CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 11 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9A6E8000 { width:6.34pt; 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 } .sD4F9A385 { width:4.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6EB62E48 { width:10.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s6FD6F130 { margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s436F61AC { width:13.18pt; 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 } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .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 } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; 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 } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7C4DC701 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s84CD1D0D { width:9.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2DAE615E { width:6.8pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9804041A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7B868B6A { width:9.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; 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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sA7186A9D { width:36.9pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s7B051ABA { width:164.45pt; 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 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   FIRST SECTION CASE OF INTRANUOVO v. ITALY (Application no.   46569/19)     JUDGMENT   Art 2 (procedural and substantive) • Life • Domestic authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into circumstances of death of a contractual army corporal • Deficiencies impairing the establishment of facts leaving important questions unanswered • Failure to take reasonable and sufficient steps to secure relevant evidence • Impossible to remedy certain essential failings largely owing to the passage of time • Respondent State’s failure to provide satisfactory and convincing explanation for death   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 11 December 2025   FINAL   11/03/2026   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Intranuovo v. Italy, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ivana Jelić , President ,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato,   Davor Derenčinović,   Alain Chablais,   Artūrs Kučs,   Anna Adamska-Gallant , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   46569/19) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Italian national, Ms   Rosaria Intranuovo (“the applicant”), on 26   August 2019; the decision to give notice to the Italian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article   2 of the Convention; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 18   November 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the death of the applicant’s son, A.D., who had been serving as a corporal on a contractual basis in the Italian army, following an alleged fall from a window in the army barracks in which he had been stationed, and the subsequent investigation into the incident. It raises issues under Article   2 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Syracuse. The applicant was represented by Mr   D. Riccioli, a lawyer practising in Catania. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr   L. D’Ascia, and Mr   A. De Curtis, State Attorney. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.         death of the applicant’s son and INITIAL investigative steps 5.     A.D. had been serving as a corporal on a contractual basis at the Camillo Sabatini military barracks in Rome. At 6.30 a.m. on 6   July 2014 his body was discovered in the courtyard in front of the accommodation building of the barracks by a sergeant during his rounds. Medical staff at the barracks were alerted and an emergency services doctor arrived on the scene. The doctor determined that A.D.’s death had been caused by multiple traumatic injuries, including the loss of brain matter and blood, and cardiac arrest as a result of a fall ( precipitazione ). The official time of death was recorded as 6.57   a.m. 6.     At 9.45 a.m. officers from the carabinieri unit with territorial jurisdiction were called to the scene, where two members of the carabinieri force who were already posted at the barracks were present. They notified the public prosecutor who called a forensic pathologist to the scene. 7.     The officers reported that A.D.’s body had been found in a prone position at a distance of approximately 10 metres from the wall of the accommodation building, under an open window of an unused bathroom on the second floor, and that a chair had been found under the window inside the building. 8.     The officers photographed the scene where A.D.’s body was found and took measurements. They also inspected the bathroom and took into evidence a cigarette stub found there. 9 .     At 11.05 a.m. the forensic pathologist arrived and inspected the body. 10.     On 7   July 2014 the officers who had been called to the scene conducted brief interviews with the following individuals: five of A.D.’s fellow soldiers, his former girlfriend and the sergeant who had discovered the body. They subsequently informed the public prosecutor that, based on the initial investigation, they believed that A.D. had acted voluntarily following the end of his romantic relationship.       