CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 mai 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 152 May 2012 Putintseva v. Russia - 33498/04 Judgment 10.5.2012 Article 2 Article 2-2 Use of force Conscript shot dead while trying to escape from detention to which he had been sentenced for disciplinary offence: violation   Facts – The applicant’s son was shot and killed while attempting to escape as he was being escorted back to his detention unit to complete a ten-day disciplinary sentence he had received for being absent without leave from his compulsory military service. No charges were brought against the sergeant who shot him – and with whom the applicant’s son had had an altercation shortly beforehand – on the grounds that he had followed the rules regulating the use of firearms to prevent the escape of an arrestee. Law – Article 2 (a)   Substantive aspect – The domestic authorities’ findings had not involved the assessment of the legal framework defining the circumstances for the use of force against a fleeing soldier. Ascertaining whether the facts disclosed a violation of Article   2 was a distinct question from assessing whether there was any criminal liability on the part of the sergeant. The standard applied by the domestic authorities had been whether the use of lethal force had been legitimate, as opposed to whether it had been “absolutely necessary” under Article 2 §   2. Under the relevant domestic law it was lawful to shoot any fugitive, even one sentenced for a minor disciplinary offence, who did not surrender immediately in response to an oral warning or the firing of a warning shot in the air. Such a legal framework was fundamentally deficient and fell well short of the level of protection “by law” of the right to life as it made no room for the proportionality requirement and did not contain any other safeguards to prevent the arbitrary deprivation of life. There had therefore been a general failure by the respondent State to comply with its obligation under Article   2 to secure the right to life by putting in place an appropriate legal and administrative framework on the use of force and firearms by military sentries against fleeing soldiers. As regards the actual use of force and the authorities’ conduct preceding the incident, the applicant’s son was not armed and did not represent a danger to those escorting him or third parties. In these circumstances, any resort to potentially lethal force was prohibited by Article   2, regardless of any risk that he might escape. Moreover, it appeared that there had been other means available to prevent his escape. His behaviour had apparently been predictable, since he had easily been found in a previous incident, and his commanding officers were aware that he was experiencing psychological problems in adjusting to life in the army and was liable to try to escape. However there was no indication that the sergeant who had shot him had received clear instructions about the amount of force necessary in such circumstances or been provided with guidance to minimise the risk of loss of life. It was also of concern that the same sergeant with whom the applicant’s son had had a physical altercation shortly before the shooting had been entrusted with the task of escorting him. The escort had been organised in an unconsidered manner and the decision taken by the commandant to entrust the sergeant with the task of escorting him had lacked the necessary degree of caution. Thus the authorities had failed to minimise to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force and any risk to the applicant’s son’s life. In sum, the relevant legal framework on the use of force had been fundamentally deficient and the applicant’s son had been killed in circumstances in which the use of firearms to prevent his escape was incompatible with Article   2. Conclusion   : violation (unanimously). (b)   Procedural aspect – The investigation had been independent and was conducted with sufficient expedition. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 45,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes