European Court of Human Rights

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 167

Keller v. Russia - 26824/04

Judgment 17.10.2013 [Section I] See: [2013] ECHR 985

Article 2

Positive obligations

Article 2-1

Life

Failure to safeguard life of drug addict who leapt to his death while trying to escape police custody: violation

 

Facts – On 13 September 2000 the applicant’s son (V.K.) was arrested in connection with the theft of two bicycles. The interrogation record noted that he was a drug addict. Three days later V.K. was brought to an office on the third floor of the Regional Department of the Interior (ROVD), where in the presence of a duty lawyer, he was charged with theft. After the interview ended and the duty lawyer had left, the investigator asked a trainee investigator to keep an eye on V.K. while she was away at a meeting with a prosecutor. Just over an hour later V.K. was found dead in the internal courtyard of the ROVD station. In his report, the trainee investigator stated that V.K. had suddenly run out of the office and into a toilet where he had apparently leapt to his death through a third-floor window.

Law – Article 2 (substantive aspect): There was an insufficient factual and evidentiary basis on which to conclude that V.K. had been defenestrated or coerced into jumping or had died trying to escape ill-treatment by police officers. Having regard to the case file and the parties’ submissions, the Court found that the authorities had validly concluded that V.K. had died as the result of an unfortunate attempt to escape from detention.

As to whether the State had complied with its duty to protect V.K.’s life, the Court reiterated that the obligation to protect the health and well-being of persons in detention clearly encompassed an obligation to protect the life of arrested and detained persons from a foreseeable danger. Although there was insufficient evidence to show that the authorities knew or ought to have known that there was a risk that V.K. might attempt to escape by jumping out of a third-floor window, there were certain basic precautions which police officers should be expected to take in respect of persons held in detention in order to minimise any potential risk of attempts to escape.

In that connection, the escort and supervision arrangements for V.K.’s detention on 16 September 2000 had been seriously deficient. In clear breach of the applicable domestic rules, no escorting officers had been on the spot either before or during V.K.’s attempt to escape and the interview had taken place in an investigator’s office rather than in appropriate designated premises. The police had not adopted any safety measures despite V.K.’s known drug addiction and his noticeable anxiety on the day in question. Finally, V.K. had remained without any effective supervision in an unlocked office for quite some time, making it possible for him to slip out of the investigator’s office unnoticed and head for a third-floor toilet before jumping out of the window. While it would be excessive to request States to put bars on every window at a police station in order to prevent tragic events like the one in the instant case, this did not relieve them of their duty under Article 2 to protect the life of arrested and detained persons from foreseeable danger.

In sum, the State authorities had failed to provide V.K. with sufficient and reasonable protection.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 in respect of the investigation into V.K.’s death, that there had been no violation of the substantive limb of Article 3 in respect of the injuries V.K. had allegedly sustained in custody, but a violation of the procedural limb of that provision in respect of the authorities’ failure to hold an effective investigation into how those injuries had occurred.

Article 41: EUR 11,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

(See also Robineau v. France (dec.), 58497/11, 3 September 2013, Information Note 166)

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes