Factsheet – Right to life

June 2013This factsheet does not bind the Court and is not exhaustive

Right to life ARTICLE 2 (Right to life)

1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Use of lethal force by the State

The necessity principleMc Cann and Others v. the United Kingdom: “a stricter and more compelling test of necessity”

The use of lethal force by the State was first addressed in details in the Mc Cann and Others v. the UK (application no. 18984/91) judgment of 27.09.1995: Article 2 allows for exceptions to the right to life only when it is “absolutely necessary”, a term indicating “that a stricter and more compelling test of necessity must be employed than that normally applicable when determining whether State action is “necessary in a democratic society” under paragraphs 2 of Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention”(§ 149). The case concerned the death of three members of the IRA, suspected of having on them a remote control device to be used to explode a bomb, who were shot dead on the street by Special Air Service soldiers in Gibraltar. The Court concluded that there has been a violation of Article 2 because the operation could have been planned and controlled without the need to kill the suspects.

Recent examples:

Andreou v. Turkey (no. 45653/99)27.10.2009The case concerned a British national shot and injured by Turkish armed forces during tensions at the United Nations buffer zone in Cyprus. Violation of Article 2: the use of potentially lethal force against the applicant had not been “absolutely necessary” and had not been justified by any of the exceptions permitted under Article 2.

Perisan and Others v. Turkey (no. 12336/03)20.05.2010Violation of Article 2: the force used against the prisoners to quell disturbances in a prison, which had led to the deaths of eight of them, had not been “absolutely

Factsheet – Right to life

2

necessary” within the meaning of Article 2 and the Court held that there had been a violation of this article in respect of the eight prisoners who died and six who survived their injuries.

Putintseva v. Russia (no. 33498/04)10.05.2012The case concerned the death of a young man during his mandatory military service after being shot by a superior when trying to escape.Violation of Article 2: the legal framework on the use of force to prevent the escape of a soldier had been deficient and the authorities had failed to minimise recourse to lethal force.

Under Article 2, the use of lethal force by police officers might be justified in certain circumstances but Article 2 does not grant “carte blanche”, and policing operations had to be authorised and sufficiently regulated by domestic law.

The use of arms have to be clearly regulated and caution in the use of weapons is the sign of a democratic society (Mc Cann and Others v. the United Kingdom, § 212).

Recent examples:

Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 43577/98)06.07.2005 (Grand Chamber)The case concerned the killing of the applicants’ relatives by a military policeman who was trying to arrest them.Violation of Article 2. The Court recalled that law-enforcement agents must be trained to assess whether or not there is an absolute necessity to use firearms, not only on the basis of the letter of the relevant regulations, but also with due regard to the pre-eminence of respect for human life as a fundamental value.

Soare and Others v. Romania (no. 24329/02)22.02.2011The case concerned the circumstances surrounding the arrest of a 19-year-old man by the police and in particular the fact that he was shot in the head by a police officer - he survived but was semi-paralysed. Violation of Article 2: the legal framework had not been sufficient to afford the required level of protection “by law” of the right to life.

Gorovenky and Bugara v. Ukraine (nos. 36146/05 and 42418/05)12.01.2012The applicants were the relatives of two men who were shot by a police officer who was off-duty. Violation of Article 2 on the account of the authorities’ failure to vet the police officer before issuing him with a firearm.

Sašo Gorgiev v. “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 49382/06)19.04.2012The case concerned a waiter who was shot in a bar by a police reservist who was supposed to be on duty in the police station. Violation of Article 2. The Court found in particular that the Government had neither provided it with information in regulations for the prevention of abuse of official weapons by its agents nor with information as to whether the police reservist had been assessed to ensure that we was fit to be recruited and equipped with a weapon.

The proportionality principleThe proportionality principle does not appear in the text of Article 2 but is clearly established in the Court’s case-law.

Factsheet – Right to life

3

Recent examples:

Wasilewska and Kalucka v. Poland (nos. 28975/04 and 33406/04)23.02.2010The case concerned the death of a suspect during an anti-terrorist operation.Violation of Article 2: the Polish Government had failed to submit any comments regarding the proportionality of the level of force used by the police, the organisation of the police action and whether an adequate legislative and administrative framework had been put in place to safeguard people against arbitrariness and abuse of force.

Finogenov and Others v. Russia (nos. 18299/03 and 27311/03)20.12.2011The case concerned the siege in October 2002 of the “Dubrovka” theatre in Moscow by Chechen separatists and the decision to overcome the terrorists and liberate the hostages using gas. No violation of Article 2 concerning the decision to resolve the hostage crisis by force and use gas.Violation of Article 2 concerning the inadequate planning and implementation of the rescue operation.Violation of Article 2 concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the allegations of the authorities’ negligence in planning and carrying out the rescue operation as well as the lack of medical assistance to hostages.

Positive and procedural obligations under Article 2 - definitions

Positive obligationsStates should not only refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction, in particular by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions backed up by law-enforcement machinery (L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 9.06.1998 ; Osman v. the United Kingdom, no. 14/1997/798/1001, judgment of 28.10.1998). The absence of any direct State responsibility for the death of an individual does not exclude the applicability of Article 2 (Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, judgment of 26.07.2007, § 93).

However, positive obligations flowing from Article 2 should “be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities”. “Where there is an allegation that the authorities have violated their positive obligation to protect the right to life (…), it must be established to the [Court’s] satisfaction that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk” (Osman v. the United Kingdom, § 116).

Osman v. the United Kingdom (no. 23452/94)28.10.1998 The case concerned the killing of a schoolboy’s father - Mr Osman was shot dead and his son was wounded in the shooting incident - by a teacher who had been involved in a series of increasingly serious incidents and who had been suspended following a psychiatric evaluationNo violation of Article 2: the applicants had failed to show that the authorities knew or ought to have known that the lives of the schoolboy and his father were at real and

Factsheet – Right to life

4

immediate risk from the teacher, or had enough evidence to either charge him or have him committed to a psychiatric hospital.

Berü v. Turkey (no. 47304/07)11.01.2011The case concerned the death of a child in an attack by stray dogs, which were already known to be dangerous. No violation of Article 2: the series of incidents that had already taken place before the fatal attack were not sufficient for the Court to find that the authorities had had a “positive obligation” to take preventive measures. There was no evidence that the authorities knew or should have known that there was an immediate risk to the girl’s life. The incident, admittedly a tragic one, had in reality happened by chance and Turkey’s responsibility could not therefore be engaged without extending that responsibility in an excessive manner.

Choreftakis and Choreftaki v. Greece (no. 46846/08)17.01.2012The case concerned the murder of the applicants’ son by a man previously convicted of intentional homicide who had been released on licence. No violation of Article 2. The Court held that the conditional release system in Greece offered sufficient safeguards to protect society.

Kemaloglu v. Turkey (no. 19986/06) 10.04.2012The case concerned the applicants’ seven-year old son who froze to death while trying to walk back home, on a day when school classes ended earlier due to a blizzard and the municipality shuttle did not come on time.Violation of Article 2. The Court reiterated that not every risk to life obliged the authorities to take operational measures to prevent that risk from materializing but that in this case, by neglecting to inform the municipality’s shuttle service about the early closure of the school, the Turkish authorities had failed to take measures which might have avoided a risk to the child’s life.

Kayak v. Turkey (no. 60444/08)10.07.2012The case concerned the murder of a 15-year-old, who had been stabbed in front of a school.Violation of Article 2: the authorities had failed in their duty to ensure supervision of the school premises.

Pending case

Tagayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 26562/07)Communicated in April 2012The case concerned an alleged breach of State’s obligations to protect life during hostage taking crisis in Beslan in 2004.

Procedural aspect of positive obligations Article 2 implies positive obligations of a procedural aspect, including the duty for States to investigate deaths that may have occurred in breach of the Convention (McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom).

“The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 137, Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, judgment of 21.12.2010, § 72).

Factsheet – Right to life

5

Inquiry requirements: independence, promptness and expedition, capacity to establish the facts, and accessibility to the public and the relatives.

Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom (no. 46477/99)14.03.2002The case concerned the double murder committed by a dangerous offender on the day of his release.Violation of Article 2 on the account of two defects (although the inquiry had met most of the other requirements): the inquiry had no power to compel witnesses, and it had been held in private - the applicants had only been able to attend three days of the inquiry.

(also see: Seidova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 310/04, judgment of 18.11.2010, in which the victim’s relatives were excluded from the investigation into the death of their husband and father).

In a number of cases, violations of Article 2 were found because of a lack of serious activity by investigating prosecutors. For instance: Kolevi v. Bulgaria, no. 1108/02, judgment of 05.11.2009 : Inability to prosecute the murder of the applicant’s and of the supervision of the investigation by a chief public prosecutor suspected by the family of masterminding the victim’s murder.

The Court found violations of Article 2 in a number of Bulgarian cases concerning the use of force by the police, inadequate investigation and prosecution of deaths and injuries (Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, judgment of 26.07.2007; Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria, judgment of 23.02.2006, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, judgment of 13.06.2002).

A duty to “take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice might have played a role”.

Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 43577/98)06.07.2005 (Grand Chamber)

Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria (no. 55523/00)26.7.2007Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) together with Article 2 in that the authorities had failed to investigate possible racist motives behind the deaths of the applicants’ relatives.

Mižigárová v. Slovakia (no. 74832/01)14.12.2010In this case, the applicant alleged a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 2, given that her husband was a Romani man, which, coupled with the legacy of widespread abuse of Roma in police custody, created, she alleged, an obligation on the State to investigate a possible racist motive behind his death.Violation of Article 2 (death and lack of effective investigation).No violation of Article 14. The Court did not consider that the authorities had had sufficient information to bring into play their obligation to investigate possible racist motives behind the police officer’s behaviour.

The issue of effective investigation in cases related to wide-scale events

Sandru and Others v. Romania (no. 22465/03)08.12.2009Violation of Article 2. The Court concluded that the Romanian authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation following the violent repression of the December 1989 anti-communist demonstrations.

