13 .     The second marching group, including T.P., left the barracks at around 1.05 p.m. As T.S. (one of the conscripts) had indicated that he was having problems walking, he was assigned to the front of the group, and the pace and breaks were adjusted to T.S.’s needs and ability. It appears that T.P., unlike T.S., had not mentioned any problems. 14 .     During a break at around 2.00 p.m. after marching for approximately 3.4 km in direct sunshine, T.P. suddenly sat or lay down on the ground and complained that his feet and skin were burning. A.W. and some of his fellow conscripts urged T.P. to continue. According to the witness testimony of one conscript (T.Z. – see paragraph 47 below), A.W. was shouting at T.P., and the group of fellow conscripts was also talking to T.P. in a loud manner, with some being “on the edge” ( gereizt ) and some remaining passive. According to the witness testimony of another conscript (J.R. – see paragraph 48 below), the group became frustrated when the third marching group overtook them, and they consequently somewhat “escalated” their tone. Other conscripts then took T.P.’s weapon and rucksack so that he would not have to carry it. T.P. got up and continued walking – this time at the front of the group together with conscript T.S., so the marching pace was adjusted to suit those two conscripts. The group stopped again a short distance further on when T.P. again lay down on the ground, once more complaining that his feet and skin were burning. He said that he had already “given 120%” and could not go on. According to the witness testimony of one conscript (A.M. – see paragraph   41 below), T.P. asked A.W. why he did not believe him; he also asked for a doctor to be called. A.W. told the other conscripts to stand around T.P. to provide him with shade and to sprinkle him with water. T.P. became confused and disoriented, asking the other conscripts why they were spitting at him, before suddenly getting up and continuing walking while saying ‘let’s go on’ to his fellow conscripts. After walking about 20 to 40 meters, he fell to the ground, shaking and with his eyes rolling back into his head. 15 .     At first A.W. thought that T.P. was shamming, but he then realised that T.P. was not feigning distress and called his superior – the deputy platoon commander, Staff Sergeant M.R. – at 2.19 p.m. on his mobile telephone. M.R. arrived together with M.G. at around 2.45 p.m. in a pickup ( Pritschenwagen ) to collect T.P. and to take him back to the barracks, where the army emergency medic and the army medic were. M.R. several times showed T.P. differing numbers of fingers and asked him how many he could see. Each time T.P. gave the correct answer. M.R. then telephoned M.S., the emergency medic (see paragraph 11 above), at 2.48 p.m. to inform him of the state that T.S. was in. M.S. requested information regarding T.P.’s condition; when told that the latter was responsive and able to get into the vehicle on his own, he ordered that T.P. be brought back to the barracks. 16 .     On the way back to the barracks, T.P.’s condition worsened: he became more listless ( apathisch ) and eventually collapsed while still in the vehicle. M.R. called M.S. again, shortly after the first telephone call (around ten minutes later, according to M.S.) to inform him of T.P.’s collapse and also to ask him to call an emergency doctor. 17.     The Horn Red Cross was informed at 3 p.m. of a medical emergency at the barracks, and a (civilian) emergency doctor was telephoned at 3.03 p.m. 18 .     When the pickup arrived at the barracks at around 3.05 p.m., T.P. was no longer responsive. The security barriers were already open. M.S. was standing ready in front of the company building and pulled T.P. out of the vehicle using the Rautek manoeuvre ( Rautekgriff ), laid him down on the ground and checked his blood pressure which was no longer measurable. T.P.’s pulse was increased. M.S. could not apply an intravenous line, as he could not gain access to T.P.’s veins. At first, other servicemen were asked to bring a table to provide shade for T.P., which they did (placing it on its side against the sun); however, M.S. told them to remove it, as it was hindering his first-aid measures, and T.P. lay once more in the sun.    Intervention by the civilian medical emergency services 19 .     A Red Cross ambulance arrived at the barracks at 3.07 p.m. The Red Cross medics, G.P. and C.K., later testified (see paragraph 31 below) that they had found T.P. lying in a stable lateral position on the hot asphalt in the bright sunshine, without any shade, with a body temperature measured at over 42˚C and over 43.5˚C (the maximum levels) on their respective thermometers (that is, too high to measure). They tried to cool T.P. down and checked his medical data (which was to be provided to the emergency doctor, S.P., who arrived at 3.09 p.m.). S.P. performed first-aid ( Erste Hilfe ) measures and immediately took him to the next hospital, further trying to cool T.P. down during the journey. 20 .     The ambulance arrived at the hospital at 3.29 p.m. T.P. was taken to the cardiac intensive care unit, where attempts were made to cool him down. However, those attempts failed, and T.P.’s oxygen saturation level fell, prompting doctors to intubate him. Despite all further possible medical measures being taken, his blood circulation ceased. Attempts at resuscitation were made for over one hour, but he was eventually pronounced dead at 5.13   p.m. 21.     As it could not be excluded that T.P.’s death had been caused by an infection, all persons who had come into close contact with him were ordered to take antibiotics as a precautionary measure.     Criminal investigation into T.P.’s death 22 .     On the same day, both the Krems public prosecutor’s office ( Staatsanwaltschaft ) and the Austrian Federal Armed Forces instituted investigations into T.P.’s death under Articles 80 and 81 of the Criminal Code (negligent manslaughter and grossly negligent manslaughter – see paragraphs   116-117 below) and Article 33 § 1 of the Military Criminal Code (neglect of the duty of care by superiors and higher-ranking officers – see paragraph 122 below).    The autopsy 23 .     On the same day the public prosecutor’s office also ordered a forensic autopsy on the corpse, appointing as expert Dr D., a specialist in forensic medicine ( Facharzt für gerichtliche Medizin ) and a sworn and court-certified expert ( allgemein beeideter und gerichtlich zertifizierter Sachverständiger ). Dr D. was further requested to submit an expert report on the cause of death and on any third-party responsibility ( Fremdverschulden ). 24 .     On 7 August 2017 – that is to say four days after T.P.’s death – Dr D. performed the autopsy. 25 .     On 8 August 2017 Dr D. informed the public prosecutor’s office of his preliminary autopsy finding (which was subject to further investigations), according to which T.P. had died from cardiac arrest caused by overheating of the body brought about by a foot march ( Herzstillstand durch eine Überhitzung des Körpers, die durch einen Fußmarsch herbeigeführt wurde ). The applicant was also informed of that preliminary finding. 26 .     Between 8 August and 10 September 2017 four additional tests were performed by other specialised doctors and laboratories – namely, a PCR test and blood alcohol, toxicological, virological tests.    Testimony given by those present on 3 August 2017 27 .     Between 9 and 11 August 2017 the police questioned the three military commanders who had been present on the ground on the day of the events in question (M.G., M.R. and A.W.), the army emergency medic, the army medic and the paramedic (M.S., O.M. and F.R., respectively), the two Red Cross medics (G.P. and C.K.) and thirteen of the fourteen conscripts who had taken part in the same marching group as T.P. The fourteenth and last conscript (J.R.) was questioned on 18 August 2017.      Statements given by the three military commanders present at the events 28.     A.W. testified, inter alia , that he had noticed only after some time that T.P.’s condition had not improved and that, in addition to his physical problems, T.P. had manifested mental problems when the latter had thought that he was being spat at when the other conscripts had poured water on him. A.W. had then telephoned M.R. at 2.19 p.m. (see paragraph 15 above). 29.     M.R., who was questioned twice, testified that upon his and M.G.’s arrival at the scene of T.P.’s breakdown ( Zusammenbruch ), he had checked his vital signs and had found T.P. to be conscious and lucid. T.P. had been exhausted and sweaty but had been able to talk and count the fingers that M.R. had flashed at him. Furthermore, M.G. and he had helped T.P. to stand up, and T.P. had then got into the vehicle on his own. M.R. had continued to talk to T.P. during the drive. T.P. had become more and more listless and had slowly lost consciousness. At this point M.R. had realised the seriousness of the situation and had called M.S. 30.     M.G. testified that on the day of the events in question, he had spent the whole lunch break with the conscripts, who had all seemed fit to him and none of whom had reported any problem to him. He had been standing near M.R. when the latter had been telephoned by A.W. at 2.19 p.m., saying that T.P. “could go on no longer” ( dass T.P. nicht mehr könne ). There was no mention of T.P. having lost consciousness or suffering from some other serious complaint. When he and M.R. had reached the marching group, T.P. had been responsive and conscious. They had helped T.P. get up and had taken him to the vehicle, supporting him to take the few steps to the vehicle; T.P. had got into the vehicle on his own. After T.P.’s condition had started to deteriorate during the journey, they had called M.S., who had been waiting for them when they had arrived at the barracks a few minutes later. T.P. had no longer been responsive. M.S. had had to pull T.P. from the vehicle with a special rescue grip. During this manoeuvre, T.P. had thrown up. M.G. also stated that on the day in question, the temperature had been higher than normal but not extreme, and that no other participants of the march had had any problems.      Statements by the Red Cross medical personnel 31 .     The two Red Cross medics, G.P. and C.K., testified that upon their arrival at the barracks, they had found T.P. lying on the ground in the bright sunshine, without any shade, with a body temperature of over 43.5˚C that could no longer be measured (see paragraph 19 above).      Statements by the army medical personnel 32 .     M.S. testified, inter alia , that on 2 August 2017 – that is to say the day before the events in question – he had been in the area of the march route in a vehicle for the whole time that another platoon had been undertaking the same march. There had been minor complaints from some conscripts, and two others had been unable to continue the march for physical reasons and had had to be driven back to the barracks in a vehicle. On 3 August 2017 – that is, on the day of the events in question – M.S. had remained in the barracks, it having been agreed that he would be informed via radio or telephone call in the event of need. At 2.48 p.m. he had been called by M.R., who had informed him that T.P. could no longer continue and that he would be brought back. When he had asked about the state that T.P. was in, M.S. had been told that T.P. was responsive and had got into the vehicle on his own. M.S. had received another call at around 2.57 p.m. T.P. had no longer been responsive when the pickup had arrived at the barracks. 33.     F.R. testified that two servicemen had placed a table on its side in front of T.P. when the latter had been brought to the barracks so that T.P. could lie in the shade.      Statements by the other conscripts 34 .     When questioning the other conscripts who had been in the same marching group as T.P., the police verified the statements that they had given to the military investigating committee (see paragraphs 100-101 below). All upheld their previous statements, and no one indicated that they had been subjected to pressure when testifying before the military investigating committee.    T.S. 35 .     T.S. testified, inter alia , that at times during the march T.P. had said incomprehensible things. Suddenly the latter had had a breakdown, saying that his skin and lungs were burning. Overall T.P. had seemed to be confused.    L.R. 36.     L.R. testified, inter alia , that T.P. had stated that he could no longer march and that T.P. had kept saying “I am burning – I cannot go on; I have given everything – I have already given 120%”. While at first it had not seemed to be an emergency, at some point it had no longer been possible to talk normally with T.P., who had started to talk incoherently and who had become obviously confused. When M.G. and M.R. had arrived, T.P. had been rather confused and shaking. Although T.P. had correctly answered questions about the numbers of fingers he had been shown, he had not been looking well.    A.Pr. 37.     A.Pr. testified, inter alia , that T.P. had been saying “I cannot go on; you know I always give 120% – I am on fire”. At first A.Pr. had thought that T.P. was shamming; he had only realised that T.P. really did have a health problem when he had started to talk more and more incoherently. A.Pr. had thought that it was a simple case of sunstroke. By the time that M.G. and M.R. had arrived, T.P. had been quite out of it. Although T.P. had answered the above-mentioned test questions correctly, he had not given a good impression of his well-being.    N.Z. 38.     N.Z. testified, inter alia , that T.P. had stated that he had already “given 120%”. T.P. had been talking in an ever more crazy manner – among other things calling them bad names. Although T.P.’s answers to the above ‑ mentioned test questions had been correct, he had given a bad impression of his state of health. T.P. had only been able to stand up with the help of M.G. and M.R., and when walking to the above-mentioned vehicle had been supported by them.    R.R. 39.     R.R. testified, inter alia , that when T.P. had sat down, they had loudly tried to get him to keep moving and that when the third marching group had overtaken them, they had become quite indignant. T.P. had loudly refused to move and had become more aggressive. At that point the first doubts had arisen as to whether T.P. was faking. T.P. had kept on saying “I am on fire – I cannot go on; I have given everything”. T.P. had then become increasingly confused. By the time that A.W. had called his superior it had not been possible anymore to talk normally with T.P. Although T.P. had answered the above-mentioned test questions correctly, he had not given a good impression of his state of health.      A.N. 40.     A.N. testified, inter alia , that at the beginning he and his comrades had thought that T.P. was shamming. When T.P. had started to talk in a confused manner, they had realised that something was wrong with him. Owing to their keenness to beat the other marching groups, the attitude of A.W. and his fellow conscripts had become more aggressive when T.P. had become unwilling or unable to continue, as they had felt that he was holding them back.    A.M. 41 .     