Death in Prison
The lack of investigation into the death of a detained person may constitute a violation of Article 2 of the ECHR
La famiglia di una persona detenuta, deceduta in carcere, si è opposta all’archiviazione del procedimento penale instaurato alThe family of a detainee who died in prison opposed the closure of the criminal investigation initiated to determine the causes and responsibility for the death, with the support of lawyer Chiara Luciani.
As StraLi, our intervention alongside the lawyer focused on identifying the most relevant aspects of the case and supporting the cause, which was considered strategic by the organization. The key issue in this case concerns a lack of protection under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly the obligation of state authorities to protect the life and health of detainees.
Moreover, Article 2 of the ECHR is considered violated in this case from an additional procedural perspective.
The importance and strategic nature of this case, in terms of its potential impact on raising domestic standards through rulings by higher or supranational courts, lies primarily in the failure to conduct a thorough investigation into the possible responsibilities surrounding the death.
According to Strasbourg Court jurisprudence, Articles 2 (and 3) of the Convention impose a procedural obligation to conduct effective investigations into alleged violations, given their fundamental nature.
In other words, Article 2 requires the state to ensure, ex ante, the protection of detainees’ lives and, ex post, to guarantee that any investigation into alleged violations is effective, timely, and thorough—particularly when the state is effectively “investigating itself.”
The Court has established specific standards for investigations into deaths occurring in custody, with numerous rulings holding states accountable when investigations into deaths in detention are inadequate.
Investigations into the cause of death must adhere to the following standards of protection and be:
- Initiated ex officio;
- Timely and concluded before the statute of limitations;
- Thorough and effective;
- Conducted with due diligence;
- Capable of identifying and prosecuting those responsible;
- Transparent;
- Allowing participation by the victim or their family;
- Concluded within a reasonable timeframe;
- Conducted by an independent and impartial authority and subject to public oversight.
In this case, the most critical issues regarding these standards include:
- The overall time elapsed since the incident. The death occurred three and a half years before the first request for the case to be closed was even discussed.
- The unreasonable delay between the issuance of the closure request and the subsequent ability to activate incidental procedures under Article 410 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (approximately two years later). This delay unjustly infringed upon the victim’s family’s right to be informed of the investigation’s outcome and to request immediate acquisition of evidence.
- The lack of investigative activity. The only action taken was an autopsy. No eyewitness testimony was collected either immediately after the incident or at any later stage, and no formal suspects were identified, leaving the case perpetually “against unknown persons.”
Investigative Standards Violated:
Regarding point (c): According to the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence, authorities must take all reasonable measures to secure evidence in the case. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Eyewitness testimonies,
- Medical-legal expert reports, and
- Comprehensive autopsies that provide a detailed and precise account of injuries and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death.
Any investigative flaw that undermines the ability to establish the cause of death or identify those responsible risks violating these obligations.
Regarding point (a): Investigations must allow sufficient accessibility for the victim’s family to safeguard their legitimate interests. Furthermore, there must be an element of public oversight of the investigation, with the degree varying depending on the case’s specifics.
Relevant Precedent:
In the Algül and Others v. Turkey judgment (February 5, 2019), the European Court addressed state responsibility for the death of a soldier in service. The Court found a violation of Article 2’s procedural aspect due to excessively prolonged investigations that failed to yield effective results.
Conclusion:
The continuation of the investigation, as specifically outlined in the opposition statement, appears to be the only viable path to ensuring compliance with the procedural requirements of Article 2 of the ECHR.
The case was withdrawn, and it is now under scrutiny by the European Court.