ensuing CRIMINAL investigation    Opening of the criminal investigation 11.     On 7   July 2014 the public prosecutor’s office opened an investigation against unknown persons for the offence of inciting suicide under Article   580 of the Criminal Code and ordered an autopsy and a forensic medical report on A.D.’s body, appointing the doctor who had been called to the scene (see paragraph   9 above). The prosecutor entrusted the investigation to the Investigative Unit of the Provincial Command of the Rome Carabinieri . He ordered the seizure of A.D.’s personal belongings (two smartphones, a pen drive and a laptop), the retrieval of documents relating to any complaints or incident reports filed at the barracks after 19   December 2013 and the opening of the locker assigned to A.D. 12 .     On 14   July 2014 the applicant lodged a request with the prosecutor seeking authorisation to access the barracks and to view footage from the surveillance cameras installed there. The request was granted on 15   July 2014. The applicant stated that the video footage had never been handed over to her. 13 .     On 23   September 2014 the autopsy report was submitted. The forensic pathologist reported that he was called to the scene at 11   a.m. on 6   July 2014. A.D.’s body was lying face down in what was described as a pool of blood. His legs were extended with external rotation and his arms were positioned in adduction. Both forearms were resting under his chest, palms facing upwards, and were in contact with the ground on the dorsal side. There were abrasions and bruises covering a tattoo on his back, in the suprascapular region, across the trapezius muscle, and bilaterally in the scapular region. His head was turned to the left and there was a lacerated wound in the occipital region, accompanied by a fracture of the underlying bone and exposure of brain matter. Having performed the autopsy, he concluded that A.D.’s death was attributable to multiple severe traumas with fractures to the vault and base of the skull and encephalic failure and closed thoracic-abdominal trauma with multiple rib and spinal fractures and bilateral pulmonary contusions, and that those injuries could be consistent with a fall, possibly suicide by jumping. 14.     On 28   February 2015 the carabinieri delivered their report on the investigative acts carried out.    First discontinuance request 15.     On 24   April 2015 the public prosecutor asked the preliminary investigations judge of the Rome District Court to discontinue the case, as he considered that the acts for which the case had been opened had not taken place and the cause of A.D.’s death was suicide by jumping. In particular, he reported on the passages of the expert’s report highlighting the position of the body, which had been found face down on the ground with both forearms resting under the chest. He concluded that that position could be consistent with the technique practised by the victim in preparation for a parachute jump and concluded that the act had been voluntary. He added that, on the basis of the information gathered by the investigating police officers, the documents seized and the investigations carried out, there was no evidence to suggest that the victim had been subjected to ill-treatment or violence that could have directly or indirectly caused his death.    Objection by the applicant 16.     On 16   June 2015 the applicant, along with the other injured parties, lodged an objection against the prosecutor’s request to discontinue the proceedings. They argued that the investigative acts carried out up to that point had been defective and inadequate. 17.     In particular, the applicant and other parties complained that the autopsy carried out by the public prosecutor’s consultant had been superficial and incomplete; it did not give any reason or even make specific reference to the conditions in which the body had been found and other factual circumstances. It did not address, among other things, the presence of some obvious abrasions on A.D.’s back. The report had also failed to explain the origin of the fractures found on A.D.’s body and whether and to what extent they could be consistent with a frontal fall. It had also failed to analyse the substance found on A.D.’s hands. Moreover, no toxicology tests had been carried out and the results of the histological examinations had not been made available to them. 18 .     The injured parties had appointed their own forensic expert consultants who had been tasked with carrying out a kinematic reconstruction of the fall, calculating the fall’s trajectory and speed, and verifying whether the distance travelled by A.D.’s body and the measurements taken by the investigators were consistent with the authorities’ explanation of the circumstances surrounding the incident as an intentional jump from the bathroom window. Based on calculations and a reconstruction experiment, the experts highlighted a series of inconsistencies relating to the position of the body and its distance from the purported launch point, suggesting that, even assuming that A.D.’s death had been caused by jumping, the circumstances would need to be reconstructed differently. 19.     