A.M. testified, inter alia , that it had taken about twenty minutes for A.W. to call someone to come and pick up T.P. During those twenty minutes, T.P. had said several times that a doctor should be called. A.M. stated that he could very well remember that T.P. had said to A.W. “I am burning – I cannot go on; I have given 120%, call a doctor – why do you not believe me? Call a doctor!” ( “Ich brenne, ich kann nicht mehr, ich habe 120% gegeben, rufen sie den Arzt, warum glauben sie mir nicht, rufen sie den Doktor!” ). A.M. further noted that A.W. had, however, wanted them to continue and at first had not called anyone, although he had had his mobile telephone in his hand.    C.S. 42.     C.S. testified, inter alia , that T.P. had said to A.W. “You know I always give 100% – I am already at 120%; I really cannot go on anymore”. At first, T.P.’s behaviour had seemed exaggerated. But then T.P.’s answers to their questions had ceased to make any sense, T.P. had been saying incoherent things. When they had sprinkled water on him, T.P. had asked why they were spitting at him. They had shouted at him that he should get up. Suddenly he had got up and had started walking again. Three of the group had followed him; T.P. had then swung his bag (containing his gasmask) around and had sat down again. They had sat him up; T.P. had been shaking all over his body and had rolled his eyes. C.S. had then left the scene as he could not stand what he was seeing.      M.O. 43.     M.O. testified, inter alia , that T.P. had lain down on the ground, saying that he could not continue and that he had “given 120%”. The group had encouraged him to continue until the next shady spot, and other conscripts had carried T.P.’s rucksack for him. After about another 100   metres, T.P. had lain down again and had said that his body was “burning”. Eventually T.P. had begun to talk strangely and had no longer been able to say a coherent sentence. Although T.P. had answered the test questions given to him correctly, M.O. had known that something was wrong because T.P. had been looking very strange. M.O. added that the evening before, K.K. had told the conscripts, as regards the march, that those “who can moan, can also walk”.      T.Sa. 44.     T.Sa. testified, inter alia , that it had been rather unusual for T.P. to show that he had problems, as T.P. had until that march not indicated that he had any problems during his military service, nor during the first march that he had undertaken. T.P. had said “I cannot [walk] anymore – you know I always give 120%”. They had not thought that it was an emergency; some in the group had thought T.P. was shamming. When A.W. had called his superior, T.Sa. had heard A.W. saying that T.P. could not walk anymore. Looking back, T.Sa. remembered that T.P.’s forehead had been very hot.    S.S. 45.     S.S. testified, inter alia , that T.P. had seemed to be less focused in the morning than he was normally: for example, while conducting a safety check of his rifle he had dropped the barrel several times on the floor. When T.P.’s problems during the march had started, T.P. had said that he could not go on anymore, but that he had “given 120%”. The group had tried to motivate T.P. to continue but T.P. had remained sitting on the ground and had said “my skin is burning, I am burning, I am so hot”. S.S. had then realised that T.P. was not shamming.      D.S. 46.     D.S. testified, inter alia , that T.P. had said several times “I cannot anymore; I do not want to anymore – I have already given 120%”, and later other things such as “I am burning, I am dying”. In approximately the last ten minutes before the arrival of the conscripts’ superiors, T.P. had been speaking in an extremely incoherent manner and had undertaken senseless actions (such as swinging his bag [containing his gas mask] around). It had been clear to D.S. that T.P. had required medical assistance. T.Z. 47 .     T.Z. testified, inter alia , that when T.P. had lain down next to a bush where there had been a bit of shade, A.W. had shouted at him “What are you doing? Get up!”, to which T.P. had replied several times that he could not anymore. The group had also tried loudly to motivate T.P. to continue marching. At the next break T.P. had again lain down on the ground, saying several times “I cannot anymore”. A.W. had shouted at him several times to get up. Most of the rest of the group had been “on the edge” at that point, and some had been passive. Another five to ten minutes later, T.P.’s condition had begun to worsen. A.W. had continued to ask him to get up. T.P. had then begun to be visibly less calm, repeating constantly “I am burning; I am burning”. A.W. had ordered others to give T.P. water. T.Z. had supported T.P.’s head, which had felt burning hot. T.P. had spat out most of the water. After A.W. had realised T.P.’s condition, he had telephoned his superior for help. It had felt as though about fifteen minutes had passed between T.P. lying on the ground and A.W.’s call for help. T.P.’s condition had then deteriorated rapidly. After suddenly getting up and continuing walking, T.P. had swung his bag (containing his gasmask) around and had gone to ground again. When T.Z. had reached him, T.P.’s eyes had been rolled back into his head ( T.P. hatte verdrehte Augen ): it had only been possible to see the whites of his eyes ( man sah nur mehr das “Weiβe” ), and T.P. had been shaking. T.Z. had supported T.P.’s head and had again felt the extreme heat of his body. T.Z. added that before the march, K.K. had said that if they were capable of moaning, grumbling and complaining of pain, they were also capable of continuing to march.    J.R. 48 .     J.R. testified, inter alia , that T.P. had said that he could not go on anymore and that T.P. had wanted to be driven back to base. When the third marching group had overtaken them, the group had become frustrated because T.P. and T.S. had been holding them back. J.R. and the rest of the group had been very motivated to finish the march, which was why they had “escalated” their tone somewhat. It had only been after A.W.’s telephone call to his superiors and when waiting for their arrival that J.R. had realised that T.P. was not shamming.    Other developments (from August until October 2017) in the investigation 49 .     On 10 August 2017 the public prosecutor’s office took possession of all medical files relating to T.P., together with extracts from the general ledger of the barracks for 2 and 3 August 2017. 50 .     On 11 August 2017 Dr D. informed the public prosecutor’s office that during an examination of T.P.’s blood conducted by a specialised medical laboratory (see paragraph 26 above), two germs (haemophilus influenzae and streptococcus pneumoniae) had been found in his blood although no signs of infection on the organs had been found during the autopsy. It had been an acute infection. The introduction of germs into the blood had caused the high fever and had been capable of causing sepsis. This form of the disease was extremely rare, Dr D. having seen so far only two or three such cases. The applicant was also informed of these preliminary toxicological findings. 51.     On 17 August 2017, following media reports claiming that during the march held one day before the events in question, some 20 conscripts had allegedly lost consciousness, the police inspected the medical records of the barracks. They found medical notes concerning two conscripts who had participated in the march. Both had been brought back to the barracks in a vehicle after having reported their health problems (see also paragraph 32 above). 52 .     On 21 August 2017 the police weighed the material which the conscripts had had to carry during the march, making up a total of 24.73 kg together with the assault rifle. They also documented the route of the march until T.P.’s breakdown and the way back to the barracks. 53 .     On 22 August 2017 the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics reported to the police that the temperatures in Horn on 3 August 2017 had been between 34 and 35˚C at 1 p.m. and 36˚C at 3 p.m. 54 .     On 25 August 2017 the applicant declared to join the criminal proceedings as a private party in accordance with Article 67 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 125 below). 55.     On 5 September 2017 the police reported to the public prosecutor’s office that the only two time references that could be established with absolute certainty were 2.19 p.m. for A.W.’s telephone call to M.R. and 3   p.m. for the telephone call to the medical emergency number (144) concerning an emergency at the barracks. The other time references mentioned by the witnesses could not be objectively ascertained. 56 .     On 6 October 2017 the applicant lodged an application with the public prosecutor’s office requesting that certain further investigative steps be undertaken. She also submitted information that she had received from the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics attesting to the following temperatures in Horn for 3 August 2017: 29.2˚C at 9 a.m., 35.9˚C at 1 p.m., 36.1˚C at 2 p.m. and 35.6˚C at 3 p.m. The information given by the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics to the police concerning temperature levels on 3 August 2017 differed slightly (see paragraph 53 above). Furthermore, the highest temperatures recorded on each of the days between 31 July and 2 August 2017 varied from over 32 to over 35˚C. 57 .     On 14 October 2017 the applicant requested that further specific items of evidence be gathered.    Dr D.’s expert report of 20 October 2017 58 .     On 20 October 2017 Dr D. submitted the expert report requested by the public prosecutor’s office (see paragraph 23 above), containing twenty ‑ two-pages. The report concluded that the cause of T.P.’s death had been heart failure caused by the overheating of his body, in conjunction with an acute septic inflammation ( infolge einer akuten, septischen Entzündung und Überwärmung im Herz ‑ Kreislaufversagen gestorben ) – two different bacteria were found in his blood – and that it had not been possible for others to recognise the signs of bacterial infection before the point at which T.P. broke down, as he had not complained previously of feeling unwell or ill. The relevant parts of Dr D.’s expert report read as follows. “T.P. died as a result of acute septic inflammation and hyperthermia [leading to] cardiovascular failure. ... In summary, according to the results of the post-mortem and associated