Factsheet – Right to life

6

The case of Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (no. 33810/07, judgment of 24.05.2011), in the context of the same events, concerned the death of the applicants’ son during the anti-government demonstrations. Violation of Article 2 on account of the lack of an effective investigation into this death. The Court noted that its finding of a violation of Article 2 on account of the lack of an effective investigation related to a wide-scale problem, given that many hundreds of people were involved as injured parties in the impugned criminal proceedings. It added that general measures at domestic level would unquestionably be necessary in the context of the execution of the Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania judgment.

Jularić v. Croatia (no. 20106/06)20.01.2011The case concerned the killing of the applicant’s husband by members of the Serbian paramilitary (or the Yugoslav People’s Army).

Skendžić and Krznarić v. Croatia (no. 16212/08)20.01.2011The case concerned the disappearance of the applicant’s husband and father following his arrest by the Croatian police.In these two cases, concerning crimes committed during the Croatian Homeland War, the Court found that Croatian authorities’ investigations into two 1991 war crimes were inadequate due in particular to inactivity of authorities and conflict of interest.

Giuliani and Gaggio c. Italy (no. 23458/02)24.03.2011 (Grand Chamber)The case concerned the death of a young man while he was taking part in an anti-globalization protest during the G8 summit in Genoa in 2001. No violation of Article 2 with regard to the use of lethal force: it had not been excessive or disproportionate to what was absolutely necessary in defense of any person from unlawful violence.No violation of Article 2 with regard to the domestic legislative framework governing the use of lethal force or with regard to the weapons issued to the law-enforcement agencies at the G8 summit in Genoa. No violation of Article 2 with regard to the organisation and planning of the policing operations at the G8 summit in Genoa. While authorities had a duty to ensure the peaceful conduct and the safety of all citizens during lawful demonstrations, “they (could not) guarantee this absolutely and they (had) a wide discretion in the choice of the means to be used”.No violation of Article 2 with regard to the alleged lack of an effective investigation into the death. The Court found in particular that a detailed investigation into the fatal bullet, which was in dispute between the Parties, was not crucial as the Court found that the resort to lethal force had been justified.

Pending caseJanowiec and Others v. Russia (nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09)16.04.2012 – referred to the Grand Chamber Grand Chamber hearing on 13.02.2013

The case concerns complaints about the adequacy of the investigation by the Russian authorities into the 1940 Katyń massacre.

On 16 April 2012, in its Chamber judgment, the Court found a breach of Russia’s obligation to cooperate with the Court under Article 38 (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for examination of the case) because Russia had refused to provide a copy of its decision to discontinue the investigation into the massacre. The Court could however not examine the merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article 2 about the ineffective investigation into the Katyń massacre because it could not establish a genuine

Factsheet – Right to life

7

connection between the deaths of the victims and the entry into force of the Convention in Russia in 1998.

The Court held that the Convention did not prevent it from examining a State’s compliance with its obligation under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) even in cases where the death itself could not be examined because it had taken place before the Convention had entered into force. It emphasized the difference between Article 2 and Article 3: under the former the authorities were obliged to take specific action capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, while under the latter the authorities had to react to the plight of bereaved relatives in a humane and compassionate way.

The Court found a violation of Article 3 concerning 10 of the applicants on the ground that the authorities had failed to adequately account for fate of Polish prisoners executed by Soviet secret police at Katyń.

On 24 September 2012 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request.

Right to life in detention

According to the Court’s established case-law, States bear the burden of providing plausible explanations for injuries and deaths which occur in custody (Salman v. Turkey, no. 21986/93, Grand Chamber judgment of 27.06.2000, § 99).

Disappearances of persons detained by the policeCarabulea v. Romania (no. 45661/99)13.07.2010The case concerned the applicant’s brother, a Roma robbery suspect, who had been tortured in police custody, refused contact with his family, and died in intensive care.Violation of Article 2 (death and lack of effective investigation): the authorities had not only failed to provide timely medical care to the applicant’s brother but also any satisfactory explanation for the death of a perfectly healthy 27-year old man placed in police custody.

Mižigárová v. Slovakia (no. 74832/01)14.12.2010The applicant’s husband was shot in the abdomen during a police interrogation and died four days later in hospital. Violation of Article 2 (death and lack of effective investigation)

Jasinskis v. Latvia (no. 45744/08)21.12.2010Violation of Article 2: the authorities had failed to provide medical assistance to seriously injured deaf and mute man who died after being held in police custody for more than 14 hours.

Death in prisonPaul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom (no. 46477/99)14.03.2002

Iorga and Others v. Romania (no. 26246/05)25.01.2011Violations of Article 2: failure from prison authorities to protect individuals from assault of fellow inmates.

Factsheet – Right to life

8

Kats and Others v. Ukraine (no. 29971/04)18.12.2008

Gagiu v. Romania (no. 63258/00)24.02.2009Violations of Article 2: failure from the authorities to provide the necessary medical treatment.

