Communicated on 8 July 2020 Published on 27 July 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 35530/19 Jozo TOLJ against Croatia lodged on 27 June 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the death of the applicant ’ s son several days after his arrest and the ensuing criminal investigation into the circumstances of his death.

The applicant ’ s son, who suffered from a mental disorder, was arrested by the police on 20 March 2015 on the grounds of having threatened his aunt. He allegedly resisted the arrest and the police officers used force to restrain him. After having been released on the same day his health condition deteriorated and on 23 March 2015 he was hospitalised. He died in the hospital on 26 March 2015.

The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers and the doctors involved. The competent prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint, finding that the force used by the police officers had been justified and lawful, that the injuries found on the applicant ’ s son ’ s body had not caused his death and that the doctors involved had provided him with adequate medical treatment.

The applicant complains, relying on Article 2 of the Convention, that his son died as a result of excessive use of force by the police officers and that the doctors involved failed to provide him with adequate medical assistance capable of averting a fatal outcome. He also complains, invoking Article 13, that there has not been an effective investigation into these circumstances.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant ’ s son ’ s right to life, guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?

Did his death result from the use of force which was “no more than absolutely necessary” within the meaning of Article 2 § 2 of the Convention (see Saoud v. France , no. 9375/02, §§ 88-90, 9 October 2007 and Boukrourou and Others v. France , no. 30059/15, §§ 59-62, 16 November 2017)?

Did the domestic authorities comply with their positive obligation to protect the life of the applicant ’ s son who was in a vulnerable position and under their control (see Saoud , cited above, § 96)? Was the applicant ’ s son provided with adequate medical assistance capable of averting a fatal outcome?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII; and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, §§ 233-234, ECHR 2016, with further references), did the investigation by the domestic authorities comply with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention?

3. Was the applicant ’ s son subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 when he was in the hands of the police?