CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 janvier 2025

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 3 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 54425/22 Marjolein Ellen SCHÄRER against Switzerland lodged on 18 November 2022 communicated on 15 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicant’s son on 26 December 2018 while in police custody and the criminal investigation into the incident. The applicant’s son (K.S.) was arrested at 10.15 a.m. on 25 December 2018, after a night out at a party. A rapid test carried out at the police station resulted in K.S. testing positive for cocaine, cannabis, benzodiazepine, methamphetamine, morphine and ecstasy. At 4.00 p.m. a duty doctor declared him fit for detention ( hafterstehungsfähig ). The doctor instructed the police officers to check K.S. for vital signs every two hours and to inform him when K.S. was of clear consciousness again or if his health status deteriorated. At 11.15 p.m. K.S. was still not in a state to be interrogated. At 5.40 a.m. on 26   December 2018, K.S. was found dead in the prison cell. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the doctor for unintentional homicide by negligence but subsequently discontinued for lack of a causal link between the declaration that K.S. had been fit for detention and K.S.’s death. The Cantonal Supreme Court and the Federal Court rejected the applicant’s appeals in this regard.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant’s son’s right to life, ensured by Article   2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, has the positive obligation to protect the life of the applicant’s son been complied with? Has the applicant’s son been provided with the requisite medical care and attention while under the authority of the State?   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? In particular, have all reasonable investigative steps been undertaken? Has the investigation been adequate within the meaning of the Convention? Has the applicant been involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard her legitimate interests? In this context, has the applicant sufficiently brought her complaints before the domestic instances?