Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 77
July-August 2005
Trubnikov v. Russia - 49790/99
Judgment 5.7.2005 [Section II]
Article 2
Article 2-1
Life
Suicide of a prisoner who had been placed in a punishment cell, and effectiveness of the investigation: violation
Facts: The applicant's son, who was serving a prison sentence, was found dead in a punishment cell in September 1998. During his imprisonment, which had started in 1993, he had on several occasions been placed in punishment cells when found to be under the influence of alcohol. During one of these disciplinary confinements he had inflicted bodily injury on himself and on another occasion had attempted suicide. Thereafter, he had been placed under psychiatric supervision. In September 1998, the applicant's son had again been placed in a punishment cell for being under the influence of alcohol. About an hour after, he was found dead, hanged by the sleeve of his jacket. That same day the prison governor conducted an inquest. After examining a number of documents and reports, he concluded that the applicant's son had hanged himself and that no criminal investigation was to be opened, as there was no appearance that a crime had been committed. The applicant asked the prison authorities to initiate a criminal investigation. He was not informed that a decision not to do so had been taken. The applicant subsequently requested the prosecutor's office to provide him information about the circumstances of his son's death, which refused to institute criminal proceedings. It was only after the case was communicated to the respondent Government that, in February 2002, the prosecutor's office opened an investigation into the death of the applicant's son. The investigation principally consisted of two forensic examinations and the taking of testimonies from officers, inmates and the prison psychiatrist. In October 2002, the prosecutor's office concluded that the applicant's son had committed suicide. The applicant received a copy of the termination order in March 2003.
Law: Article 38(1) – The refusal of the Government to provide the original medical file concerning the psychiatric supervision of the applicant's son on grounds that it was unsafe to remove it from the prison archives where it was held, despite the Court's reassurance that the file would be returned at the end of the proceedings, had represented a breach of this provision.
Conclusion: failure of Russia to fulfil its obligations (unanimously)
Article 2 (as regards the authorities' positive obligations to protect the right to life) – For a positive obligation to arise regarding a prisoner with suicidal tendencies, it had to be established that the authorities knew, or ought to have known, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of the identified individual. In the present case, whilst the applicant's son showed a tendency to inflict self-harm in response to being subjected to disciplinary confinement and had once attempted suicide, his prison medical records indicated that he displayed no acute psychiatric symptoms. Moreover, his psychiatrist had never expressed that he was likely to commit suicide. The Court could not therefore conclude that the authorities were aware of an imminent threat to his life, or that they could have reasonably foreseen this in view of his apparently stabilised mental and emotional state. Despite the fact that the applicant's son history showed that the combination of his inebriation with a disciplinary punishment was not without some risk for his condition, this was not sufficient to vest the authorities with the entire responsibility for his death.
Conclusion: No violation (unanimously).
Article 2 (as regards the authorities' failure to provide an effective investigation) – For a positive obligation to safeguard the life of persons in custody to arise, the Court's established case-law requires for an independent and impartial official investigation which satisfies some minimum standards as to effectiveness. The initial inquest into the death of the applicant's son did not satisfy the minimum requirement of independence since the investigating body – the prison governor – represented the authority involved. Moreover, the inquest did little to satisfy the need for public scrutiny. The family was not even informed about the formal refusal to institute criminal proceedings. As regards the investigation carried out in 2002, it was only conducted after the present application was communicated by the Court to the Government, that is, more than three years after the incident. Such a substantial delay constituted a breach of the authorities' obligation to exercise exemplary diligence and promptness. Moreover, the applicant and the rest of the family were entirely excluded from the proceedings, had not been granted the official status of victims in the proceedings and never received any information about the progress of the investigation. Hence, the investigation had lacked a sufficient element of public scrutiny, and did not safeguard the interests of the next-of-kin. Whilst the authorities had taken a number of important steps to establish the true circumstances of the death, the investigation fell short of the essential requirements under this provision of promptness, exemplary diligence, initiative on the part of the authorities and public scrutiny.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 8,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award for costs and expenses.
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy