CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juin 2006

.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. 87 June 2006 Taïs v. France - 39922/03 Judgment 1.6.2006 [Section I] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Death of an Aids sufferer in sobering-up cell at a police station: violation   Facts : The applicants’ son, then aged 33 and suffering from Aids, was found dead in a police cell where he had been placed several hours earlier in a seriously inebriated state and with bruising caused earlier by various incidents following his arrest. Checks were made inside his cell every fifteen minutes from his arrival there at midnight until 5 a.m., and then every half hour until he was found dead at 7.30 a.m. The indication “nothing to report” had been added next to the times of the checks. An investigation into the cause of death was opened. The parents lodged a complaint alleging manslaughter by wounding and failure to assist a person in danger. The investigating judge came to the conclusion that, in the light of the expert reports, witness statements and investigations, the trauma that had caused the death, the exact origin of which remained unknown, had probably occurred while the victim was in custody, and that the most likely explanation was that he had fallen, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, from the concrete bench in the cell. The judge found that the custody officers at the police station could not be implicated and concluded that there was no case to answer. The Court of Appeal noted that the facts surrounding the death had occurred in a police station and ordered fresh statements from the persons who had been on the premises at the presumed time of death. The police officers declared that they had not entered the cell until the body was found. The Court of Appeal found that the most likely cause of death was a heavy fall onto a sharp corner of the concrete bench. In its view, the victim, who had remained highly intoxicated, and was exhausted after a restless night during which he had shouted at the police officers and stopped himself falling asleep, must have slipped on the excrement that had been smeared around the cell since 4 a.m. and fallen down, with all his weight and from a standing position, without the reflex to protect himself, as is not uncommon for alcoholics. An appeal by the applicants on points of law was dismissed. Law : Article 2 – Substantive obligations: Allegation of assault by police officers : the Government had not been able to provide a plausible explanation for the discrepancy, or even contradiction, between the medical report drawn up before the victim was placed in the cell and the autopsy report, or for the cause of the injuries found on his body, even though the injuries could only have been caused during his detention. The Government had failed to provide a convincing explanation for the death that had occurred while the victim was being held in custody. Alleged lack of care and supervision : the authorities had been under a duty to protect the life of the applicants’ son but there had been gross shortcomings and negligence on their part. Between 1 a.m. and 7.30 a.m. no police officer had entered the cell where the applicants’ son was sobering up, despite his having shouted all night and right up until a few moments before his death. His cries had been put down to his fraught frame of mind and his drunken state rather than being recognised as cries in agony or calls for help. He had not been provided with any care even though, from 4 a.m., a highly unpleasant smell had been emanating from the cell. Certain measures could have been taken to save the applicants’ son: according to the second expert, the injuries might not have been fatal if they had been diagnosed in time in different circumstances. Given the victim’s state of health on his arrival at the police station, and the long hours which followed, the police officers should at least have called a doctor to check on developments in his state of health. The inertia of the police officers in the face of his physical and mental distress and the lack of effective police and medical supervision had constituted a violation of the obligation to protect the life of a person in custody. Conclusion : violation of Article 2 under its substantive head (five votes to two). Procedural obligations : At the end of proceedings lasting ten years, the long investigation had failed to establish the actual cause of death and the uncertainty had only increased over time. The second expert opinion had been given nearly three years after the events and the investigating judge had not interviewed the police officers himself until four years after the events. No detailed evidence had been taken from the victim’s girlfriend despite the fact that she had been present in the police station on the night of the incident and could have given crucial evidence as to what she had heard, there being no other witnesses besides the police officers. A re-enactment of events, which had been refused by the investigating judge, might have helped to establish with greater certainty how the fatal injury had occurred. Conclusion : violation of Article 2 under its procedural head (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court made an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses.   © 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