Raducu v. Romania (no. 70787/01)21.04.2009No Violation of Article 2 in the absence of any clear connection between the lack of care during pre-trial detention and the applicant’s death.

Peker v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 42136/06)12.04.2011Violation of Article 2: the Turkish Government had failed to provide plausible explanation for a gunshot wound sustained by a prisoner during security operation in prison. This operation was conducted in the context of security operations organized in 20 prisons in Turkey on 19 December 2000 to put a stop to hunger strikes, during which detainees were killed and hundreds injured (for details, see İsmail Altun v. Turkey, no. 22932/02, judgment of 21.09.2010; Keser and Kömürcü v. Turkey, no. 5981/03, judgment of 23.06.2009; and Gülbahar and Others v. Turkey, no. 5264/03, judgment of 21.10.2008. Most recent cases: Makbule Akbaba v. Turkey (no. 48887/06) and Sat v. Turkey (no. 14547/04), judgments of 10.07.2012).

Pending case

Marro v. Italy (n° 29100/07)Communicated on 21.05.2013

Also see Suicides in detention below.

Right to life in armed conflicts

The principles defined in Mc Cann v. the United Kingdom in times of peace were applied in situations of armed conflicts and the approach to the burden of proof as applied in cases such as Kelly v. the United Kingdom was extended to situations of wider (internal) armed conflict, including in South-East Turkey and in Northern Caucasus, in particular in respect of civilians caught up in the events (see cases concerning events in Chechnya below).

Unresolved killings and disappearancesIsayeva v. Russia (judgment of 24.02.2005), Estamirov and Others v. Russia (judgment of 12.10.2006), Chitayev v. Russia (judgment of 18.01.2007) were the first of a group of cases concerning events in Chechnya1, in particular: indiscriminate use of lethal force, extra-judicial executions, unlawful detention, torture and ill-treatment, disappearances, destruction of property, landmines, restriction on freedom of movement and lack of effective remedy. In most of the cases, at least one violation was found.

1 For further examples, see the following judgments delivered in 2011 and 2012 : Sambiyeva v. Russia (judgment of 08.11.2011), Tashukhadzhiyev v. Russia (judgment of 25.10.2011), Khashuyeva v. Russia (judgment of 19.07.2011), Edilova v. Russia and Khamzatov and Others v. Russia (judgments of 28.02.2012), Inderbiyeva v. Russia and Kadirova and Others v. Russia (judgments of 27.03.2012), Shafiyeva v. Russia (judgment of 03.05.2012), Umarovy v. Russia and Umayevy v. Russia (judgments of 12.06.2012).

Factsheet – Right to life

9

In its judgment in the case of Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (18.12.2012), concerning events in Chechnya, the Court indicated general measures to be taken by Russia. The case concerned the disappearances of eight men in Chechnya between March 2002 and July 2004, after having been arrested in a manner resembling a security operation.

The Court found violations of Article 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3.

The Court has regularly found violations of the same rights in similar cases in more than 120 judgments, resulting from the disappearances that have occurred in the Northern Caucasus since 1999. It concluded that the situation in the case of Aslakhanova and Others resulted from a systemic problem of non-investigation of such crimes, for which there was no effective remedy at national level.

The Court outlined two types of general measures, under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments), to be taken by Russia to address those problems: to alleviate the continuing suffering of the victims’ families; and, to remedy the structural deficiencies of the criminal proceedings.

Turluyeva v. Russia (no. 63638/09)20.06.2013The case concerned the disappearance of a young man after last having been seen at the premises of a police regiment in Grozny (Chechnya) in October 2009.The Court found three violations of Article 2 on account of the applicant’s son presumed death, on account of the State’s failure to protect his life, and, on account of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into his disappearance. It further found violations of Article 3 (on account of the applicant’s suffering resulting from her inability to find out about what happened to her son), Article 5 and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2.The Court underlined that the Russian authorities were sufficiently aware of the gravity of the problem of enforced disappearances in the North Caucasus and its life-threatening implications, and that they had lately taken a number of steps to make investigations of this type of crime more efficient. The Court therefore found, in particular, that the authorities should have taken, but had failed to take, appropriate measures to protect the life of the applicant’s son once they had learned of his disappearance.

See also the Maskhadova and Others v. Russia judgment (06.06.2013) in which the Court held, among others, that there had been no violation of Article 2 as concerned the death of Aslan Maskhadov, the Chechen separatist President, or the investigation into his death. This case essentially concerned the Russian authorities’ refusal to return the bodies of the Chechen separatist President and Chechen insurgents to their families.

Er and Others v. Turkey (no. 23016/04)31.07.2012The case concerned the disappearance in July 1995 of the applicants’ 44-year old father and brother. The applicants alleged that he had been arrested following a military operation in the village of Kurudere and taken to the local gendarmerie station; they had had no news of him since. Violation of Article 2 (right to life and lack of an effective investigation) concerning the disappearance and presumed death of the applicants’ relative.The Court:- confirmed that a less rigid approach was justified when examining the issue ofcompliance with the Court’s six-month time limit in disappearance cases, not only in thecontext of an international armed conflict but also in the national context (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey);- found that the applicants could not be criticised for waiting nine years before lodging

Factsheet – Right to life

10

their complaint about their relative’s disappearance as an investigation had been carriedout during that period (which had come up with promising new developments) and theyhad done all that could be expected of them to assist the authorities.

