This judgment, **S.T. v. the Czech Republic (Application no. 28273/23)**, concerns the death of a Roma man following a police intervention in June 2021. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the police used disproportionate force by keeping the victim in a prone position with handcuffs and pressure applied to his back for over four minutes, despite his clear vulnerability. The Court highlighted that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective, independent, and thorough investigation into the death. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the State failed to fulfill its positive obligation to protect the victim’s life and health, specifically noting the lack of adequate training and clear guidelines on the risks of positional asphyxia at the time of the incident. Finally, the Court concluded that the authorities failed to take reasonable steps to investigate potential racial bias, violating the prohibition of discrimination. ****: This decision is highly relevant to Ukraine, as it reinforces the standards for police conduct, the necessity of independent investigations into law enforcement, and the state’s duty to combat institutional racism and discrimination, which are critical areas for ongoing judicial and police reforms in Ukraine.
### Structure and Main Provisions
The judgment is structured around the Court’s assessment of the State’s compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights:
* **Procedural Obligations (Articles 2 & 3):** The Court examines the effectiveness of the investigation, finding that the initial reliance on non-independent police bodies and the failure to secure victim participation rendered the process ineffective.
* **Substantive Obligations (Article 2):** The Court addresses the State’s failure to protect the right to life, focusing on the lack of proper regulatory frameworks and training regarding the “prone position” and the failure to provide timely medical assistance.
* **Prohibition of Ill-Treatment (Article 3):** The Court assesses the proportionality of the force used, concluding that the combination of handcuffing and kneeling on the victim was excessive.
* **Prohibition of Discrimination (Article 14):** The Court evaluates the failure to investigate potential racist motives, establishing that the State must proactively “unmask” bias in cases involving vulnerable minorities.
Compared to previous jurisprudence, this decision strengthens the requirement for States to have clear, updated guidelines on restraint techniques to prevent “positional asphyxia” and emphasizes that body cameras are not optional tools but essential safeguards for both the public and the police.
### Key Provisions for Practical Use
For legal practitioners and human rights advocates, the following elements are most significant:
1. **The “Prone Position” Standard:** The Court explicitly links the use of the prone position, especially when combined with pressure on the back or neck, to a high risk of death. It establishes that failure to provide specific training and guidelines on this risk constitutes a violation of the State’s positive obligations.
2. **Evidentiary Inferences:** The Court confirms that if a police officer fails to activate a body camera without a valid, documented reason, the Court may draw inferences unfavorable to the Government, effectively shifting the burden of proof regarding the proportionality of the force used.
3. **Institutional Independence:** The judgment reaffirms that investigations into police misconduct must be conducted by bodies that are both hierarchically and institutionally independent from the police force involved. Reliance on internal police reports is insufficient.
4. **Investigating Racial Bias:** The Court provides a roadmap for what constitutes a “prima facie” case of racial bias (e.g., ethnicity of the victim, location of the incident, and international reports on systemic discrimination). It clarifies that authorities cannot simply wait for “explicit” racist remarks; they must actively investigate whether institutional racism or unconscious bias influenced the intervention.
5. **Victim Participation:** The Court emphasizes that next-of-kin must be granted effective access to investigative files and be kept informed of the proceedings to ensure transparency and public trust.
