CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 février 2007

.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. 94 February 2007 Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy (dec.) - 23458/02 Decision 6.2.2007 [Section IV] Article 2 Article 2-2 Use of force Fatal wounding of a demonstrator by a shot fired by a member of the security forces from a jeep that was under attack from a group of demonstrators: admissible   Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Fatally wounded demonstrator run over by a police vehicle: admissible   The application concerns the death of the applicants’ son and brother, at the age of 23, which occurred while he was taking part in an anti-globalisation demonstration in connection with the G8 summit held in Genoa in 2001. Violent clashes took place between demonstrators and the security forces, and a security forces jeep which had stalled came under attack from a group of demonstrators brandishing stones, sticks and iron bars. One of the three carabinieri in the jeep, a twenty-year-old officer, was suffering the effects of tear-gas canisters thrown during earlier clashes. Crouched down, panicking, in the back of the vehicle and shouting to the crowd to leave, he seized his weapon, pointed it outside the vehicle and fired two shots. Carlo Giuliani, who had just picked up an empty fire extinguisher, was a few metres from the back of the jeep; the first bullet hit him in the face, below the left eye, and he fell to the ground behind the jeep. In an attempt to move the jeep out, the driver reversed over Mr Giuliani’s body; he then drove forwards over the body again. When the demonstrators had been dispersed a doctor went to the scene and pronounced Mr   Giuliani dead. An investigation was opened immediately by the Italian authorities, in the course of which statements were taken from the three carabinieri in the jeep and evidence was heard from other carabinieri and some of the demonstrators. Criminal proceedings for intentional homicide were instituted against the officer who had fired the shots and the driver of the jeep. The autopsy performed within 24 hours of death revealed that the impact of the bullet had been sufficient to kill the victim within a few minutes, whereas the jeep’s driving over his body had resulted only in minor injuries. At the public prosecutor’s request three expert reports were prepared. The report submitted by a panel of experts deplored the fact that they had been unable to examine Mr Giuliani’s body, which had been cremated. The experts concluded that the bullet had been fired upwards by the officer and had not struck the victim directly, but had been deflected by a stone thrown at the jeep by another demonstrator. They further found that, at the time the shot was fired, Carlo had been about 1.75 metres from the jeep and the officer firing the shot had been able to see him. The experts appointed by the applicants acknowledged that the fatal bullet had been in several pieces when it hit Carlo, but disputed the theory that it had been deflected by a stone, and also the findings regarding the distance and direction from which the shot had been fired. The public prosecutor requested that the proceedings be discontinued and the applicants objected. The investigating judge decided to discontinue the proceedings. She held that the driver of the jeep, whose actions had resulted only in bruising, could not be held responsible for the killing as he had been unable to see Carlo given the confusion prevailing around the vehicle. As to the officer who had fired the fatal shot, the judge took the view that he had fired into the air but that the bullet had been deflected by some object before striking Carlo. In the judge’s view, the use of the weapon had been justified in the circumstances and the officer had acted in self‑defence. Admissible under Articles 2, 3, 6 and 13, after dismissal of the preliminary objection concerning failure to exhaust domestic remedies.   © 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