Use of lethal force and arbitrary deprivation of life of a person with psychological disability

Facts

The authors are Swedish nationals and are the parents and sister of Daniel Murne (deceased). At the time of the events, Daniel was 22 years old and started showing signs of psychosis and his mental health started deteriorating. His parents called the police so that he could be hospitalized, however, when the police arrived, Daniel was alone at home and the police were unaware of his condition. Daniel got agitated and in the ensuing confusion, one of the police officers aimed to shoot at Daniel’s leg which misfired and killed him instantly. The investigation of Daniel’s death was inconclusive, and a district court held in a judgment that Daniel had been unpredictable and aggressive. Since the lives of the police officers had been under attack, one of the police officers had acted in self-defense. The Court of Appeal confirmed this ruling and held that no serious objections could be made against the actions of the police officer. The authors’ application for leave to appeal was denied by the Supreme Court.

The authors commenced civil proceedings for damages for violation, pain, suffering and loss of income from work, which was dismissed by the District Court. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court rejected the authors’ leave to appeal. The authors lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights which was declared as inadmissible. The authors allege the arbitrary deprivation of Daniel’s life in violation of his rights under article 6 read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3). The authors claim that the parents’ seeing their son shot dead and the lack of effective investigation violated their rights under article 2 (3) read in conjunction with article 7.

Admissibility

Contrary to the State party’s submission, the Committee noted that the 5-year delay in submitting the present communication was exceeded only by a few months and it was attributable to the impact caused by Daniel’s death on his family and the lack of capacity exhibited by the authors’ counsel in pursuing the case. The Committee held that the communication did not constitute an abuse of the right of submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. Furthermore, the Committee held that there was no obstacle in examining the communication under article 5 (2) of the Optional Protocol as the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling on inadmissibility did not give rise to the conclusion that it had sufficiently considered the merits of the matter in declaring inadmissibility.

The Committee found that the authors’ claims of their own rights under article 7 as being insufficiently substantiated and hence inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee noted the authors’ claims regarding flaws in investigation, arbitrary deprivation of Daniel’s life and declared the communication in this aspect under article 6(1) read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) (a) as admissible.

Merits

On the authors’ allegations of alleged flaws in the investigation and court proceedings, the Committed noted that the authors’ claims requested a re-evaluation of the facts and evidence in the domestic proceedings. The Committee however found that it had not been established that the investigation and judicial proceedings were arbitrary or amounted to denial of justice. Furthermore, the authors’ claims on deficiencies in police training and legislation on self-defense were of a general nature, and the Committee held that the authors had not established how Daniel’s rights under article 6 had been breached due to such deficiencies.

However, the Committee found that there were certain deficiencies in planning and coordinating the operation while confronting Daniel, where there was an unnecessary use of firearms and failure to protect Daniel by considering his psychological disability. The Committee believed this amounted to arbitrary deprivation of his life in violation of article 6 of the Covenant.

Recommendations

The State party is obliged to provide adequate compensation to the authors and prevent future violations of similar matters.

Implementation

Deadline for Implementation: 22 September 2023