CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 février 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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. 83 February 2006 Scavuzzo-Hager and Others v. Switzerland - 41773/98 Judgment 7.2.2006 [Section IV] Article 2 Effectiveness of the investigation concerning the death of a drug addict three days after his arrest by two police officers: violation Reaction of the police when the suspect lost consciousness in the course of his arrest: no violation   Article 2-2 Use of force Arrest by two police officers of a very agitated drug addict who died three days later: no violation   Facts : The son of the first two applicants, who was also the brother of the third, died three days after his arrest by two police officers. At the time of the arrest he was in a disturbed state. Once inside the police-car he went into hysterics, escaped from the vehicle, fought back violently when the officers caught and tried to restrain him with the help of a third party, then lost consciousness. Paramedics quickly arrived on the scene and managed to resuscitate him but he lost consciousness again on the way to hospital and never regained it. According to an investigation by the police officers who carried out the arrest, he most probably died of natural causes. An autopsy report attributed his death to excessive drug intake. The Public Prosecutor decided not to take any further action. The applicants lodged a claim for compensation. The Federal Court, which had exclusive jurisdiction to rule on the claim, ordered a forensic medical report. The report concluded that the death had not been caused solely by the victim's heavy drug intake, but that the loss of consciousness and subsequent complications were the result of his physical exertions during the arrest on top of a pre-existing state of weakness involving muscular, renal and circulation problems. The expert indicated that deaths were often reported by medical practitioners in cases of individuals who had been arrested in a state of overexcitement, especially when police officers had used the method of pinning them face down on the ground with their hands and feet handcuffed. The Federal Court found that there was no causal link between the actions of the police officers and the victim's death, which would in all probability have followed in any event, given his acute state of weakness. In the court's view it was by chance that the death had occurred at the time of the arrest and the police officers' conduct had not caused the death, even though it could not be excluded that it may have been hastened by their intervention. The court added that, even if the police intervention had been one of the causes of death, it would not render the authorities responsible because it had not been possible for the two officers to identify the victim's pre-existing state of weakness. Law : Article 2(2)(b): Use of force by police officers : the Government contended that the death had not been “inflicted”, within the meaning of Article 2(2), by State action, but that it would have occurred in any event, even without the arrest, in view of the suspect's failing health, undermined as it was by a heavy intake of drugs. The Court noted, in the light of the evidence before it, that the agents of the State had not used force in a manner that was lethal per se for the victim. Nevertheless, the victim had lost consciousness precisely when the police officers were attempting to restrain him. In the Court's view it could not therefore be excluded at the outset that the force used for that purpose might have provoked the fatal outcome. However, for this to have engaged the international responsibility of the respondent State, the officers also had to have been reasonably able to realise that the suspect was particularly vulnerable and that a high degree of caution was required in the choice of “normal” arrest techniques. It had in fact been impossible for the two police officers to know that the suspect was so vulnerable that the slightest impact on his body could lead to fatal complications. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Positive obligation to protect life : The police officers had immediately called for an ambulance and had placed the suspect, who was unconscious, in the lateral safety position. The Court was not persuaded by the applicants' argument that the two police officers had failed to make any attempt to resuscitate the arrested suspect when he lost consciousness. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 2(1) – Obligation to conduct an effective inquiry : It was the two police officers who had arrested the victim who had also conducted the initial phase of the investigation, but they had never themselves been questioned by a third-party authority. In addition, the authorities had discontinued the proceedings on the sole ground that the victim's level of intoxication would in any case have caused his death, without submitting to experts the question whether the force used by the police, even though not lethal in itself, had nevertheless caused or at least hastened his death. Regard being had to the fact that the victim had lost consciousness at the very moment when the police officers were using force to restrain him; the investigation should have covered that question if it was to be effective. The precise method used to restrain the victim, including such details as whether and to what extent he had been pinned down on the ground or handcuffed, had never finally been uncovered. Lastly, the prosecuting authorities should have asked themselves whether or not the police officers could have been aware of the suspect's vulnerability. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 in its substantive aspect, that no separate issue arose regarding the procedural aspect of that provision, and that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 (the Federal Court's refusal to take evidence from the witnesses, in particular the two police officers). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicants, the parents and brother of the deceased, EUR   12,000 for non-pecuniary damage and a further sum 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