CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 septembre 2022

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FA7D072 { width:90.6%; margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s4AC8B0A7 { height:18.45pt } .s431C6079 { width:8.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sF95FA173 { width:41.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBEDA98F9 { width:24.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s94D631E1 { width:25.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7D2F4A12 { height:5pt } .s18813265 { width:8.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s17F4C97A { width:41.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A1A0F0F { width:24.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s522777A5 { width:25.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA56E6A5 { height:1.35pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 10 October 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 1052/22 Ahmed CHOUCHANE and Mohsen CHOUCHANE against Italy lodged on 15 December 2021 communicated on 19 September 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicants’ brother and son, H.C., from a methadone overdose while detained in the Sant’Anna Correctional facility in Modena, in the context of a riot that broke out in the prison on 8 March 2020. The applicants complain that the authorities failed to safeguard H.C.’s life and that the investigation into the circumstances of his death had not been effective. They rely on Article 2 in its substantive and procedural aspects, Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has H.C.’s right to life, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case, in particular bearing in mind that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them, as emphasised by the Court’s case-law (see Keenan v.   the   United Kingdom , no. 27229/95, § 91, ECHR 2001-III; De   Donder and   De Clippel v. Belgium , no. 8595/06, § 68, 6 December 2011; and Fabris and Parziale v. Italy , no. 41603/13, § 77, 19 March 2020)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention? In particular: Did the domestic authorities make a serious attempt to establish the circumstances surrounding H.C.’s death (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 175, 14 April 2015)? Did the authorities take all the reasonable measures available to them to secure evidence concerning the impugned events? Were the investigation’s conclusions based on a thorough, objective and impartial analysis of all relevant elements (see Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   5878/08, § 234, 30 March 2016)? Are the domestic authorities’ decisions adequately reasoned and do they take into account the applicants’ submissions made to those authorities?   3.     Was H.C. subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality 1. Ahmed CHOUCHANE 1980 Tunisian 2. Mohsen CHOUCHANE 1962 Tunisian