CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 14 April 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 9821/21 Ada AGRI against Italy lodged on 5 February 2021 communicated on 28 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the circumstances of the death of the applicant’s son, P.A., during his involuntary hospitalisation in a psychiatric ward ( Servizio psichiatrico di diagnosi e cura ) while under mechanical restraint and pharmacological sedation. Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains (a) that the mechanical restraint to which P.A. was subjected had not been strictly necessary to prevent imminent danger to himself or others and had contributed to causing his death (b) that the mechanical restraint and pharmacological sedation had not been applied with diligence given that P.A. was an individual with respiratory difficulties and other high-risk medical conditions (c) that the authorities, despite having been fully aware of P.A.’s health conditions, had failed to provide him with appropriate medical assistance – as well as close and constant monitoring – capable of averting risks to his life and health; and (d) that there was a lack of training of healthcare personnel on the use of mechanical restraint. The applicant also complained, under the same Articles, that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the impugned events.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the circumstances in which P.A. died disclose a violation of Article   2 of the Convention in its substantive aspect?   In particular, did the domestic authorities fail to take adequate and appropriate steps to protect P.A.’s life?   2.     Has P.A. been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Aggerholm v. Denmark , no.   45439/18, §§   79-85, 15 September 2020)? In particular:   Can it be stated that mechanical restraint was employed as a matter of last resort and that its application was the only means available to prevent immediate or imminent harm to P.A. or others, and, if so, that the measure was not prolonged beyond the period which was strictly necessary for the achievement of such a purpose (see Lavorgna v. Italy , no. 8436/21, §§   115, 116 and 122, 7 November 2024)? Was   the use of such a measure commensurate with adequate safeguards   from any abuse (see M.S. v. Croatia (no. 2) , no. 75450/12, § 105, 19 February 2015) ? Can it be stated that P.A. was kept under close supervision, also bearing in mind the specific circumstances of the case, and that the use of restraint was properly recorded (see Lavorgna , cited above § 116) ?   3.     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) and the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV) was the investigation in the present case   by the domestic authorities in breach of Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention? In particular:   - Have all reasonable steps been taken by the national authorities to establish the cause of P.A.’s death and to investigate the applicant’s allegations in this respect? - 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) and, mutatis mutandis , Scavuzzo-Hager and Others v. Switzerland , no.   41773/98, §§ 58-59, 7 February 2006? - Did the domestic judicial authorities, and in particular the investigating judge, set out with sufficient clarity the grounds on which the   applicant’s   arguments and requests for further investigative acts were dismissed? In replying to this question, the parties are invited to address, amongst other things, the applicant’s requests for an assessment of the possible impact of mechanical and pharmacological restraint on P.A.’s death, if need be by ordering a fresh medical expert assessment; an assessment of the justification of the mechanical restraint measure and its prolongation in terms of the measures’ necessity to prevent an imminent danger; and, lastly, the request to identify and hear the medical and nursing staff involved in the impugned events.   The Government are invited to specify whether P.A. was under constant supervision while he was mechanically restrained and, if so provide evidence thereof.   The Government are invited to submit a copy of the protocol or guidelines on the use of mechanical restraint which were applicable, at the time of the impugned events, in the Sassari Santissima Annunziata hospital psychiatric ward.   The Government are further invited to specify whether a Register of restraint ( registro della contenzione ) existed at the Sassari Santissima Annunziata hospital at the material time, and whether the applicant’s restraint was recorded in such a register. In the affirmative, they are invited to provide a copy of the relevant entries.   They are also invited to specify whether training of medical and non-medical staff in the Sassari Santissima Annunziata hospital psychiatric ward had been carried out on the use of mechanical restraint at the time of the impugned events, and, in the affirmative, provide information on the content of such training and any pertinent documentation in support of their answer.