Published on 3 October 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Applications nos. 70630/17 and 73411/17 Jervin Michel HENRIQUEZ against the Netherlands and Germaine Geneviève HENRIQUEZ and Others against the Netherlands lodged on 29 September 2017 and 22 September 2017 respectively communicated on 18 September 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern an incident which occurred on 27 June 2015, when Michael Henriquez (hereafter: “Henriquez”), the applicants’ son, father, brother, and uncle, was arrested at a festival for disturbing public order. He had shouted several times that he had a firearm with him, reaching for his waistband. He was behaving under the influence of alcohol defiantly and put up fierce violent resistance during his arrest. Police officers used force to break his resistance and to control, handcuff and remove him from the area, with one of them (DH01) applying the so-called neck hold ( nekklem ), another police officer (DH02) pepper spraying and punching him in the face and three others hitting his body. Henriquez became unconscious and was transported in that condition to the nearby police station where resuscitation was performed. One day later he died in hospital.

In disciplinary proceedings police officers DH01 and DH02 were punished with a conditional discharge with a probation period of one year for committing serious dereliction of duty and by not providing sufficient care to the victim. In criminal proceedings, police officer DH01 was convicted by the Court of Appeal for participation in assault resulting in Henriquez’s death and sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment of 6 months, which judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal acquitted police officer DH02 of similar charges. The applicants’ complaint against the public prosecutor’s decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the three other police officers was rejected by the Court of Appeal.

The applicants complain that the force used resulting in Henriquez’s death was not justifiable as “no more than absolutely necessary” and that the investigation lacked effectiveness. They rely on Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the right to life of the applicants’ relative Michael Henriquez, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, did his death result from a use of force which was “no more than absolutely necessary” for the purposes of paragraph 2 (b) of this Article?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, did the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities comply with the requirements under Article 2 of the Convention (see Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, §§ 321-325, ECHR 2007-II; and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC] , no. 5878/08, §§ 229-239, ECHR 2016)?

APPENDIX

List of Applications

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

1.

70630/17

Henriquez and Others v. the Netherlands

22/09/2017

Germaine Geneviève HENRIQUEZ 1979 Aruba Dutch Josefina HENRIQUEZ - DIJKHOFF 1949 Aruba Dutch Alexander DIJKHOFF 1969 Pijnacker Dutch

Richard KORVER

2.

73411/17

Henriquez v. the Netherlands

29/09/2017

Jervin Michel HENRIQUEZ 2002 Almere Dutch

Jacqueline KUIJPER