003-6427455-8450301

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 214 (2019)   11.06.2019   Death of applicant’s brother in hospital and accusations of ill-treatment   were not properly investigated   The case Prizreni v. Albania (application no. 29309/16) concerned the death and alleged   ill-treatment of the applicant’s brother in hospital after his transfer there from prison.   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously,   that there had been:   a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human   Rights owing to the lack of an effective investigation into the applicant’s brother’s death in hospital,   and,   no violation of the substantive limb of Article 3 (prohibition of torture), and,   a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) owing to the lack of a proper   investigation into the applicant’s arguable claims that his brother had been ill-treated.   The Court found in particular that the authorities had never conducted an effective investigation to   properly establish the cause of death and whether any negligence or ill-treatment had been   involved. A forensic medical report had raised questions which the authorities had not attempted to   answer while the applicant had been barred by statute from complaining about the prosecution   decision not to institute criminal proceedings over the incident.   Principal facts   The applicant, Fatos Prizreni, is an Albanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Elbasan   (Albania).   In February 2011, the applicant’s brother, Sh.P., was transferred from Lezhë detention facility to a   hospital. The applicant went to visit his brother on 22 February 2011, but found that he had died   that day. It appears from the hospital file that Sh.P. had been diagnosed with elephantiasis, morbid   obesity and multi-organ insufficiency, and had been prescribed medication.   The authorities began to investigate the death on the day he passed away, carrying out an on-site   examination and later questioning hospital doctors. The doctors stated that he had been treated like   any other patient and given treatment in accordance with the rules. The applicant told investigators   that during an earlier visit he had found his brother unconscious and tied to the bed with sheets.   A post-mortem forensic report found no trace of medication in Sh.P.’s blood, noted bruising on both   forearms and gave the cause of death as acute cardio-respiratory insufficiency. It left the question of   any negligent medical treatment to another forensic medical commission.   The Tirana prosecutor’s office decided in April 2011 against bringing criminal proceedings, citing the   forensic report and the fact that it had found no evidence of an offence. The applicant complained   about that decision but his case was rejected at all levels, including the Constitutional Court in 2015.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   The courts found in particular that he did not have legal standing and that under domestic law only   people who had reported an offence could complain about a decision not to institute criminal   proceedings.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant   complained that there had been no effective investigation into his brother’s death.   He also complained that his brother had been treated in hospital in a way that was contrary to   Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment). In particular, he alleged that he had found   his brother tied to his bed with sheets while unconscious, that the marks on his brother’s wrists had   raised serious suspicions that he had been handcuffed while at the hospital, and that his brother had   not received proper medical treatment. He also raised a complaint under Article 13 (right to an   effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2 and Article 3.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 May 2016.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Robert Spano (Iceland), President,   Marko Bošnjak (Slovenia),   Işıl Karakaş (Turkey),   Julia Laffranque (Estonia),   Valeriu Griţco (the Republic of Moldova),   Arnfinn Bårdsen (Norway),   Darian Pavli (Albania),   and also Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   The applicant submitted that the investigation had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation about   the circumstances surrounding his brother’s death. In particular it had not excluded beyond any   reasonable doubt that the health issues described in the medical report, which had included   observations of bruises on the body and forearms, had not been caused by ill-treatment or a lack of   appropriate medical care. The Government rejected those arguments.   The Court first dealt with an objection by the Government that Mr Prizreni had been too passive,   failing to report the case to the prosecutor’s office. However, it noted that under its case-law   authorities must act of their own motion once a matter has come to their attention. It was therefore   immaterial whether Mr Prizreni had himself been active in involving the investigating authorities.   The Court noted that the investigation had started promptly, on the day Mr Prizreni’s brother had   died. However, an inconsistency had emerged as the forensic report had found no traces of drugs in   Sh.P.’s blood, while the hospital file stated that he had been treated with medication.   The question of whether he had been receiving drugs for his condition or not was never clarified and   the Court was not satisfied that it had been established beyond a reasonable doubt that Sh.P.’s   death had been caused by his illnesses or inadequate treatment and care.   The investigation had not addressed the applicant’s allegations about his brother being handcuffed   while in hospital and whether that had contributed to his death. Furthermore, the prosecution   decision not to pursue the case had been based on the inconclusive forensic examination.   The Court stressed the importance of involving relatives in investigations into the death of a member   of their family, in particular to ensure that their interests were properly protected, which could be in   conflict with those of the police or the security forces. Mr Prizreni, however, had been barred by   statute from making an effective challenge to the prosecutor’s decision against opening criminal   proceedings. That was inconsistent with the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation.   The Court held that the authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation   into the circumstances of the applicant’s brother’s death and there had been a breach of the State’s   procedural obligation under Article 2 to protect the right to life.   Article 3   Mr Prizreni’s complaint of ill-treatment was based on his finding his unconscious brother tied to his   hospital bed with sheets, the possibility that he had been handcuffed while in hospital and the   question mark over his medical treatment raised by the forensic examination. The Government   disputed the applicant’s submissions.   The Court found that Mr Prizreni had raised an arguable claim that his brother had been ill-treated in   hospital in a way that was contrary to Article 3, triggering an obligation on the authorities to   investigate. The authorities had never provided any explanation for the bruises found on his   brother’s body and had never questioned any prison police officer or hospital personnel specifically   on this issue.   Handcuffing, in particular if carried out in connection with lawful detention, did not normally give   rise to an issue under this Article. The forensic medical report had mentioned the existence of marks   on the body that could have been caused by the impact of a blunt object, but no further   investigation had been carried out. The Court concluded that it could not establish whether there   had been a violation of the substantive limb of Article 3.   On the other hand, the Court found that it was clear that the authorities had failed to carry out an   effective investigation to establish whether Mr Prizreni’s brother had been subjected to ill-treatment   while in custody and there had thus been a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb.   Other Articles   Given its findings under Article 2 and Article 3 the Court decided that it did not need to examine the   complaints separately under Article 13 of the Convention.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Albania was to pay the applicant 12,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary   damage and EUR 1,450 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHRpress.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Somi Nikol (tel: + 33 3 90 21 64 25)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   4