Use of force in armed conflicts Cyprus v. Turkey (no. 25781/94)10.05.2001 (Grand Chamber)Inter-State application lodged by Cyprus in 1994, concerning the situation in northern Cyprus since the division of the territory.Violation of Article 2. In this case, the Court exceptionally applied the Convention to extraterritorial actions and found in particular a continuing violation of Article 2 concerning Greek-Cypriot missing persons and their relatives.

Similarly in Varnava and Others v. Turkey (no. 16064/90, Grand Chamber judgment of 18.09.2009) – the case concerned the disappearance of nine Cypriot nationals after they were arrested and detained by the Turkish army during military operations in northern Cyprus in 1974 - the Court found a continuing violation of Article 2.

Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom (no. 55721/07)07.07.2011 (Grand Chamber)The case concerned the killing of Iraqi civilians by the UK armed forces in Southern Iraq. Violation of Article 2: failure to carry out an effective investigation into the deaths of five of the six applicants’ relatives. The Court found that the UK had jurisdiction under Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights), in the exceptional circumstances deriving from its assumption of authority for the maintenance of security in South East Iraq, in respect of civilians killed during security operations carried out by UK soldiers in Basrah.

In two cases – judgments of 3.05.2011 - concerning the bombing of residential buildings by Russian military jets during the Chechen war (Kerimova and Others v. Russia, no. 17170/04, and Khamzayev and Others v. Russia, no. 1503/02) the Court found a violation of Article 2 in respect of the deaths of eight people who were close relatives of the applicants in the case Kerimova and Others, and in respect of the failure to protect the lives of 19 applicants in total. The Court also found that there had been a violation of Article 2 under its procedural limb in respect of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the applicants’ relatives and of the incidents putting the applicants’ lives at risk.

Pending Inter-State case (Article 33) concerning an armed conflict:

Georgia v. Russia (II) (no. 38263/08)The case concerns the armed conflict between Georgia and Russia at the beginning of August 2008 following an extended period of mounting tension, provocations and incidents. The Court has declared this application admissible on 19.12.2011. In its decision, the Court observed in particular that the obligation of States under Article 2 to carry out effective investigations continued to apply even when the security conditions were difficult, including in cases of armed conflict. In zones of international conflict, States party to the Convention were obliged to protect the lives of people who were not or no longer engaged in the hostilities.

Right to life in relation to safety / environmental issues

The right to life in relation to environmental issues was for the first time expressly invoked in the case of Guerra and Others v. Italy (no. 14967/89, judgment of 19.02.1998) concerning pollution and accident hazards arising out from a chemical factory producing fertilizers.

Factsheet – Right to life

11

L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom (no. 23413/94)09.06.1998The applicant was the daughter of a man who had been in the British Air Force in the 1950s, and who had been exposed to radiation caused by nuclear tests carried out in 1957 and 1958. She considered that her father’s exposure to radiation was the probable cause of her childhood leukemia. No violation of article 2: it had not been established that there was a causal link between the exposure of a father to radiation and leukemia in a child subsequently conceived.

Öneryildiz v. Turkey (no. 48939/99)30.11.2004 (Grand Chamber)In this case the Court considered that the positive obligation of the State under Article 2 applied to any activity, whether public or not, and in particular in the case of industrial activities, which are dangerous by nature. This judgment set out the general principles relating to the prevention of death as a result of dangerous activities.

For further details see the “Environment” factsheet.

Paşa and Erkan Erol v. Turkey (no. 51358/99)12.12.2006Violation of Article 2 in respect of Erkan Erol, who was wounded by an anti-personnel mine while grazing his sheep - he had had his leg amputated following the explosion. The Court found it incomprehensible that a grazing area should have been mined and simply surrounded by two rows of barbed wire that were relatively far apart and clearly insufficient to prevent children crossing over. It thus concluded that Turkey had not taken all the necessary measures to ensure protection from the risk of death or injury.

Budayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 15339/02)20.03.2008The case concerned residents hit by a succession of mudslides.Violation of Article 2: Russia had failed to protect the residents because of inadequate maintenance of the mud-defence infrastructure and the failure to set up a warning system.

Kalender v. Turkey (no. 4314/02)15.12.2009The case concerned railway accident victims.Violation of Article 2 (right to life and lack of effective investigation): the authorities had failed in their duty to implement regulations for the purpose of protecting the lives of passengers (the Court-appointed experts concluded to a lack of the minimum safety requirements at the train station) and to determine responsibilities.