examinations, T.P. ultimately died from cardiovascular failure caused by an acute, septic inflammation following infection by two pathogenic germs which – combined with overheating due to physical exertion, high outside temperatures and sunlight – led to an increase in body temperature to over 43˚C and consequently to a state of collapse [ Kollapszustand ] with respiratory and circulatory failure. The high outside temperature of about 35˚C at the time of the incident, a physically strenuous walk (partly in the sun, and carrying a load of almost 25 kg), [the fact that T.P. was] already exhausted from physical exertion ... in the morning, and the fact that T.P. [was] significantly overweight may [all] have contributed to T.P. being massively overheated ... both from outside and by exertion [combined with] a reduced [level of natural] heat dissipation and by fever due to illness. The fact that no inflammatory foci had thus far developed in the internal organs ... indicates [that] a peracute event [ perakutes Geschehen ] [took place]. ... It was not possible – without a medical examination – for outsiders [ Aussenstehende ] to recognise the illness and the threatening nature of the condition until the time of [T.P.’s] breakdown [ Zusammenbruch ] during the march – especially given that symptoms of illness were also masked by the appearance of exhaustion, which initially appeared harmless in view of the external stress [to which T.P. was subjected] and which was, moreover, tolerable in a [person] in good health. [By the time] the symptoms were noticed by outsiders, T.P. was already in a state of confusion and circulatory failure, symptoms which, given the external circumstances, indicated heat stroke. ... summoning help [should have been done] as an initial measure. In view of the fact that [T.P. was both] confused and exhausted, an immediate emergency medical intervention should have been initiated (even without knowledge [that he was suffering from] a febrile illness), on suspicion [that he had] heat stroke, in order to counteract as quickly as possible an acutely life-threatening increase in intracranial pressure or circulatory failure, which [typically] arose during such emergencies. Transporting [T.P.] by army vehicle to the barracks instead of immediately calling an ambulance and an emergency doctor thus delayed the initiation of the necessary medical measures by about the time that it took [to wait for] the emergency doctor from the barracks to arrive and intervene. The medical measures subsequently initiated (and ultimately, also the resuscitation attempts) were unsuccessful owing to [T.P.’s] extremely high core body temperature. In view of the [very swift] onset of symptoms [ perakut einsetzende Symptomatik ] of irreversible circulatory failure owing to heat or infection shortly after [T.P.’s] physical breakdown, no other eventuality could have been expected – even if T.P. had been brought directly from the place of his breakdown to the hospital, and [it cannot be said] with the [degree of] certainty or even probability required in criminal proceedings that the occurrence of [T.P.’s] death could have been prevented. In conclusion, the occurrence of T.P.’s overheating and the recognition of the underlying clinical picture (apart from the heat stress due to the outside temperature, solar radiation and physical exertion) could not have been recognised by outsiders without a clinical medical examination, given that [T.P. had not] complained [of such a problem]; such an examination was not called for in the absence of any complaints [from T.P.]. ... The appearance of breakdown and states of confusion would have prompted the immediate notification of an emergency doctor and the ambulance service [in order to secure] the fastest possible professional care for [what was] a life-threatening condition. ... However, owing to [T.P.’s] high body temperature and the introduction of germs into [his] bloodstream (which took foudroyant effect) [ foudroyanter Verlauf ], death ... could not have been prevented even if an emergency doctor had intervened at the site of the breakdown. Firm indications of a third-party’s responsibility for T.P.’s death have accordingly not emerged.”     Further developments (from October 2017 until March 2018) in the investigation 59.     On 24 October 2017 the police questioned K.K. in respect of the applicant’s request that further evidence be gathered (see paragraph 57 above). 60 .     On 28 October 2017 the applicant again requested that further specific evidence be gathered. 61 .     On 1 November 2017 the public prosecutor’s office requested the final reports drafted by the investigating committee and the special commission set up by the Federal Ministry of Defence and Sport following T.P.’s death (see paragraphs 100 and 113 below); the Ministry submitted those reports to the public prosecutor’s office on 4 January 2018.      Additional questions put to Dr D. 62 .     On 6 December 2017 the public prosecutor’s office requested Dr D. to supplement his expert report (see paragraph 58 above) with a view to answering several additional questions – notably (i) whether T.P. would have suffered a breakdown leading to death even if he had taken physical rest and received timely medical treatment, and (ii) whether his death could have been prevented if he had not participated in the march.      