Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 2 in respect of failure to protect life; Violation of Art. 2 in respect of ineffective investigation; Not necessary to examine Art. 10; Violation of Art. 13; Not necessary to examine Art. 14; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The applicant relied inter alia on article 2 and complained that his brother had been killed by or with the connivance of the security forces. The court considered whether the authorities did all that could reasonably be expected of them to avoid the risk to the brother’s life.
Held: There had been ‘an absence of any operational measures of protection’. This was despite the fact that the Government disputed that it could have effectively provided protection against attacks. A wide range of measures was available which would have ‘assisted in minimising the risk’ to the brother’s life, and the authorities had failed to take reasonable measures available to them to prevent a real and immediate risk to the brother’s life. Accordingly, there had been a violation of article 2.
Citations:
(2000) 33 EHRR 58, [2000] ECHR 127, 22492/93, [2000] ECHR 128
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 2
Cited by:
Cited – Sarjantson v Humberside Police CA 18-Oct-2013
The claimant had been severely injured in an attack by a group of young men. He said that the defendant had failed in its duty to protect him and his family. He now appealed against the action being struck out.
Held: the judge’s interpretation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165844
