CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 février 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 39 February 2002 Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.) - 43577/98 and 43579/98 Decision 28.2.2002 [Section I] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Deserters shot dead by military police during attempted arrest: admissible Privates Angelov and Rangelov died in controversial circumstances during an attempted arrest by military police. The applications were lodged respectively by the daughter and partner of Private Angelov and the parents of Private Rangelov. In 1996, the soldiers were arrested for having been absent without leave during military service. They were sentenced to imprisonment for nine and five months respectively but escaped from the place where they were detained and sought refuge at the home of Private Angelov’s grandmother. A warrant for their arrest was issued and sent to the military police. Following an anonymous message, the military police located them and sent four military policemen to the village where the grandmother lived. As the officers arrived in front of her house, the soldiers tried to escape. They were shot by the commanding officer and died on their way to hospital. A criminal investigation into their deaths was opened: the scene of the shooting was inspected by the military investigator and autopsies were carried out. The commanding officer, the other officers, the grandmother, the neighbours and relatives of the soldiers were heard by the investigator. A forensic examination of the blood stains found where the shooting had taken place was carried out; the blood appeared to match the soldiers’ blood groups. Their families were given access to the investigation files but their request to have witnesses re-examined was rejected. The investigator, giving great weight to the commanding officer’s statements, reported that the latter had warned the soldiers before shooting and had aimed at them only because they had not surrendered to his oral commands and warning shots in the air. Moreover, he had attempted to shoot at their legs in order to catch them alive and had thus acted in compliance with Regulation 45 of the Military Police Regulations, according to which military police officers may use firearms to arrest a person serving in the army who has committed or is about to commit an offence and does not surrender after having been warned. The Military Prosecutor, in view of the investigator’s recommendation, closed the preliminary investigation into the deaths. The applicants’ appeals to the Armed Forces Prosecutor’s Offices and Investigation Review Department in the Armed Forces Prosecutor’s Office were rejected. Admissible under Articles 2, 13 and 14 of the Convention.   © 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