European Court of Human Rights
6 July 2005
Facts
The applicants, Anelia Nachova and her mother Aksiniya Hristova, Todorka Rangelova and Rangel Rangelov, are Bulgarian nationals of Roma origin. The case concerns the killing one of the applicants’ relatives, father of Ms Nachova and son of Ms Rangelova and Mr Rangelov by a military policeman who was trying to arrest them. A neighbor claimed that, because his grandson – a young boy – had been in the area where the shooting occurred, he had asked Major G. for permission to approach and remove him from danger. Major G. had pointed his gun at him, saying: “You damn Gypsies!”.
Complaint
The applicants, relatives of the fugitives, complained that they had been killed in violation of Article 2 of the Convention. They reasoned that State agents had been authorised in the instant case to use lethal force in circumstances where this was not absolutely necessary. The applicants alleged that prejudice and hostile attitudes towards people of Roma origin had played a decisive role in the events leading up to the shootings and the failure to carry out a meaningful investigation.
Court's ruling
General principles: The use of lethal force by police officers may be justified in certain circumstances. However, any use of force must be ‘no more than absolutely necessary’, it must be strictly proportionate in the circumstances. The State must have relevant legal or regulatory framework in place regulating the use of lethal force in the light of relevant international (human rights) standards. Planning and control of the operations permitting lethal force must be conducted.
In the present case the Court found violation of Article 2 of the Convention on several aspects:
- Firstly, the Court noted as a matter of grave concern that the regulations on the use of firearms by the military police effectively had permitted lethal force to be used when arresting a member of the armed forces for even the most minor offence. Moreover, it did not contain any safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of life.
- Secondly, the operation was not properly planned. The authorities failed to comply with their obligation to minimise the risk of the loss of life since the arresting officers were instructed to use all available means to arrest the fugitives, in disregard of the fact that the fugitives were unarmed and posed no danger to life or limb.
- Thirdly, the arresting officers had used excessive force. The Court stated that recourse to potentially deadly force cannot be considered as ‘absolutely necessary’ where it is known that the person to be arrested poses no threat to life or limb and is not suspected of having committed a violent offence.
The Court considered that any evidence of racist verbal abuse having been uttered by law-enforcement agents in an operation involving the use of force against persons from an ethnic or other minority was highly relevant to the question whether hatred-induced violence had taken place. Where such evidence came to light in the investigation, it had to be verified and – if confirmed – a thorough examination of all the facts had to be undertaken to uncover any possible racist motives.
However, responsible institutions had done nothing to verify the neighbour’s statement, or the reasons it had been considered necessary to use such a degree of force. They had disregarded relevant facts and terminated the investigation, thereby shielding Major G. from prosecution.
The Court thus found that the authorities had failed in their duty under Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 2 to take all possible steps to investigate whether or not discrimination may have played a role in the events.