CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s59947BC4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } Communicated on 30 March 2020 Published on 25 May 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 21238/18 Lyudvig BARSEGHYAN against Sweden lodged on 23 April 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, Mr Lyudvig Barseghyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Yerevan, Armenia. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Safaryan, a lawyer practising in Stockholm. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is the brother of D.B. On 6 February 2017 D.B. and two other persons were apprehended by the police on suspicion of theft. Upon arrival at the police station, D.B. did not get out of the police car and he was carried into a cell. During the next hour, the police staff checked on D.B. every five or six minutes. A total of 13 checks were carried out, during which D.B. was found to be lying on his stomach or side and breathing normally. One hour after D.B. was placed in the cell, a police officer entered to ascertain what language he spoke so that an interpreter could be contacted. He found D.B. unconscious. Emergency treatment was initiated and an ambulance was called, but D.B. was later pronounced dead at the scene. An autopsy revealed the cause of death to be a spontaneous brain haemorrhage, possibly in combination with asphyxiation as a result of having inhaled vomit. There were no signs of trauma and D.B. was found to have died of natural causes. The police conducted a routine investigation into D.B.’s death. The cell was closed off and photographed. The arrest journal, police reports about the incident and autopsy results were gathered. The staff at the arrest facility and the police officers who had been in contact with D.B. were interviewed. The arresting officers stated that they had not suspected that D.B. was ill. When carrying him from the police car, they had thought that he was offering passive resistance, since he had held his head up and looked around. The large number of checks had been conducted because D.B. did not speak Swedish or English and was therefore unable to communicate with the arresting officers. The police also interviewed one of the men who had been arrested together with D.B., who stated that D.B. had vomited prior to the arrest. The police were initially unable to contact the third man who had been arrested together with the applicant (V.P.). Through the Armenian Embassy, the police learned that V.P. was residing in Russia and willing to speak to the authorities. However, a request for legal assistance would have to be sent to Russia for an interview to be conducted. No such request was sent. On 27 April 2017 the pre-trial investigation was terminated. The prosecutor held that the death of D.B. had not been the result of police conduct, nor had the police failed to safeguard D.B.’s life adequately after he was detained. D.B. had been supervised more closely than required by the rules and there had been no indication that he was in poor health prior to his being found unconscious. By letter dated 21 March 2017, D.B.’s estate claimed compensation from the Chancellor of Justice ( Justitiekanslern ), alleging that the police had failed to protect D.B.’s life. On 19 June 2017 the Chancellor of Justice referred the case to the police. On 24 October 2017 the police rejected the compensation claim. The estate’s allegation that D.B. had been in visibly poor health during the journey to the police station was unsubstantiated. When he was apprehended, D.B. had been sweaty, out of breath, had urinated on himself and appeared cold. However, these signs were consistent with the fact that he had been trying to outrun the police for about 40 minutes prior to being arrested. According to the police, D.B. had got into the police car of his own accord. During the journey he had only asked for water. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 2 of the Convention that the police failed to take sufficient steps to protect D.B.’s life. The investigation into his death was insufficient as the investigation had been carried out by the police who had asked leading questions during witness interviews. The police had also failed to interview V.P., who might have provided important information about D.B.’s state of health. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s brother’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case? In particular, did the applicant’s brother’s death result from negligence on the part of the domestic authorities?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph   104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?