CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 mai 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   311 15.5.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT RAMSAHAI AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS     The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Ramsahai and Others   v. the Netherlands (application no.   52391/99).   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the shooting of Moravia Ramsahai by a police officer; by 13 votes to four, that there had been a violation of Article 2, in that the investigation into his death was inadequate; by 16 votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 2, in that the investigation was not sufficiently independent; by 13 votes to four, that there has been no violation of Article 2 concerning the position of the public prosecutor supervising the police investigation into Moravia Ramsahai’s death; unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 2 concerning the extent of the involvement of the relatives of Moravia Ramsahai in the investigation; and, by 15 votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 2 concerning the procedure before the Court of Appeal.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), and by 16 votes to one, the Court awarded the applicants, jointly, 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   7,299 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available in English and French.)   1.     Principal facts   The case concerns an application brought by three Netherlands nationals, Renee Ramsahai, Mildred Ramsahai and Ricky Ramsahai, the grandfather, grandmother and father, respectively, of Moravia Ramsahai, born on 6 December 1979, who was shot dead by a policeman in July 1998. Renee and Mildred Ramsahai were both born in 1938 and Ricky Ramsahai was born in 1960. They all live in Amsterdam.   In the evening of Sunday 19 July 1998, during the “Kwakoe” festival in the Bijlmermeer district of Amsterdam (a celebration by the Surinamese immigrant community of the abolition of slavery in Suriname 135 years earlier), Moravia Ramsahai stole a scooter from its owner at gunpoint and drove off on it.   The police were notified. Two uniformed police officers on patrol, Officers Brons and Bultstra, spotted a scooter driven by a person fitting the description they had been given – later identified as Moravia Ramsahai – and tried to arrest him.   It was later established that Officer Bultstra saw Moravia Ramsahai draw a pistol from his trouser belt. Officer Bultstra drew his service pistol and ordered Moravia Ramsahai to drop his weapon. Moravia Ramsahai failed to do so. Officer Brons then approached. Moravia Ramsahai, raised his pistol and pointed it towards Officer Brons, who drew his pistol and fired. Moravia Ramsahai was hit in the neck. At 10.03 p.m. an ambulance was called. When it arrived, at about 10.15 p.m., Moravia Ramsahai was already dead.   A criminal investigation was ordered. Parts of the investigation were carried out by the Amsterdam/Amstelland Police Force (to which Officers Brons and Bultstra belonged); it was initially in charge of the investigation for the first 15-and-a-half hours, after which the investigation was taken over by an officer of the State Criminal Investigation Department ( Rijksrecherche ).   The public prosecutor, finding that Officer Brons had acted in legitimate self-defence, decided that no prosecution should be brought. That decision was endorsed by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal at the close of proceedings brought by the applicants.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 September 1999 and declared admissible on 3 March 2005.   In its Chamber judgment of 10 November 2005 the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 2 concerning the shooting of Moravia Ramsahai, and, by five votes to two, that there had been violations of Article 2 in that the investigation into Moravia Ramsahai’s death was not independent and the decision of the Court of Appeal was not public.   On 9 February 2006 the Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 (referral to the Grand Chamber) and on 12 April 2006 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 18 October 2006.   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), Christos Rozakis (Greek), Nicolas Bratza (British), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese) Nina Vajić (Croatian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch) , ad hoc judge , and also Michael O’Boyle , Deputy Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants complained about the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Moravia Ramsahai and the lack of an effective and independent investigation into his death. They relied on Article 2, Article 6 § 1 and Article 13.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   The shooting of Moravia Ramsahai   The Court had concerns about the independence and quality of the investigation into Moravia Ramsahai’s death. However, the Chamber’s establishment of the facts had not been seriously contested: the Government had not commented on it, and the applicants had been content merely to refer in general terms to their factual statements to the Chamber without pointing to inaccuracies in the Chamber’s findings of fact or suggesting an alternative version of events. Moreover, the account of Moravia Ramsahai’s behaviour given by Officers Brons and Bultstra was consistent with other information, namely that Moravia Ramsahai was known to have threatened people with a pistol earlier in the day. In the circumstances, and given the position taken by the parties as regards the establishment of the facts by the Chamber, the Grand Chamber decided to consider the case in the light of those facts.   Having come to that decision, the Grand Chamber agreed with the Chamber’s finding that the fatal shot fired by Officer Brons had been “no more than absolutely necessary” and that there had therefore been no violation of Article 2 concerning the shooting of Moravia Ramsahai.   