Death of a person with a psychosocial disability following a police intervention did not constitute violation of articles 6 and 7

Facts

The author, E.M., a Czech national, submitted the communication on her behalf and on behalf of her deceased son, D.H., of Roma origin. D.H. had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, and on 26 November 2011, his parents called emergency services due to his distress. When police and medical personnel arrived, D.H. allegedly threatened them but later opened the door unarmed. Police forcibly entered, restrained him face down, and administered sedatives. He suffered cardiac arrest and was resuscitated multiple times, but later fell into a coma and died on 1 December 2011. The author challenged the investigation into her son’s death, alleging that police used excessive force, possibly a taser gun, and that the sedative dosage was excessive. She lodged criminal complaints, which were dismissed by the General Inspectorate of Security Forces and the District Public Prosecutor’s Office. On appeal, the decision was upheld. She did not file a constitutional complaint, arguing it would have been ineffective given the legal context at the time.

In the present communication, the author alleges violations of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, arguing that her son was subjected to arbitrary lethal force, disproportionate police intervention, and an inadequate investigation into his death.

Admissibility

The Committee found the communication admissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, rejecting the State party’s claim that the author had failed to exhaust domestic remedies by not filing a constitutional complaint. Given the evolving jurisprudence on the right to an effective investigation at the time, the Committee accepted that such a complaint would not have had reasonable prospects of success. Further, it dismissed the State party’s argument that the author abused the right of submission under article 3, concluding that the communication had been filed within five years of the decision on the last domestic remedy, in accordance with the Committee’s rules of procedure, thus rendering it admissible under the same provision.

Merits

Regarding article 6, the Committee found no evidence to support the author’s claim that the police used excessive force, including a taser, or that the sedatives administered caused D.H.’s death. They noted that forensic reports concluded that his death resulted from malignant brain oedema following cardiac arrest, with no indication of external violence. Similarly, under article  7, the Committee acknowledged D.H.’s vulnerability but found no proof that the police intervention amounted to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The investigation into his death was deemed procedurally adequate, with multiple forensic assessments and legal reviews. As the author failed to present sufficient evidence that police actions were unlawful or arbitrary, the Committee dismissed the claims as unsubstantiated and accordingly inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.