The injured parties also cast doubt on the relevance of A.D.’s paratrooper training as an explanation for the circumstances of the alleged jump and the final position of his body. They argued that that explanation was unsubstantiated, as the report on the parachute launch procedure submitted by the investigators did not match the position in which A.D.’s body had been found, and the images it contained were not consistent with that explanation. 20 .     The injured parties also pointed out that statements had been taken from military personnel who had been on ordinary leave at the time of the incident and not from those who, at the material time, had been in the same accommodation building as A.D. In this connection, they requested that all the soldiers present in the barracks at the relevant time, according to the presence logs, be questioned, including the military officer responsible for the room in which A.D. was living at the time. Moreover, they noted that no follow-up had been given to a letter sent by A.D.’s former girlfriend to the prosecutor, in which she had expressed her willingness to clarify the conditions of her relationship with A.D. They requested that she be questioned, in addition to a friend, with whom A.D. had had numerous telephone calls in the hours preceding his death, and a former fellow soldier who had given a deposition to the injured parties’ lawyer to the effect that A.D. had experienced problems with a superior. 21 .     Furthermore, the injured parties stated that a thorough collection of telephone records and e-mail correspondence related to the e-mail account used by A.D. had not been carried out. Nor had the bathroom from which the supposed jump had taken place been sealed off. The only action carried out on the scene was the taking into evidence of a cigarette butt which had not, in any event, been sent for testing to establish a connection with A.D.. 22.     Lastly, given the shortcomings and inconsistencies of the investigation, coupled with the fact that the officers who had conducted some of the investigative acts had been from the Granatieri di Sardegna , the internal police force at the barracks, they asked for a further investigation to be conducted by an independent police force outside of the military context.    Decision of the preliminary investigations judge to continue the investigation 23 .     On 15   April 2016 the preliminary investigations judge rejected the request to discontinue the proceedings, stating that she was not persuaded by the conclusions reached by the prosecutor. Examining the evidence, also in the light of the relevant assessments made by the injured parties and their ex parte medical expert reports, led the judge to find that a more adequate and complete investigation was essential. 24 .     The judge found that there was a need for a fresh forensic medical examination assessing “every single factual element” of the case, and that that could not be done by merely supplementing the conclusions of the forensic pathologist who had carried out the autopsy. It would require the exhumation of A.D.’s body and a new autopsy. The examination would have to thoroughly determine the nature and origin of the injuries sustained by the victim, including those to the back, neck and head, as identified by the autopsy. The experts would also need to establish whether the injuries had been sustained simultaneously, whether they could be attributed to a single event and whether they were consistent with falling from a height of 10 metres, taking into account the point at which A.D.’s body had made contact with the ground and its final position. 25 .     The judge also considered it necessary to proceed with the retrieval of the footage recorded by the video surveillance cameras installed inside the barracks and in the outdoor areas, as well as complete telephone and e-mail records relating to A.D.’s communications and conversations in the days preceding his death. In connection with those steps, the judge acknowledged that the passage of time could negatively affect the availability of such evidence and highlighted the importance of collecting it promptly after the events in question.     Continuation of the investigation and opening of new proceedings 26.     On 20 May 2016 the public prosecutor requested an evidentiary hearing for the immediate production of evidence ( incidente probatorio – see paragraph   76 below), asking for a forensic medical examination –following the exhumation of A.D.’s body – and a kinematic analysis to be carried out in order to ascertain the cause and reconstruct the circumstances surrounding A.D.’s death. He also requested toxicology tests. 27.     On 25   May 2016 the preliminary investigations judge rejected the request on the basis that criminal proceedings were pending against unknown persons. That meant that there were no identified suspects who would be able to participate in a hearing concerning the gathering of evidence. 28.     On 16   June 2016 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint arguing that A.D.’s death could be attributed to a series of “hazing” episodes to which he had been subjected. She also complained that his superiors had been negligent by failing to ensure the safety of one of their subordinates. 29.     On 16   July 2016 the Rome Public Prosecutor’s Office registered eight military officers of different ranks as suspects on charges of culpable participation in the offence of incitement to suicide or, alternatively, the offence of voluntary homicide. 30.     On 21   July 2016 the public prosecutor made a fresh request for a hearing for the immediate production of evidence, with reference to forensic and kinematic expert reports, as well as a toxicology report. 31.     On 2   August 2016 the preliminary investigations judge granted the request and appointed two independent experts: a forensic pathologist and a physicist, who was an expert in crime scene reconstruction, to carry out the expert assessments.     Further investigative steps 32.     Pursuant to the preliminary investigations judge’s order, the prosecutor requested that the telephone communications of a number of individuals of interest to the investigation be wiretapped; statements from A.D.’s fellow soldiers, his roommates and staff on duty on the night of the event; and the obtention of satellite images.      The forensic expert report 33.     On 14   September 2016 the experts submitted their reports. The forensic medical expert performed an autopsy following the exhumation of A.D.’s body. X-rays, which had not been performed during the first autopsy, did not reveal any fractures in his hands or feet, but showed A.D.’s fingers had been dislocated. A histological examination of the tissues detected the presence of pulmonary emphysema. The toxicology tests came back clear for drugs and alcohol. The physicist specialising in crime scene reconstruction went to the scene and carried out a 3D scan of the area, and created a virtual reconstruction. 34 .     The experts found that the types of injuries identified could be consistent with the hypothesis of a fall from a height of 11   metres (the window from which it was presumed he fell was at a height of 10.54   metres). However, the overall considerations regarding the circumstances surrounding the incident did not directly correlate with that hypothesis. In this connection, the crime scene expert’s calculations and reconstruction experiments revealed several inconsistencies that cast doubt on the validity of the proposed explanation. They related, amongst other things, to the body’s distance from the purported launch point, the possible point of impact, the speed of the fall, the initial momentum needed to achieve the calculated speed and distance, and the body’s final position. They also noted that there were no signs of instinctive action to mitigate the fall, as suggested by the absence of fractures to the upper limbs. 35.     As to a hypothesis that A.D. had fallen from a greater height, such as the roof of the barracks, some of the data, such as the impact distance, would be rendered less anomalous. A fall that was forced rather than a jump could not be ruled out in such a scenario. However, the final position of A.D.’s body, among other things, cast doubt on the viability of such a hypothesis.   In particular as regards the final position of A.D.’s body, they described it as “particularly composed” (outstretched legs, a bent flip ‑ flop on his left foot and the position of his arms), and highlighted it as an aspect that cast possible doubts on the explanation of a fall in general. They stated that the position could also have been consistent with A.D. performing some kind of physical exercise on the ground. 36 .     The experts stated that while the serious injuries found on A.D., including the type of skull fracture caused by blunt force trauma, could be consistent with a fall, they also left open the possibility of an alternative hypothesis: an “attack on the ground”, involving an impact with a large, flat surface with significant force. However, the fracture of the spine, coupled with the absence of any signs of a struggle or reaction from A.D., rendered that hypothesis anomalous. 37 .     The blood pattern present on A.D.’s back was deemed to be unrelated to a possible fall: it exhibited characteristics consistent with dripping owing to gravity, suggesting that blood droplets had dripped down from a stationary or very slowly moving surface or object above the body. It was determined that the blood pattern could not, in any way, be attributed to the wounds sustained by A.D. 38.     The abrasions on A.D.’s back and the dust streaks observed in the same area were certainly not related to a fall either. Before his death, something had happened to cause the abrasions. The dust streaks appeared to follow the abrasions, and could have been caused by friction or dragging. A blood pattern that did not correspond to dripping, as well as a dusty substance, were also visible on the left calf, both posteriorly and anteriorly. 39.     In the expert’s view, those considerations gave rise to additional questions regarding the manner of his death and could indicate, amongst other things, that A.D.’s body had been subjected to external manipulation. The statements provided by the first responders and investigators ruled out any potential actions on their part that could have resulted in manipulation, the projection of blood droplets or the presence of dust. 40 .     In conclusion, according to the experts all possible hypotheses explored presented inconsistencies. In closing the report, the experts concurred that, based on the information available to them, it was not possible to conclusively determine the manner of A.D.’s death.      The expert testimony hearing 41.     