CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 juillet 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA813D16 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } 555 08.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Vachkovi (Въчкови) v. Bulgaria (application no. 2747/02)     Police suspect dies from gunshot wound AFTER CAR CHASE IN THE STREETS OF SOFIA   Unanimously:   Two violations of Article 2 (right to life – right to an effective investigation) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicants, Veronika Vachkova and Petar Vachkov, are Bulgarian nationals who live in Sofia.   The case concerned the applicants’ allegation that the police had shot in the head and killed their 28-year-old son, Gancho Vachkov, on a wanted list of robbery suspects, after trapping him in a residential building following a car chase during which he was trying to escape.   Between 1996 and 1998, two sets of criminal proceedings for car theft, illegal possession of arms and robbery were opened against Gancho, and an arrest warrant in his name was issued in 1996. Still at large, on 6 June 1999, he was playing football with friends at a playground in central Sofia, when he noticed that the police were observing him. He drove away at high speed with a police car following him closely.   During the chase through the streets of Sofia, Gancho opened fire on the police with an automatic weapon. Firing back, the police managed to puncture his car tyres and he ran away on foot. The exchange of gunfire continued until he took refuge in a residential building. The police sealed off the area and masked officers then entered the building after which gunfire was heard. Shortly after, Gancho was brought out by the police, shot in his head but still alive, his hands tied behind his back. Taken to a hospital, he died later that day.   Subsequently it was established that the masked officers who had followed Gancho were from the special anti-terrorist squad of the Ministry of the Interior.   A criminal investigation was opened into the events on the same day, 6 June 1999. A number of investigative acts were carried out: those included an inspection of Gancho’s car and of the site where he was shot (but which was not preserved); two autopsies, performed on 7 and 11 June respectively, which established that the fatal gun shot had been fired at close range; witnesses were questioned, including some who enjoyed anonymity. The officers who followed Gancho were never identified or questioned. An expert report assessing Gancho’s mental state during the hours preceding his death concluded that suicide was a possible explanation for his death.   On 21 September 1999, the criminal proceedings were discontinued, the prosecutors finding that no offence had been committed given that the immediate cause of Gancho’s death had been suicide. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully several times to the higher prosecutors asking that the case be sent to the courts.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the excessive use of force against their son and the inadequacy of the ensuing investigation.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 20   December   2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Right to life: use of force (Article 2)   The Court noted that Gancho had been fatally wounded during an attempted police arrest. Following his entry into the residential building, the whole area had been sealed off by the police who had had at the time complete control of the situation. While it had not appeared that Gancho could have successfully escaped, the police had not even attempted to minimise, as much as possible, recourse to lethal force. As it had not been established that there had been any danger or urgency justifying the use of firearms for Gancho’s arrest, the Court found that the police could have attempted to negotiate with him to surrender, or at least to warn him of their intentions to fire. Instead, apparently without considering any other alternative action, the special squad officers had rushed into the building firing their guns. The Court concluded that the arrest operation had not been adequately planned and that, in those circumstances, the force used had not been absolutely necessary, as required by the Convention. There had therefore been a violation of Article 2.   Right to life: investigation (Article 2)   The Court observed that the Bulgarian authorities had undertaken a number of investigative acts. However, it was struck by the fact that they had failed to collect a crucial piece of evidence, namely statements from the special squad officers who had been directly involved in Gancho’s arrest. Those officers appeared to have been unconditionally exempted from their duty to testify in criminal proceedings, something for which there could be no excuse given the authorities’ obligations under Article 2 to conduct effective investigations where suspicious deaths were at stake.   Further, the reliability of the psychiatric report carried out after Gancho’s death was seriously questioned by the Court. In addition, unlike the prosecutor’s affirmation, the Court found the evidence gathered to have been inconclusive, leaving open both possible explanations for Gancho’s death: suicide as well as manslaughter. The discontinuation of the investigation, without identifying first the officers who had taken part in his arrest, indicated a deplorable lack of accountability of the police before the law. Finally, the investigation was found to have been incomplete, a number of important investigative acts never having taken place. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the investigation into Gancho’s death lacked the necessary thoroughness and objectivity, and was not effective, in violation of Article 2.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Bulgaria had to pay to the applicants jointly 30 000   euros (EUR) for non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR   3,605 for costs and expenses.   Judge Maruste expressed a separate concurring opinion which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site . To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .     Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   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] Under Articles   43   and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the   day the   request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .