CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 mars 2011

.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. 139 March 2011 Alikaj and Others v. Italy - 47357/08 Judgment 29.3.2011 [Section II] Article 2 Article 2-1 Effective investigation Article 2-2 Use of force Excessive use of force by police and lack of effective investigation: violations   Facts –The son and brother of the four applicants died after being hit by a bullet fired by a policeman while taking flight after a roadside police check. One night in December 1997, whilst the youth in question and three of his friends were driving along the motorway, the police ordered them to stop because the speed at which they were driving appeared suspicious. They stopped the car and ran away. The police fired two warning shots into the air, then one of the officers began to pursue the young men in slippery conditions, without a torch but armed, before firing a shot which hit the victim in the heart. He was killed on the spot. An investigation was opened immediately by the authorities. The first investigative acts were carried out by officers belonging to the same administrative unit as the officer who fired the fatal shot. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were brought against the officer. In 2006 the Assize Court found the officer guilty of reckless manslaughter, but as the offence was time-barred it granted him a discharge. An appeal by the public prosecutor was dismissed by the Court of Cassation in 2008. Law – Article 2 (a)     Substantive aspect – It had not been alleged that the police officers stopped the car because they had reason to believe that the passengers had committed violent crimes or were dangerous, or that the failure to arrest them would have had irreversible harmful consequences. They were not armed and nothing in their conduct suggested that they represented a threat. In such circumstances, by pursuing them in the middle of the night, gun in hand on ground made slippery by rain, the police officer had put their lives at risk. The use of potentially lethal force could not be regarded as “absolutely necessary” when the person targeted did not represent a threat to others and was not suspected of committing a violent offence. In addition to that imprudent conduct, the Court noted the lack of regulation of the use of weapons by the Italian police. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). (b)     Procedural aspect – The Court reiterated that, for an investigation into an allegation of unlawful homicide by State agents to be effective, the investigators had to be independent of the individuals involved in the incident. In the present case, the initial acts such as the forensic examination of the scene, the search for cartridge cases and the verification of the police officers’ weapons, had been entrusted to officers belonging to the same unit as the officer who fired the fatal shot. In particular, the first officer to arrive at the scene was his superior. Consequently, the investigation had not been sufficiently independent. Moreover, eleven years after the incident the Assize Court had granted the officer a discharge, after finding him guilty of reckless homicide, because the charges had become time-barred. In view of the promptness and reasonable expedition required of the authorities in such a context, the application of the time bar fell within the category of measures that the Court regarded as “inadmissible”, because they had the effect of preventing punishment. In addition, no disciplinary measures had ever been taken against the officer. Consequently, the criminal-law system as applied in this case had not had sufficient deterrent effect to prevent effectively illegal acts of the type complained of by the applicants and had not afforded them appropriate redress for the violation of the right to life of their family member. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 5,000 awarded jointly to the applicants for pecuniary damage; the victim’s father and mother were to receive EUR 50,000 each, and his sisters EUR 15,000 each, for 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