On 15   March 2017 a hearing was held with a view to examining the forensic experts. 42 .     The medical expert explained that they had initially operated on the hypothesis that A.D.’s death had been caused by a fall from a window on the second floor of the accommodation building, because that had been indicated in the initial autopsy report; his body had been found under a window and a fall could be consistent with the type of skull fracture identified. However, after having examined all available data to determine how well that hypothesis was supported by evidence, they remained unconvinced by it. 43.     The expert in crime scene reconstruction pointed to a number of anomalies, or “red flags”, which cast doubt on the plausibility of A.D.’s death being caused by a fall from the prospective height. The first concerned the speed of the fall. The second was that for A.D.’s body to have been in the position in which it had been found would have required him to have changed positions several times – straightening his legs and folding his arms under his chest – during a fall that had lasted one and a half seconds, all of which the expert did not find convincing. Another “red flag” concerned the point of impact on the ground and the distance of A.D.’s body from the wall of the building, which had already been noted as anomalies and addressed in the written report. Considering the position of his body as it had been found, the very short time available to assume that position and all the other elements indicated in the written report, left them unconvinced by the initial hypothesis. The expert then highlighted the presence of unexplained elements such as the blood droplets on A.D.’s back and what was described as dust on his back and calves. 44.     The crime scene expert stated that, even taken individually, the “red flags” gave rise to suspicions, which were only confirmed when combined, and made the experts jointly distance themselves from the initial hypothesis. Alternatively, a different type of fall might have occurred, such as from a greater height. For that to be plausible however, his body would have had to have been manipulated afterwards to explain its position. 45 .     The abrasions on A.D.’s back, which were certainly unrelated to a fall, were described as “very significant”, indicating that they had been caused by a prolonged, forceful action. The medical expert highlighted elements indicating that the wounds had been sustained a few hours before A.D.’s death. 46 .     Given the multiple fractures and abrasions and their type, they also hypothesised that the injuries could have been caused by a different set of circumstances. When asked by the preliminary investigations judge to expand on that alternative hypothesis, the crime scene specialist stated that, among other things, the position in which A.D.’s body had been found could lead one to think that he had been in the process of doing physical exercise on the ground. It could be speculated that the fracture might have been caused by the application of force to the back while A.D.’s body had been in such a state of tension, balanced on his toes and pivoting on his fingers. Once A.D. had found himself in that final position, it could be conceivable that he had further sustained a blow to the head with a wide blunt object, such as a shovel. The forensic medical expert confirmed that they had considered those alternative circumstances, namely an initial injury to the vertebrae by force being applied to the back by a large flat surface and then a large blunt object being struck with force against A.D.’s skull, causing it to fracture. 47.     According to the medical expert, the presence of pulmonary emphysema could be considered inconsistent with instantaneous death caused by a fall. This was noted as among the anomalies that could potentially suggest a different explanation than the one initially proposed.      Witness statements 48 .     Witness statements were taken between July and October 2016. From the summaries of interviews drafted by the carabinieri entrusted with the investigation, the following may be noted. 49 .     As to the statements made by A.D.’s fellow soldiers, when describing A.D.’s emotional state following the end of the relationship with his girlfriend, A.D. was described as “very sad”, “sad and downhearted”, with “a serious change for the worse in his mood”, “particularly sad and preoccupied”, “clearly distressed, but showing no signs of suicidal intent”, “anxious and preoccupied by the situation” but “trying to distract himself by going out in the evenings with his fellow soldiers”. Some of his fellow soldiers had only learned of the breakup after A.D.’s death. 50 .     Some of the soldiers who were questioned confirmed that A.D. had failed several competitive examinations; some merely stated the fact, one said it had caused A.D. embarrassment and others referred more generally to A.D.’s feelings of disappointment and dissatisfaction. A.D.’s childhood friend stated that A.D. had told him that he had not passed a competitive examination, but that even though he had been disappointed, he had seemed encouraged by the prospect of retaking it during the annual re-enlistment period. 51 .     Two fellow soldiers reported that A.D. had experienced trouble sleeping in the period leading up to his death, with one associating that with his breakup. 