Published on 14 March 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 42559/21 Isabella ACRI and Others against Italy lodged on 19 August 2021 communicated on 25 February 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the death of the applicants’ relative, Mr V. Sapia, during a police operation and the use of immobilisation techniques by law enforcement officers, as well as the ensuing criminal investigation into the circumstances of his death. The applicants raise complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicants’ relative’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular:

(a) Did the applicants’ relative’s death result from a use of force which was absolutely necessary and strictly proportionate to the achievement of the aims set out in the subparagraphs of paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Convention? (see Saoud v. France , no. 9375/02, §§ 88-90, 9 October 2007)?

(b) Did the domestic authorities comply with their positive obligation to protect the life of the applicants’ relative who, according to the applicants, was in a state of particular vulnerability?

(c) Can it be stated, in the circumstances of the present case, that the respondent State was equipped with the necessary legislative, administrative and regulatory measures defining the limited circumstances in which law-enforcement officials may use force (see, mutatis mutandis , Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 56-59, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI, and Tekın and Arslan v. Belgium , no. 37795/13, § 84, 5 September 2017)?

(d) Did the domestic authorities comply with their positive obligation to train their law-enforcement officials in such a manner as to ensure their high level of competence in their professional conduct so that no one is subjected to treatment that runs counter to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 108, ECHR 2015, and Tiziana Pennino v. Italy , no. 21759/15, § 45, 12 October 2017)?

The Government are invited to specify whether there exists, and existed at the time of the impugned events, an established policy, protocol or practice by reference to which police officers must operate when dealing with individuals in the situation of the applicants’ relative, in particular with regard to the use of restraint and immobilisation techniques, as well as whether they receive specific training in this regard. In this latter connection, the Government are invited to specify whether the officers involved in the impugned events received such training.

2. Having regard to the procedural aspect of the protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Did the domestic authorities make a serious attempt to establish the circumstances surrounding Mr Sapia’s death and secure relevant evidence (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 175, 14 April 2015)?

(b) Can it be said that the domestic investigation’s conclusions were based on a thorough, objective and impartial analysis of all relevant elements, including the applicant’s submissions?

(c) Was the investigative process carried out with reasonable expedition, as required by the Court’s case-law (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç , cited above, § 178)?

3. Was the applicants’ relative subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment at the hands of the police, in breach of the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

No.

Applicant’s Name

Year of birth

Nationality

Place of residence

1.Isabella ACRI

1956Italian

Mirto Crosia

2.Isabel RIZZUTI

2005Italian

Mirto Crosia

3.Rosy RIZZUTI

1995Italian

Mirto Crosia

4.Caterina SAPIA

1974Italian

Mirto Crosia

5.Giacomo SAPIA

1977Italian

Mirto Crosia

6.Simone SAPIA

2001Italian

Mirto Crosia