The investigation into the shooting   Adequacy of the investigation The Grand Chamber noted the failure to test the hands of the two officers for gunshot residue and to stage a reconstruction of the incident, as well as the apparent absence of any examination of their weapons or ammunition and the lack of an adequate pictorial record of the trauma caused to Moravia Ramsahai’s body by the bullet. What was more, Officers Brons and Bultstra had not been kept separated after the incident and had not been questioned until nearly three days later. Although there was no evidence that they had colluded with each other or with their colleagues on the local police force, the mere fact that appropriate steps were not taken to reduce the risk of such collusion amounted to a significant shortcoming in the adequacy of the investigation. Those shortcomings in the investigation were all the more regrettable in that there were no witnesses who saw the fatal shot fired from close by, except   Officers Brons and Bultstra themselves. There had therefore been a violation of Article 2 concerning the inadequate investigation into the circumstances surrounding Moravia Ramsahai’s death.   Independence of the investigation The Grand Chamber observed that fifteen-and-a-half hours had passed from the time of Moravia Ramsahai’s death until the State Criminal Investigation Department became involved in the investigation. During that time essential parts of the investigation had been carried out by the same force to which Officers Brons and Bultstra belonged, the Amsterdam/Amstelland Police Force. After the State Criminal Investigation Department – a police department invested with the necessary independence – took over, further investigations had been undertaken by the Amsterdam/Amstelland Police Force, although at the State Criminal Investigation Department’s behest and under its responsibility.   The Grand Chamber found the unexplained delay of fifteen-and-a-half hours unacceptable. Nor did there appear to have been any special circumstances that necessitated immediate action by the local police force going beyond the securing of the area in question. As to the investigations of the Amsterdam/Amstelland Police Force after the State Criminal Investigation Department took over, the Grand Chamber found that the Department’s subsequent involvement could not suffice to remove the taint of the force’s lack of independence. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 2 in that the police investigation was not sufficiently independent.   The role of the public prosecutor The Grand Chamber noted that the police investigation had been carried out under the supervision of an Amsterdam public prosecutor who was specifically responsible for the police work carried out at the police station to which Officers Brons and Bultstra belonged. The same public prosecutor had taken the decision not to prosecute Officer Brons. In the Grand Chamber’s view, it would have been better if the investigation had been supervised by a public prosecutor unconnected to the Amsterdam/Amstelland Police Force, especially given their involvement in the investigation itself. Even so, note had to be taken of the degree of independence of the Netherlands Public Prosecution Service and the fact that ultimate responsibility for the investigation was borne by the Chief Public Prosecutor. What was more, the possibility of review by an independent tribunal existed and the applicants had actually made use of it. The Grand Chamber therefore found that there had been no violation of Article 6 concerning the role of the public prosecutor.   Involvement of the applicants The Grand Chamber considered that it could not be regarded as an automatic requirement under Article 2 that a deceased victim’s surviving next of kin be granted access to an investigation as it went along. Nor did Article 2 impose a duty on the investigating authorities to satisfy every request for a particular investigative measure made by a relative in the course of the investigation. Moreover, the Chamber’s finding that the applicants had been granted access to the information yielded by the investigation to a degree sufficient for them to participate effectively in proceedings aimed at challenging the decision not to prosecute Officer Brons had not been called into question before the Grand Chamber. There had not therefore been a violation of Article 2 concerning the involvement of the applicants in the investigation. Procedure followed by the Court of Appeal The Grand Chamber held that Article 2 did not go so far as to require all proceedings following an inquiry into a violent death to be public. The test was whether there was a sufficient element of public scrutiny in respect of the investigation or its results to secure accountability in practice as well as in theory, maintain public confidence in the authorities’ adherence to the rule of law and prevent any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts.   In the applicants’ case, the Grand Chamber agreed with the Chamber that the Court of Appeal’s proceedings did not have to be open to the public. Unlike the Chamber, however, the Court took the view that the Court of Appeal’s decision was not required to be made public either. The applicants had been allowed full access to the investigation file and had been enabled to participate effectively in the Court of Appeal’s hearing; they had been provided with a reasoned decision. It was thus unlikely that any authority involved in the case might have concealed relevant information from the Court of Appeal or the applicants. In addition, given that the applicants had not been prevented from making the decision public themselves, the Grand Chamber took the view that the requirement of publicity had been satisfied to an extent sufficient to obviate the danger of any improper cover-up by the Netherlands authorities. There had not therefore been a violation of Article 2 concerning the procedure followed by the Court of Appeal.   Articles 6 § 1 and 13   The Grand Chamber agreed with the Chamber that Article 6 was not applicable in the case and that no separate issue arose under Article 13.     Judges Costa, Sir Nicolas Bratza, Rozakis, Lorenzen, Cabral Barreto, Botoucharova, Mularoni, Jočienė and Popović and ad hoc judge Thomassen expressed partly dissenting opinions, which are annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.