52.     All the military personnel questioned by the investigators stated that they had no knowledge of hazing practices in the barracks, nor of any incidents involving A.D. 53 .     A.D’s former girlfriend reported that he had expressed concerns to her about the upcoming physical tests to remain in the army, as he had told her that he had not been sleeping well and his psoriasis had been getting worse. The last time they had met before his death, A.D. had said that he had been feeling particularly sad and had been having trouble sleeping, so she had bought him a natural sleep remedy. Regarding her knowledge of a previous suicide attempt in his childhood years, she stated that A.D.’s mother had told her about what was described as a small cut on his wrist that had not required medical attention. When asked by the interviewers whether she could provide objective evidence to counter the theory that he had committed suicide, she said that she could not, but she felt that, given his personality, she would not accept that he could have committed such an act, especially in the barracks. 54.     One of A.D.’s friends was also interviewed and stated that A.D. had reported experiencing difficulties with one of his superiors, allegedly arising from an incident that took place in the showers of the barracks. V.C., employed at a launderette frequented by military personnel and acquainted with A.D., was also questioned. She indicated that A.D. had informed her of an incident involving a superior in the showers, and further alleged that he had told her of having been subjected to pranks and an act of aggression. The officers conducting the interview noted discrepancies in her account during the course of questioning. 55 .     The barracks’ military chaplain stated that he had only known A.D. on a superficial level, and that information about him had only come to his attention in the context of the spiritual assistance he had provided to some of A.D.’s family members and fellow soldiers after his death. The chaplain had been identified by the investigators as having informally mentioned a prior suicide attempt by A.D. in his childhood to the military barracks’ police force, which he had reportedly been told about by A.D.’s stepfather. He did not confirm that in the interview, stating that he had nothing to report on the matter. He considered it unlikely that assaults on soldiers could have taken place inside the barracks, describing instead a peaceful and orderly environment. He also ruled out pranks by other soldiers. He stated that he could support the hypothesis that A.D. had committed suicide.      Investigative summary and conclusions 56 .     On 29   December 2016 the investigation unit of the carabinieri that had been entrusted with the investigation submitted its summary report and conclusions. It reported on the investigative steps taken including the retrieval of telephone traffic data from A.D.’s phone and those of other individuals deemed relevant to the investigation, as well as soldiers from the barracks around the time of the events. The report also summarised the searches carried out on A.D’s email account noting, among other things, that the email records retrieved proved that somebody had used A.D.’s email account after his death, but the users of the IP addresses in question could no longer be identified because the provider only stored such data for twelve months. 57.     In its conclusions, the investigation unit underlined that the witness statements collected, despite the number of people interviewed and telephone interception activities, had not provided any evidence to suggest that A.D. had been the victim of abuse or violent acts that had directly or indirectly caused his death. Those interviewed who had contended that the death of A.D. could not be attributed to suicide had not provided any evidence to support their assertions. An individual who had maintained that A.D. had been mistreated in the barracks had turned out to be completely unreliable. 58 .     In addition, the investigation unit determined that more elements had emerged which, although admittedly circumstantial, further strengthened the suicide hypothesis: an almost unanimously reported state of mental and physical distress resulting mainly from breaking up with his girlfriend but also, in all likelihood, from his failure to pass several competitive exams, as reported not only by his fellow soldiers but also by the former girlfriend herself, who had additionally recalled his increased difficulty sleeping and the worsening of his psoriasis. In addition, the unit referred to a previous suicide attempt at a young age, although it was described as not having been carried out with real conviction.      Additional witness statements 59 .     Additional witness statements were taken   between March and April 2017. Some of A.D’s fellow soldiers were questioned again, as were the medical and paramedical first responders on the scene. They were asked about details such as the position of A.D.’s body, the presence of wounds on him before his death and who had been present at the scene.    The second discontinuance request 60.     