Taking of further testimony 63 .     Also on 6 December 2017 the public prosecutor’s office requested the police to put further specific questions to (i) K.K., M.G., M.R., O.M. and F.R. – who by then were all regarded as suspects (K.K., M.G. and M.R. in respect of the crimes of manslaughter and neglecting their duty of care under Articles   80 and 81 of the Criminal Code and Article 33 § 1 of the Military Criminal Code, and O.M. and F.R. in respect of the crimes of false testimony and obstruction of prosecution – on account of their witness statements according to which T.P. had lain in the shade after being brought back to the barracks whereas other witnesses had stated that T.P. had lain in the blazing sunshine – under Article 288 §§ 1 and 4 and Article 299 of the Criminal Code – see paragraphs 116 ‑ 117 and 120-122 below), and to (ii) the civilian emergency doctor S.P. as a witness. The police carried out that additional questioning between 9 January and 7 February 2018.    Statements by army and civilian medical personnel 64.     S.P. testified as a witness that when he had arrived at the barracks on 3 August 2017, T.P. had been lying in the blazing sunshine, without any shade being provided for him. S.P. had also not seen any table nearby. 65.     O.M., one of the suspects (see paragraph 63 above), testified that M.S. could confirm his earlier statement that some soldiers had placed a table on its side in order to provide shade for T.P. while the latter had been administered first aid at the barracks. O.M. could, however, not indicate for how long the table had remained set up in that manner. 66.     F.R., another of the suspects (see paragraph 63 above), gave the same testimony as O.M. – namely, that one or two soldiers had placed a table on its side in order to provide shade for T.P. However, F.R., too, could not indicate for how long the table had remained set up in that manner or whether the table had remained in that position when the Red Cross ambulance and S.P. had arrived at the scene. 67 .     M.S., the army emergency medic, testified as a witness that some soldiers had indeed placed a table on its side in order to provide shade for T.P. at the barracks but that he had afterwards requested that the table be removed, as he had needed more space to provide medical aid. It was therefore possible that the table had no longer been there when the Red Cross ambulance and S.P. had arrived at the scene (see paragraph 18 above).    Statements made by three of the military commanders (K.K., M.G. and M.R.) 68.     M.R. testified (as a suspect – see paragraph 63 above) that in principle, the march would normally have lasted a whole day, with several halts for targeted training. Because of the expected heat, the station training sessions had all been conducted in the morning; for the afternoon, only the foot march had remained scheduled. M.R. further confirmed that he had been aware of the below-mentioned decree on the performance of military-service duties during extreme outside temperatures (see paragraph 130 below). According to him, the command had not considered postponing the march for another day. Furthermore, he had been of the view that no medical emergency had been underway when he had received the above-mentioned telephone call from A.W. He also confirmed that several soldiers had placed a table on its side to provide shade for T.P. once they had arrived at the barracks. 69.     M.G., too, testified (as a suspect – see paragraph 63 above) that originally the march should have lasted the whole day, from about 8 a.m. until 10 p.m., but that its scheduling had been changed because of the heat. Furthermore, M.G. had been with the conscripts for the whole of the lunch break and had noted that all were fit and motivated to undertake the march. Only one conscript had been excluded from the march by M.S. on account of blisters on his feet. M.G. also confirmed that he had been aware of the decree on the performance of military-service duties during extreme outside temperatures (see paragraph 130 below). The possibility of postponing the march for another day had not been considered by the command; moreover, schedule-wise it would not have been possible. M.G. also confirmed that several soldiers had set up a table vertically to provide shade for T.P. once they had arrived at the barracks. 70.     K.K. testified (as a suspect – see paragraph 63 above) that he had been aware of the decree on the performance of military-service duties during extreme outside temperatures (see paragraph 130 below), and that he had ordered the march after securing prior approval from the battalion command. He had not cancelled the march because another platoon had successfully completed the same march one day before. Furthermore, both the implementing regulation governing basic training and the above-mentioned decree had provided that training goals should be achieved by all means necessary.      Dr V.’s internal pulmo