CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s97BEBE9A { width:55.88%; border-collapse:collapse } .sD7752E15 { width:13.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s873954E8 { width:41.24%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1F408D63 { width:44.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4FD825B7 { width:13.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD3D25017 { width:41.24%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB08855E5 { width:44.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 18 May 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 24114/25 J.H. and Others against Spain lodged on 31 July 2025 communicated on 28 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are the parents and siblings of X.H., who had a history of psychiatric disorders and of physical self-harm. According to the medical records submitted with the case file, she was under hormone therapy and preferred the feminine pronoun. On 22 January 2023 she went to the emergency room of a public hospital and complained to the doctors of suicidal ideation. She was admitted and was administered pharmacological treatment. After twenty-four hours under observation and due to the recurrency of ideas of self-harm, she was sent to the acute care unit. After a first suicide attempt in this unit, the health personnel activated the protocol on prevention of suicide. She was administered stronger medication and was placed in an individual ward under video-surveillance. On 30 January 2023 X.H. committed suicide using a bedsheet knotted around the neck. An enquiry was opened ex officio . On 10 February 2023 a criminal investigating judge declared the discontinuation of the proceedings because the events had no criminal connotations. On 28 April 2023 the applicants requested the reopening of the proceedings. They complained about a lack of due diligence on the side of the hospital staff and requested complementary investigating measures. The judge reopened the proceedings to investigate any liability on the part of the medical team, requested a copy of the hospital’s protocol on prevention on suicide and a list of the medical staff on duty assisting the patient. The protocol prescribed that patients committed in an individual ward should be under video surveillance and monitored. It did not require a continuous surveillance, although provided that the medical team should monitor the screens at least once every hour. In a decision of 14 September 2023, the judge observed that the events had happened in an interval of twenty minutes. The decision underlined that it was materially impossible to have a continuous surveillance of the patients. It concluded that there had not been a lack of diligence or severe failure of the duty of care because she had been monitored at least once per hour. The investigation was discontinued for the second time. The Audiencia Provincial upheld the discontinuation of the investigation on 17 May 2024. On 22   April 2025 the Constitutional Court declared the amparo appeal inadmissible for lack of constitutional significance. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the criminal investigating judge had discontinued the case without a proper investigation, that the proceedings were unfair and that the death of their relative could have been prevented. They also refer to Article 6 of the Convention, as well as to Article 14 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the authorities’ positive obligations to take measures to protect an individual from themselves (see, for instance, Keenan v.   the   United Kingdom , no.   27229/95, § 93, ECHR 2001-III; Hiller v.   Austria , no.   1967/14, §   49, 22   November 2016; Fernandes de Oliveira v.   Portugal [GC], no.   78103/14, § 110, 31 January 2019; Hasani v.   Sweden, no.   35950/20, §   60; and Haugen v. Norway , no.   59476/21, §§   134-137 and   153, 15 October 2024), has Article   2 of the Convention been violated in the present case? In particular, have the domestic authorities taken all necessary precautions or done everything possible in order to prevent the risk of suicide of the applicants’ relative from materialising, in line with the requirements of Article   2 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the manner in which the domestic authorities conducted the proceedings in breach of Article   2 of the Convention (see Boychenko v. Russia , no.   8663/08, §§   82 and 84, 12 October 2021)?   3.     The respondent Government is requested to submit a copy of the protocol on prevention on suicide followed in the case; the documents and information about the training received by the medical team in charge of the patient, including the specific content of the training program; as well as the information and relevant documents concerning the patient’s diagnosis and what medication was administered to her.   APPENDIX (anonymity has been granted) Application no. 24114/25 No. Applicant’s Name Place of residence 1. J.H. Barcelona 2. J.H. Madrid 3. S.H. Madrid 4. F.J. Madrid