Published on 19 February 2024
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 28273/23
S.T.
against the Czech Republic
lodged on 4 July 2023
communicated on 30 January 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the death of the applicant’s brother in the course of a police intervention in June 2021, during which the police officers had kneeled on his neck and legs for several minutes to subdue him, and the ensuing criminal investigation into the circumstances of his death.
The police initiated criminal proceedings against an unknown person who had been supposed to have sold drugs to the applicant’s brother, the use of which had allegedly led to the latter’s death of cardiac arrest. In order to assess the liability of the intervening police officers, the police ordered forensic expert opinions, which concluded that the applicant’s brother’s death was due to a drug intoxication, not to the police intervention. The case was then set aside in December 2021.
In June 2021 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the police officers with the General Inspectorate of Security Forces, which, however, closed the file in March 2022 on the basis of the evidence collected by the police, without taking any further measures.
The applicant’s constitutional appeal was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded (IV. ÚS 1233/22).
Before the Court, the applicant complains, under Article 2 of the Convention, that her brother died as a result of an excessive and disproportionate use of force by the police officers and that the State failed in its positive obligation to protect his life by providing him with adequate emergency medical assistance.
Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant also claims that her brother was subjected to ill-treatment when he was in the hands of the police.
She further submits, under both Articles 2 and 3, that the investigation into these circumstances was not effective.
Relying on Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that her brother’s Roma ethnicity played a role in the ill-treatment inflicted on him by the police officers and that the authorities failed to conduct a proper investigation into that aspect.
She lastly complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, that she did not have at her disposal any effective domestic remedy against the closing of the file by the General Inspectorate of Security Forces.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant’s brother’s right to life, guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?
Namely, did his death result from the use of force which was “no more than absolutely necessary” within the meaning of Article 2 § 2 of the Convention (see, for example, Boukrourou and Others v. France, no. 30059/15, §§ 59-62, 16 November 2017)? Could the intervening police officers have been aware of the applicant’s brother’s vulnerability resulting from his drug intoxication (see, mutatis mutandis, Scavuzzo-Hager and Others v. Switzerland, no. 41773/98, § 61, 7 February 2006)?
2. Was the applicant’s brother subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 when he was in the hands of the police?
3. Having regard to the procedural protection under the above provisions (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII; and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, §§ 233-234, ECHR 2016, with further references), did the investigation by the domestic authorities comply with the requirements of Article 2 and/or 3 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention?
In particular, has there been any independent and thorough investigation by the General Inspectorate of Security Forces, given that that authority relied information and evidence provided by the police (see, mutatis mutandis, Sládková v. the Czech Republic, no. 15741/15, § 76, 10 November 2022? Can the medical expert opinions ordered by the police be considered as impartial and independent?
Furthermore, did the domestic authorities have before them information that was sufficient to bring into play their additional duty, to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice towards the Roma minority may have played a role in the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant’s brother (see, a contrario, Adam v. Slovakia, no. 68066/12, § 94, 26 July 2016, with further references and, mutatis mutandis, Lakatošová and Lakatoš v. Slovakia, no. 655/16, § 75, 11 December 2018)? If so, did they take such steps?
4. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy against the processing of the case by the General Inspectorate of Security Forces, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?