CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 7 octobre 2021

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCA654B4E { font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)218 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Lakatošová and Lakatoš against Slovak Republic   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 October 2021 at the 1413 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 655/16 LAKATOŠOVÁ AND LAKATOŠ 11/12/2018 11/03/2019   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violation established on account of the authorities’ failure to investigate powerful indicators of racism in relation to a shooting spree in 2012 by an off-duty police officer at the home of a Roma family [1] , which led to two serious injuries and three deaths (violation of Article 14, in conjunction with Article 2);   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government, indicating the individual measures adopted to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2020)903 );   Noting that no further individual measures are required, given that: the perpetrator had been convicted for killing three people and injuring two; he had been given a reduced sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment owing to his diminished soundness of mind; under Slovak law reopening of domestic criminal proceedings on the basis of a judgment of the European Court is allowed only when the rights of the accused were found to be violated, nevertheless, the General Prosecution Office examined the case and assessed that if the racist motive of crime were confirmed, the legal classification of the offender’s conduct would not be substantially changed and the perpetrator would be punished within the same penalty rate (as he had committed the crime in a state of diminished lucidity);   Noting that the authorities have provided detailed information on the general measures taken aiming to ensure that possible racist motives are thoroughly investigated and prosecuted;   Noting that this information will be examined and assessed in the framework of the case R.R. and R.D. v. Slovak Republic , and that the questions raised under the general measures in the present case are therefore entirely taken up in the R.R. and R.D. case, which remains under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case as regards the individual measures and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   [1] The term “Roma and Travellers” is used at the Council of Europe to encompass the wide diversity of the groups covered by the work of the Council of Europe in this field: on the one hand a) Roma, Sinti/Manush, Calé, Kaale, Romanichals, Boyash/Rudari; b) Balkan Egyptians (Egyptians and Ashkali); c) Eastern groups (Dom, Lom and Abdal); and, on the other hand, groups such as Travellers, Yenish, and the populations designated under the administrative term “Gens du voyage”, as well as persons who identify themselves as Gypsies. The present is an explanatory footnote, not a definition of Roma and/or Travellers.