Case of Magherini and Others v. Italy
A selection of key paragraphs can be found below the judgment.
111. As regards, in particular, the use of lethal force by police officers, the Court has held that unregulated and arbitrary action by State agents is incompatible with effective respect for human rights. This means that, in addition to being authorised under national law, policing operations must be sufficiently regulated by it, within the framework of a system of adequate and effective safeguards against arbitrariness and abuse of force, and even against avoidable accident (see Makaratzis, cited above, § 58, and Tekın and Arslan, cited above, § 84).
112. Article 2 of the Convention also imposes on the State the positive obligation to train its law-enforcement officers in such a manner as to ensure that they have a high level of competence and to prevent any treatment that runs contrary to that provision (see V v. the Czech Republic, no. 26074/18, § 87, 7 December 2023).
121. Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that R.M. was maintained in a prone position for approximately twenty minutes after being handcuffed, which, according to the timeline of events established by the domestic courts and uncontested by the parties occurred almost immediately after he was put on the ground (see paragraphs 8 and 33 above). The Court finds it particularly striking that R.M. was maintained in such a position even after he had ceased moving and talking, and had become apparently unresponsive (see paragraphs 8, 35, 45, and 52 above). It also notes that there were four officers present at the scene and more had been called as backup. The Court is unable to discern any compelling argument or evidence to substantiate the alleged absolute necessity – in the interests of safety – of such a prolongation of R.M.’s restraint on the ground in a prone position, which the Court reiterates was established as being among the direct, contributing causes of his death.
133. In the light of the above, the Court cannot but conclude that the guidelines in place at the relevant time, in so far as they were constituted by the documents relied on by the Government, did not provide clear and adequate instructions on placing individuals in a prone position, with a view to reducing to a minimum the risks to the health and life of the person concerned.
138. In view of the above, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive limb.