On 22   July 2017 the public prosecutor submitted a new request to discontinue the case, given the absence of elements that could support the investigative hypothesis of culpable participation in the crimes of incitement to suicide or voluntary homicide in a possible trial. As to the latter hypothesis, despite the theoretical possibility of attributing responsibility to individuals within the chain of command, there was no concrete evidence to suggest negligent behaviour on their part. There had been no reported instances of hazing, no record of disregarded service orders pertaining to barracks surveillance. 61 .     As to the reconstruction of the death, the prosecutor emphasised his role as “ peritus peritorum ” (the expert among experts) and drew his own conclusions which cast doubt on the hypothetical scenarios presented by the experts in their reports and further clarified at the oral hearing. In his view, the hypothesis of an attack on the ground was made unlikely by the number, extent and severity of the fractures; the absence of haemorrhagic infiltrate on A.D.’s back; the finding that the abrasions on his back had not been inflicted at or around the time of death; and the nature of the skull injuries. He concluded the most plausible hypothesis remained that of A.D. falling in a parachuting position, with his arms crossed over his chest, landing on his chest and face. Making his own assessment of the data provided by the experts, the prosecutor concluded that the second hypothesis would have been consistent with the rib fractures, vertebral dislocation and absence of haematomas on his back as well as the dislocation of the finger phalanges corresponding to haematomas present on A.D.’s chest and, lastly, with the type of skull fracture. 62.     While agreeing with the experts’ conclusions regarding the abnormal distance of the body from the window, for the prosecutor it could not be ruled out – at least from a hypothetical point of view – that A.D., who was referred to as a paratrooper, had performed a manoeuvre used when jumping from an aircraft, which entailed pushing oneself outwards with both hands to increase one’s distance from the aircraft. He conceded that as the pulmonary emphysema detected during the second autopsy remained unexplained, it could have been worth investigating whether hyperventilation could have been induced by A.D. himself in the moments before jumping because of the emotional stress of the situation. The origin of the abrasions on his back remained similarly unknown, but it was noted that A.D. had suffered from psoriasis, a disease that caused serious itching. He also conceded that the blood droplets on A.D.’s back remained unexplained. 63 .     The prosecutor concluded that despite what he referred to as extensive additional investigations, more uncertainties than certainties remained regarding the circumstances of the event and the existence of hazing, particularly in the light of the possible reluctance of A.D.’s fellow soldiers to speak openly. In conclusion, there were no elements that could support charges against the suspects at a potential trial.    The applicant’s objection 64.     On 12   September 2017 the applicant and another family member objected to the dismissal request. They argued that the investigation had been inadequate, as it had not shed additional light on the circumstances surrounding A.D.’s death. 65.     The applicant and her relative argued that the public prosecutor’s conclusions were in fact mere conjectures and found it striking that they had disregarded the conclusions submitted by the experts. 66.     In the applicant and her relative’s view, there were a number of factors that cast serious doubt on the conclusion that A.D.’s death was a result of suicide by jumping and argued that they rather indicated foul play. In that connection, they relied primarily on the “red flags” identified by the experts which cast serious doubt on the determination of suicide by jumping as the underlying cause of death. Furthermore, at the hearing on 15   March   2017, the forensic experts had been unequivocal in stating that the explanation involving jumping lacked credibility and that A.D.’s body had been manipulated after the event that had caused his death. In an attempt to cast doubt on the scientific reconstruction carried out by the experts, the public prosecutor had made a series of considerations on which the experts had already provided their explanations at the hearing. The public prosecutor’s interpretation of A.D.’s back injuries as resulting from alleged itching caused by psoriasis was deemed particularly contentious, given the lack of supporting evidence. The public prosecutor’s attempts to explain the distance between A.D.’s body and the alleged launch point was devoid of scientific value. Furthermore, the explanation provided by the public prosecutor concerning the presence of emphysema in A.D.’s lungs was not supported by the requisite scientific evidence. 67.     As to witness evidence, the applicant and her relative placed particular emphasis on the testimony of a friend of A.D., who, when questioned, had reported that A.D. had had difficulties with one of his superiors, stemming from an incident that had occurred in the showers of the barracks. That assertion was, in their view, further substantiated by the testimony provided by another witness, V.C., who worked in a launderette used by soldiers from the barracks, including A.D. Furthermore, they contested the fact that the investigation files contained unequivocal statements from which it could be inferred that, in the days immediately preceding his death, A.D. had been in a state of depression because his romantic relationship had ended and because he had failed a competitive examination. Those arguments had been exclusively used by the public prosecutor’s office to provide an explanation to support the suicide theory. Moreover, several colleagues had described A.D. as cheerful. 68.     The applicant and her relative stated that the public prosecutor’s request for dismissal was both illogical and devoid of scientific rigour, and requested that the investigation be continued. 69.     The applicant and her relative also complained of the absence of an intervention protocol within the barracks to prevent incidents similar to the one under investigation.        The preliminary investigations judge’s discontinuance decision 70.     On 28   March 2019 the preliminary investigations judge issued a decision to discontinue the proceedings. It was concluded that the evidence collected up to that point was insufficient to substantiate the charges in a potential trial, as the precise sequence of events remained unestablished. 71.     The judge summarised the experts’ conclusions, first focusing on the statement that the distance the body had fallen from the purported launch point raised doubts. While acknowledging that the injuries were consistent with a fall, the judge listed various anomalies identified by the experts. Those included blood droplets and abrasions on A.D.’s back, the location and positioning of his body, which could suggest that A.D. had been performing physical exercise, and skull fractures that could have been caused by a blow from a blunt instrument. During the hearing on 15   March 2017, the judge noted that the experts had further clarified that the incident appeared inconsistent with a fall and had hypothesised that A.D. could first have been struck on the back and then on the head with a flat, broad object. The judge also noted the expert’s finding of pulmonary emphysema as inconsistent with suicide by jumping and the instantaneous nature of death resulting from such an act. 72 .     The judge determined that in the light of the additional investigations carried out by the prosecutor’s office following the first order rejecting the request for dismissal, which had highlighted shortcomings in the investigation and raised doubts which had been subsequently confirmed and only partially dispelled by the results of the further investigative acts, there remained “grey areas” ( zone d’ombra ) in the case that had not been clarified and that, given the time that had elapsed since the events, had at that point become difficult to ascertain. 73 .     The judge noted the failure to obtain the video footage recorded by the video surveillance cameras present in the courtyard of the barracks. That footage, if obtained immediately after the events, could have certainly provided significant evidence to establish the events that had transpired on the night A.D. had died. Furthermore, the judge expressed concern regarding the failure to obtain, in a timely manner, the telephone records of the individuals under investigation and those of A.D.’s roommates, for the days leading up to A.D.’s death. Those records would have facilitated the verification of the contacts between those individuals and corroborated the statements they had made to the public prosecutor. 74 .     The judge also highlighted a failure to investigate documented instances of access to A.D.’s email account that had occurred after his death and prior to the seizure of his computer. 75 .     On the basis of the preliminary investigations judge’s request to continue the investigation, the public prosecutor questioned those involved in the case, including A.D.’s fellow soldiers, those on duty on the night of the incident and the military chaplain. Satellite images had also been requested and the wiretapping of telephones had been carried out. However, no new elements had emerged, nor had any leads been found that would be useful to the investigation or sufficient to justify its continuation, in all likelihood also owing to the time that had elapsed and the knowledge of the ongoing investigation. In fact, many of those being wiretapped had warned callers to be cautious because they suspected that they were under surveillance. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE 76 .     Article   392 §§   1   (f) and 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the public prosecutor and the accused, among other things, to ask the preliminary investigations judge ( giudice per le indagini preliminari ) to order an expert opinion if the evidence concerns a person, object or place which is subject to unavoidable alteration or where, if ordered during the trial, the examination in question could entail the suspension of the proceedings for a period exceeding 60 days. Under Article   394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the injured party may ask the public prosecutor to apply for the immediate production of evidence. If the public prosecutor refuses the request, he or she must issue a reasoned decision and notify the injured party. THE LAW          ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 77.     The applicant