Pending case

Vilnes and Others v. Norway (no. 52806/09 and no. 22703/10)Chamber hearing on 18 September 2012The cases concern complaints from divers for the Norwegian oil industry in the North Sea and at the testing facilities organised by the partially State–owned company “Norwegian Underwater Intervention Ltd” (NUI/NUTEC). The applicants complain that through diving they had sustained disabilities and lost their capacity to work. They also claim that the Norwegian authorities had failed to ensure a legal framework of safety regulations to protect them, had granted exemptions from safety regulations, had failed to adequately supervise and – in the case of some divers – had failed to prevent the test diving at NUI/NUTEC and had neither informed them about the experiment and its consequences, nor carried it out in accordance with their prior consent.

Factsheet – Right to life

12

Public health and medical malpractice

Positive obligations require States “to make regulations compelling hospitals to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of their patients’ lives” and to have in place “an effective independent judicial system to be set up so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession (… ) can be determined and those responsible made accountable”; and these obligations apply to both the public and the private health sector (Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy, no. 32967/96, judgment of 17.01.2002, § 49).

Nitecki v. Poland (no. 65653/01)Inadmissibility decision of 21.03.2002In this case, the applicant, who had a very rare and fatal disease, alleged that he did not have the means to pay for his medical treatment and complained of the authorities’ refusal to refund the full cost of his treatment.Application inadmissible: while an issue could arise under Article 2 where it was shown that the authorities of a Contracting State put an individual’s life at risk through the denial of health care which they had undertaken to make available to the population generally, the Court found that it was not the case with the applicant.

Šilih v. Slovenia (no. 71463/01)09.04.2009 (Grand Chamber)The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that their son, who had been injected with drugs to which he was allergic, had died because of medical negligence and that there had been no effective investigation into his death. Violation of Article 2 on account of the inefficiency of the Slovenian judicial system in establishing the cause of and liability for the death of the applicant’s son.

G.N. and Others v. Italy (no. 43134/05)01.12.2009The case concerned a contaminated blood case.No violation of Article 2 regarding the obligation to protect the lives of the applicants and their relatives. Violation of Article 2 concerning the conduct of the civil proceedings. Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 2 as, under the law, the Italian Government could only conclude out-of-court settlements with haemophiliacs.

Eugenia Lazăr v. Romania (no. 32146/05)16.02.2010The case concerned the investigation into a young’s man death in hospital.Violation of Article 2: the investigation had been undermined because of the inadequacy of rules on forensic medical reports.

However, in certain circumstances, determining responsibilities and awarding damages is insufficient. In the Oyal v. Turkey (no. 4864/05) judgment of 23.03.2010 the Court found that lifetime medical cover was to be provided to a teenager infected as a new-born with HIV during blood transfusion.Violation of Article 2. The Court also took into consideration the excessive length – more than nine years – of the administrative proceedings.

Panaitescu v. Romania (no. 30909/06)10.04.2012Violation of Article 2 on the account of the Romanian authorities’ failure to provide the applicant with specific anti-cancerous medication for free. The Court found that the State should have provided him with the medication he needed free of charge, in accordance with the domestic courts’ judgments.

Factsheet – Right to life

13

Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey (no. 13423/09)09.04.2013The case concerned the death of a pregnant woman following a series of misjudgments by medical staff at different hospitals and the subsequent failure to provide her with emergency medical treatment when her condition was known to be critical. Violation of Article 2 (right to life)The Court held that the deceased had been the victim of blatant shortcomings on the part of the hospital authorities and had been denied the possibility of access to appropriate emergency treatment. It reiterated that failure by a State to comply with its duty to protect a person’s physical well-being amounted to a breach of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention. In view of its findings concerning deficiencies in the criminal proceedings, the Court also found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2.

Protection of individuals from the violence of others

Death of journalistsGongadze v. Ukraine (no. 34056/02)08.11.2005Violation of Article 2 (death and lack of an effective investigation): the authorities failed to protect a journalist’s life and to carry out an ineffective investigation into his disappearance and death.

Dink v. Turkey (no. 2668/07)14.09.2010The case concerned a journalist, Fırat Dink, assassinated by nationalists.Violation of Article 2 (death and lack of an effective investigation). The Court emphasized the positive obligations of the State with regard to freedom of expression, included a duty to create an efficient system ensuring the protection of journalists. The Court found that the authorities had failed in their duty to protect the life and freedom of expression of the journalist. Although authorities had been informed of the likelihood of an assassination attempt and even of the identity of the suspected instigators, they had taken no action to prevent it. The Court also considered that there had been no effective investigation into the failures which occurred in protecting the life of Fırat Dink.

Trévalec v. Belgium (no. 30812/07)14.06.2011The case concerned a reporter who had been wounded by police officers while he was filming a special police unit in action.No violation of Article 2 concerning the investigation.Violation of Article 2 because the life of the applicant was endangered by gunshot wounds caused by police officers although the police had authorised the filming beforehand.

Domestic violenceSee the “Violence against Women” factsheet.

Human trafficking Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (no. 25965/04)07.01.2010The case concerned a 20-year-old Russian Cabaret Artiste who died in Cyprus where she had gone to work.

Factsheet – Right to life

14

As regards Cyprus: -no violation of Article 2. The Court found that the chain of events leading to the death of the applicant’s daughter could not have been foreseen by the Cypriot authorities and, in the circumstances, they had therefore no obligation to take practical measures to prevent a risk to her life. -violation of article 2 under its procedural limb: a number of flaws had occurred in the investigation carried out by the Cypriot authorities.

As regards Russia, the Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 2 as the Russian authorities were not obliged themselves to investigate Ms Rantseva’s death, which had occurred outside their jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that the Russian authorities had requested several times that Cyprus carry out additional investigation and had cooperated with the Cypriot authorities.

In M. and Others v. Italy and Bulgaria (no. 40020/03, judgment of 31.07.2012), the Court held that there had been no evidence supporting the complaint of human trafficking.

Protection of individuals against themselves: suicide

Suicide in detentionRenolde v. France (no. 5608/05)16.10.2008The case concerned the suicide in pre-trial detention of a man suffering from acute psychotic disorders.Violation of Article 2. The Court reiterated that the vulnerability of mentally ill people called for special protection and it was struck by the fact that, despite the brother of the applicant’s first suicide attempt and the diagnosis of his mental condition, it did not appear that there had ever been any discussion of whether he should be admitted to a psychiatric institution. Three days after his suicide attempt he had also been given the maximum penalty by the disciplinary board, namely 45 days’ detention in a punishment cell.

The Court similarly found a violation of Article 2 in its judgment of 19.07.2012 in the case of Ketreb v. France (no. 38447/09). The case concerned the suicide in prison of a drug addict convicted of armed assault. The Court found that the State had failed in its duty to show particular vigilance to prevent a vulnerable prisoner from committing suicide (he had been placed in a disciplinary cell).

Horoz v. Turkey (no. 1639/03)31.03.2010The case concerned a prisoner who had taken part in a hunger strike in protest against “F-type” prisons.No violation of Article 2: the clear refusal to allow any intervention by medical services, even though his state of health was life-threatening, of the prisoner made it impossible for the Court to establish a causal link between the State Security Court’s refusal to release the applicant’s son and the latter’s death.

Jasinska v. Poland (no. 28326/05)01.06.2010The Court found a violation of Article 2 on the ground of a clear deficiency in a system that had allowed a first-time prisoner, who was mentally fragile and whose state of health had deteriorated, to gather a lethal dose of drugs without the knowledge of the medical staff responsible for supervising the ingestion of his medicine, and to subsequently commit suicide. The authorities’ responsibility was not confined to

Factsheet – Right to life

15

prescribing medicines, but also consisted in ensuring that they were properly taken, in particular in the case of mentally disturbed prisoners.

De Donder and De Clippel v. Belgium (no. 8595/06)06.12.2011The case concerned the suicide by a mentally disturbed young man placed in the ordinary section of the prison.Violation of Article 2 concerning the suicide. No violation of Article 2 concerning the effectiveness of the investigation.

Çoşelav v. Turkey (no. 1413/07) 09.10.2012The case concerned a juvenile’s suicide in an adult prison.Violation of Article 2 concerning the suicideViolation of Article 2 (lack of an effective investigation) The Court found that the Turkish authorities had not only been indifferent to the applicants’ son’s grave psychological problems but had been responsible for a deterioration of his state of mind by detaining him in a prison with adults without providing any medical or specialist care, thus leading to his suicide.

Suicide in the militaryIn several Turkish cases concerning suicides/deaths in the military, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of article 2:

-Kilavuz v. Turkey (no. 8327/03, judgment of 21.10.2008). It concerned the suicide of a detainee suffering from “severe paranoid delusion”. The Court found that the authorities had failed to provide the close supervision that he needed due to his volatile mental state. (Also see Lütfi Demirci and Others v. Turkey, no. 28809/05, judgment of 02.03.2010: suicide of soldier with known psychological disorders during military service).

-Beker v. Turkey (no. 27866/03, judgment of 24.03.2009). The case concerned the death of Mustafa Beker, found shot in the head in his army barracks in 2001.Violation of Article 2: the Turkish Government had failed to account for his death.

-Servet Gündüz and Others v. Turkey (no. 4611/05, judgment of 11.01.2011). While he was doing his compulsory military service, the applicants’ relative killed himself by walking onto a minefield after an argument with his superior. The Court found that the military authorities had failed to take into account his fragile psychological condition, which the applicants claimed had triggered his suicide.

Mosendz v. Ukraine (no. 52013/08)17.01.2013The case concerned the death of the applicant’s son (D.M.), while he was on guard duty, during his mandatory military service.The Court held that the authorities had not effectively investigated and duly accounted for D.M.’s death, whose life they had not adequately protected. The Court, having noted the widespread concern over the existence of hazing in the Ukrainian army, found in particular that the failure to allocate the responsibility for his death to upper hierarchical authority levels, rather than limiting it to wrongdoings of individual officers, was especially worrying.Two violations of Article 2 (right to life) and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)

Factsheet – Right to life

16

Suicide in other circumstancesMikayil Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 4762/05)17.12.2009The case concerned the suicide committed by the applicant’s wife allegedly in plain view of several State agents in the course of a police operation in the context of forced eviction.No violation of Article 2: by conducting the operation to evict the applicant’s family, the authorities could not be considered to have intentionally put the life of the applicant’s wife at risk. Given the diverging versions of the events presented by the Government and the applicant it was impossible to establish whether the authorities had become aware of the danger in time to prevent the fire or extinguish it as soon as possible - the applicant's wife had poured some kerosene on herself and ignited it, apparently in protest at what she perceived as the authorities' intention to evict her family. Violation of Article 2: the investigation carried out into the death of the applicant’s wife had been inadequate as it had not covered all the issues relevant for the assessment of the State’s responsibility in the incident.

Death penalty

See the Death penalty abolition factsheet.

Beginning of life and the question of euthanasia

Beginning of lifeIn Boso v. Italy (no. 50490/99, decision of 05.09.2002) the Court reiterated (see H. v. Norway, no. 17004/90, Commission decision of 19.05.1992 ; X v. the United Kingdom, no. 8416/78, Commission decision of 13.05.1980) that granting a foetus the same rights as a person would place unreasonable limitations on the Article 2 rights of persons already born.

Vo v. France (no. 53924/00)08.07.2004 (Grand Chamber)The case concerned the issue of the adequacy of the legal system in protecting the foetus which had been destroyed as a result of negligence by a doctor.The Court considered that the issue of when the right to life begins was a question to be decided at national level: firstly, because the issue had not been decided within the majority of the Member States and, secondly, because there was no European consensus on the scientific and legal definition of the beginning of life. At best, it could be regarded as common ground between States that the embryo/foetus belonged to the human race. Its potential and capacity to become a person required protection in the name of human dignity, without making it a person with the right to life for the purposes of Article 2.

Evans v. the United Kingdom (no. 6339/05)10.04.2007 (Grand Chamber)The applicant complained that the provisions of English law requiring the embryos to be destroyed once her former partner withdrew his consent to their continued storage violated the embryos’ right to life. No violation of Article 2. The Court found that “the embryos (…) [did] not have a right to life within the meaning of Article 2, and that there [had] not, therefore, been a violation of that provision” (§ 56).

Factsheet – Right to life

17

A right to die ?Diane Pretty v. the United Kingdom (no. 2346/02)29.04.2002The applicant was paralyzed and in the advanced stages of a motor neurone disease. She claimed that the blanket prohibition on assisted suicide in English law violated her right to life.No violation of Article 2. The Court held that it was “not persuaded that the right to life guaranteed by Article 2 [could] be interpreted as involving a negative aspect”, that “Article 2 [could not], without a distortion of language, be interpreted as conferring the diametrically opposite right, namely a right to die” and that “no right to die, whether at the hands of a third person or with the assistance of a public authority, [could] be derived from Article 2 of the Convention”.

Haas v. Switzerland20.01.2011This case raised the issue of whether, by virtue of the right to respect for private life, the State should have ensured that a sick man wishing to commit suicide could obtain a lethal substance (sodium pentobarbital) without a prescription, by way of derogation from the law, so as to be able to end his life without pain and with no risk of failure.No violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life)

Koch v. Germany (no. 497/09)19.07.2012The case concerned the German courts’ refusal to examine the merits of the applicant’s complaint concerning the German authorities’ refusal to grant his late wife, who was almost completely paralyzed and in need of artificial ventilation, authorization to acquire a lethal dose of medication enabling her to commit suicide.The Court found a procedural violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) in respect of the refusal to examine the merits of the applicant’s complaint about the decision in question, brought on behalf of his wife and on his own behalf. However, as regards the substance of Mr Koch’s complaint, the Court considered that it was primarily up to the German courts to examine its merits, in particular in view of the fact that there was no consensus among the Member States of the Council of Europe as to the question of whether or not to allow any form of assisted suicide. Comparative research showed that only four of 42 States examined allowed medical practitioners to prescribe a lethal drug in order to enable a patient to end his or her life. Since the Court had found that the German authorities were under an obligation to examine the merits of the complaint, it decided to limit itself to examining the procedural aspect of Article 8 in this case.

Gross v. Switzerland (n° 67810/10)14.05.2013The case concerned the complaint of an elderly woman, who wishes to end her life but does not suffer from a clinical illness, that she was unable to obtain the Swiss authorities’ permission to be provided with a lethal dose of a drug in order to commit suicide.Violation of Article 8 of the Convention: The Court held in particular that Swiss law, while providing the possibility of obtaining a lethal dose of a drug on medical prescription, did not provide sufficient guidelines ensuring clarity as to the extent of this right. This uncertain situation was likely to have caused Ms Gross a considerable degree of anguish. At the same time, the Court did not take a stance on the question of whether she should have been granted the possibility to acquire a lethal dose of medication allowing her to end her life.

Factsheet – Right to life

18

Media Contact: +33 3 90 21 42 08