Case of T.V. v. Croatia

A selection of key paragraphs can be found below the judgment.

57.  The Court further observes that, although the available domestic reports implied that the intervening police officers had acted in good faith, even assuming that the force used by the police might have been lawful, in the Court’s view this did not automatically render such force proportionate. In particular, the Court notes that V.D. was pinned on the ground by five police officers who had exerted such force on his back that five of his ribs were broken. At the same time, and given the position that he was held in (see paragraph 55 above), the police officers were unable to stop him from hitting his head on the pavement while trying to get up, thereby knocking out two of his front teeth and hurting his head. Moreover, no attention seems to have been given to the fact that V.D. had bitten off and swallowed part of his finger, which was subsequently found in his oesophagus, although both the police and the medical team who subsequently arrived were aware of that fact (see paragraph 9 above).

59. In that connection, the Court has already observed that the police were well aware of V.D.’s mental disorder and of his agitation at the moment of their intervention (see paragraph 52 above), and that they nonetheless failed to immediately request medical help, as was required under domestic guidelines for police interventions involving mentally disabled persons (see paragraph 53 above). Instead, the police engaged in a series of actions, such as the use of pepper spray and holding V.D. in the prone position for a prolonged period of time, which had been at odds with his already agitated mental state. The foregoing was followed by inadequate surveillance of his state during his transportation in the ambulance (see paragraph 56 above). At the same time, it has not been shown, nor did the Government argue, that V.D. had suffered from any sort of health condition which would have increased his risk of cardiac arrest owing to severe trauma (contrast the case of Boukrourou and Others, cited above, § 61). Consequently, the Court cannot but conclude that it was the combination of V.D.’s agitation and the subsequent actions by the authorities that led to the fatal outcome, which, with the adequate amount of training and experience, cannot be said to have been entirely unforeseeable for the intervening police officers and/or to the medical staff involved.

60. In conclusion, the Court is not persuaded that the force used to immobilise V.D. had been “absolutely necessary” in the circumstances (see paragraph 57 above). Moreover, once he had been overpowered, as a result of the combined actions of a number of people, the State failed in its positive obligation to protect V.D.’s life.

71. The Court further observed that the forensic medical opinion obtained by the authorities some three and a half years after the V.D.’s death concluded that he had died a violent death as a result of mental trauma (see paragraph 24 above). The opinion stated that his agitated mental state had been aggravated by the actions of the police, actions which the Court has already found were problematic and disproportionate in the circumstances (see paragraphs 54-57 above). Coupled with his self-harming, such actions were found to have led V.D. to enter a state of shock which resulted in cardiac arrest. However, despite that medical conclusion, which contained an explicit statement that V.D. had sustained a grave bodily injury at the hands of the police, the prosecution of which is automatically warranted under domestic law, the investigation against the police officers was discontinued.

72. Finally, the Court cannot but observe that the Constitutional Court did not examine the applicant’s complaint in a manner entirely in accordance with the Court’s well-established standards on the matter, and essentially limited itself to noting the delay in obtaining the forensic medical opinion (see paragraph 66 above).

73. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the criminal investigation in the present case was not prompt, since it involved significant delays (see paragraphs 67 and 68 above), or thorough, because the authorities failed to pursue the criminal complaint of grave bodily injury caused to V.D. (see paragraph 71 above).

74. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb.