FOURTH SECTION<\/p>\n
CASE OF VORIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA
\n(Application no. 39423\/15)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n29 January 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Vorien\u0117 v. Lithuania,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President, Having deliberated in private on 8 January 2019,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no.\u00a039423\/15) against the\u00a0Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the\u00a0Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Lithuanian national, Ms Vita Vorien\u0117 (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 30\u00a0September 2015.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr\u00a0J.\u00a0Povilionis and Mr\u00a0S.\u00a0\u017dostautas, lawyers practising in Panev\u0117\u017eys. The Lithuanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms\u00a0K.\u00a0Bubnyt\u0117-\u0160irmen\u0117.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 13\u00a0June 2016 notice of the application was given to the Government.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Bir\u017eai.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 11\u00a0April 2008 the applicant\u2019s son, M.P., was arrested on suspicion that he had committed a burglary and stolen a laptop computer. He was taken to a police station in Bir\u017eai, where he was held until his death (see below). On 12 April 2008 the police searched M.P.\u2019s home and found an amount of drugs (cannabis). On 13\u00a0April 2008 the authorities informed M.P. that he was suspected having committed crimes of theft and possession of drugs.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0By a ruling of 13\u00a0April 2008, a court sanctioned M.P.\u2019s pre-trial detention for a period of eighteen days, on the grounds that he could flee from justice, for previously he had worked in Norway and had connections in that country. M.P. confessed to possession of drugs, but denied the theft. M.P. was present at the court hearing; he also had a lawyer, J.P., representing his interests in the courtroom. The court indicated that M.P. had no criminal record.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0While detained at Bir\u017eai police station, M.P. was kept in cell no.\u00a01 alone for the entire time, given that the other detainees at that station had prior convictions, and, pursuant to the relevant domestic law, persons with no criminal record had to be held separately from those with prior convictions (see paragraph 53in fine below).<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0As later established by the prosecutor, whilst detained at Bir\u017eai police station between 12 and 14\u00a0April 2008 M.P. was taken out of his cell four times so that he could meet his lawyer and the investigator. During the pre-trial investigation M.P.\u2019s lawyer, J.P., would later also testify that he had met M.P. at around 2-3 p.m. on 14\u00a0April at Bir\u017eai police station to discuss whether to appeal against the court ruling imposing detention, but M.P. had stated that there had been no need because he had been ready to confess of the theft. Later that day the lawyer had taken part in M.P.\u2019s questioning by the pre-trial investigator, when M.P. had made a statement about the theft. According to the lawyer, M.P. had communicated in a calm manner, he had not been agitated and had had no complaints.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Death of the applicant\u2019s son at Bir\u017eai police station and the ensuing pre-trial investigation into the circumstances of his death<\/strong><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On the morning of 15\u00a0April 2008 M.P. was found dead in his cell at Bir\u017eai police station. As was later established during the pre-trial investigation, at around 8 a.m. that morning the guards\u2019 shift was changing, and, in accordance with the applicable rules, the doors of all the cells were being opened. M.P. was found standing with his feet on the ground leaning forward; a blanket was looped tightly around his neck while the other end of the blanket was attached to the metal bar at the side of the top bunk of his bunk bed. The body bore the marks of strangulation, without marks of any other injuries. Police Officer D.M. immediately took M.P. out of the noose and laid him on the floor of the cell.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0As transpires from the medical records and the prosecutor\u2019s decision of 19\u00a0December 2014 (also see paragraph\u00a044 below), at 8.08\u00a0a.m. on 15\u00a0April 2008 officers at Bir\u017eai police station called an ambulance, which arrived at the scene within a couple of minutes, at 8.12\u00a0a.m. The paramedics indicated in the medical report and also later testified during the pre-trial investigation that they had examined M.P.\u2019s body at 8.12\u00a0a.m.: the body had been found lying on the floor, had shown no signs of breathing or a pulse, the pupils had been dilated and had not reacted to light, the neck had shown signs of strangulation, post-mortem discoloration had set in, as had rigor mortis. The paramedics also stated that they had not attempted to resuscitate M.P. because according to what they had seen he had died one or two hours before. The paramedics further asserted that apart from strangulation marks on M.P.\u2019s neck there had been no injuries on M.P.\u2019s face or hands. They also attested that there had been no signs on M.P.\u2019s hands which would have indicated that he had been handcuffed or tied with a rope. The paramedics also noted that, if any other injuries had have been visible on M.P.\u2019s body, they would have been noted in the medical report.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0There was a suicide note found in the cell. It was addressed \u201cTo Mother\u201d. An empty box of matches was found in M.P.\u2019s cell, and the authorities later established that the suicide note had been written with charcoal from used matches (also see paragraphs 21 and 44 below).<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0On 15\u00a0April 2008, the incident scene was inspected, photographs were taken, one of them showing a white sheet on the bunk bed, and police officers who worked at Bir\u017eai police station had been questioned. The same day the prosecutor also questioned the applicant, who stated that \u201crecently her son [had] not complain[ed] about any problems or troubles, everything [had been] good\u201d. She also stated that previously \u201cM.P. ha[d] never attempted to hang himself or to commit suicide, there [had been] no similar accidents in the past, and he [had] not mention[ed] such things either\u201d. The prosecutor continued questioning the police officers on 17\u00a0April 2008.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 April 2008 an autopsy was ordered. The prosecutor provided the expert with a plastic bag containing M.P.\u2019s clothes and a blanket which had been found in M.P.\u2019s cell. The expert examination was performed the following day, 16\u00a0April 2008. The expert, who was from the Panev\u0117\u017eys branch of the Mykolas Romeris University Forensic-Medicine Institute (Mykolo Romerio Universiteto Teismo medicinos instituto Panev\u0117\u017eio skyrius), concluded that the cause of M.P.\u2019s death had been mechanical asphyxiation as a result of his neck being squeezed by a noose. Whilst noting that there were light scratches on M.P.\u2019s forehead and nose, the expert observed that this could have resulted from scratching of acne and concluded that it was not related to M.P.\u2019s death (report no.\u00a0M\u00a0224\/008(05)).<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant requested that an additional autopsy be performed and the prosecutor granted her request. The additional autopsy was performed on 18 April 2008 (report no.\u00a0M\u00a0759\/08(01)). The forensic expert at the Vilnius branch of the Mykolas Romeris University Forensic-Medicine Institute concluded that there were strangulation marks on the neck and bruising on the back. The neck injuries could have been inflicted several minutes prior to death as a result of the neck being squeezed by the bed sheet. As to the bruising on the back, this could have been caused when the body hanging in the noose went into convulsion hitting off hard blunt surfaces. The expert concluded that there were no objective indications which could have denied M.P.\u2019s cause of death as having been asphyxiation when the neck had been squeezed in a noose. The expert noted that there were no signs of strangulation by hands; he also indicated that it had been a one-time constriction on the neck.<\/p>\n The findings of this additional autopsy were later confirmed when, following the last reopening of the criminal proceedings, the pre-trial investigation judge ordered another forensic examination (report no.\u00a0EKM 52\/14(01)) to be performed to answer certain questions, including those submitted by the applicant.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Government \u2013 who have not been contested on this point by the applicant \u2013 upon the applicant\u2019s request, after the second autopsy the bailiff examined the corpse and took photographs in order to establish factual circumstances. The bailiff noted injuries on the back and the neck of the corpse.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 May 2008 the applicant was granted victim status. She was represented by a lawyer.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0First round of the investigation<\/em><\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 November 2008 the prosecutor summarised the findings made as a result of the criminal investigation and decided to discontinue it, citing the lack of any indication of a crime. The prosecutor considered that M.P. had died through suicide, which was corroborated by his suicide note.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0However, by a ruling of 5\u00a0February 2009 the Panev\u0117\u017eys Regional Court, on appeal by the applicant, found that the pre-trial investigation had not been thorough and annulled the prosecutor\u2019s decision to discontinue it. For the court, it had been necessary to investigate whether M.P. had been harmed by other persons, taking into account the injuries on M.P.\u2019s wrists, as alleged by the applicant, as well as to examine the suicide note and to establish whether it had been written by M.P. and with what writing instruments. The video recordings from Bir\u017eai police station had not been properly inspected, and the statements of some of the police officers had been contradictory, even false. Moreover, an internal investigation had established gross breaches of duty by the police officers at the police station (see paragraphs 47-50 below), which in turn could attract criminal liability under Article\u00a0229 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph\u00a052 below). Nevertheless, the prosecutor had failed to assess that internal-investigation report.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Second round of the investigation<\/em><\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0In March and April 2009 another prosecutor continued the investigation and questioned witnesses.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0In May 2009, and in order to establish whether the suicide note had been written by M.P., the prosecutor ordered a handwriting expert examination of the note, which then was compared to several other documents handwritten by M.P. One of those other documents was a note which M.P. had handwritten to the applicant on 14\u00a0April 2008, whilst detained at Bir\u017eai police station. It transpires from the material before the Court that that document had been in the possession of the applicant who had refused to give it to the authorities. A copy of that note had eventually been obtained by the authorities under a court order.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0In June 2009 the handwriting experts produced a report concluding that the suicide note had been undoubtedly been written by M.P. In December 2009 the forensic experts concluded that there was high probability that the suicide note had been written with burned matches, which could have come from one of the two match boxes that had been found in M.P.\u2019s cell or from another box of matches (expert report no.\u00a011\u20131457(09)).<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 January 2010 the prosecutor again discontinued the pre-trial investigation, holding that M.P.\u2019s death had been suicide. In reaching that decision he relied on an abundant body of evidence, including analyses of the video recordings from the police station cameras, which showed that no\u2013one had entered M.P.\u2019s cell at the relevant time. Between 5 p.m. on 14\u00a0April 2008, when M.P. had already been in the cell, until 8.04 a.m. on 15\u00a0April 2008, when M.P.\u2019s body had been found, the doors of his cell had been opened only once, at 8.00 p.m. on 14 April 2008, when the guards D.M. and D.A. had changed shift. Furthermore, the recordings showed that the guards D.A. and D.M. had checked on M.P. several times though the peep hole, and during the night the guard D.M. had patrolled his area several times.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0As to the possible criminal liability under Article\u00a0229 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph\u00a052 below) on the part of the police, the prosecutor took into account the conclusions of the internal investigation to the effect that the Officers D.M. and R.S. had not followed the internal instructions regarding the obligation to constantly observe detainees. That being so, the prosecutor also noted that the two officers could not have foreseen the consequences of such behaviour \u2013 M.P.\u2019s suicide \u2013 and prevent it, because M.P. had been a quiet and introverted person, he had been calm, had caused no problems in the police station and had not complained. There had been no indication that M.P. had had suicidal tendencies or a tendency to self-harm, and therefore no signs that special supervision had been needed. Accordingly, since there had been no causal link between the actions of the officers and the consequences, there were no grounds to start a pre-trial investigation for failure to perform official duties.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0On the basis of an appeal by the applicant, who had argued that during such a flawed pre-trial investigation her suspicions that her son had been murdered had only become stronger, by a ruling of 13\u00a0May 2010 the Panev\u0117\u017eys Regional Court in a public hearing again annulled the prosecutor\u2019s decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings. This time the court considered that there were certain contradictions with regard to the bed sheet as the object used for strangulation.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Third round of the investigation<\/em><\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0Having performed an additional examination of the bed sheet in the light of all available evidence, such as the witnesses\u2019 statements, the photographs from the scene and expert reports, by a decision of 6\u00a0September 2010 the prosecutor again discontinued the pre-trial investigation into the circumstances of M.P.\u2019s death.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant appealed, and on 25\u00a0October 2010 the Roki\u0161kis County District Court quashed the prosecutor\u2019s decision. The court considered that, in order to eliminate all doubts as to how M.P. could have killed himself, it was possible to conduct a reconstruction which would also verify the applicant\u2019s version that her son could not have killed himself in the way suggested (see paragraph 9 above). The court also stated that it was necessary to establish why burned matches with which M.P. had written the suicide note had not been found in the cell. Lastly, the specific instrument which had been used as a noose around M.P.\u2019s neck had to be established. That decision was upheld by a higher court.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Fourth round of the investigation<\/em><\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 December 2010 two reconstructions were performed at Bir\u017eai police station, with the participation of the applicant, the prosecutor, Police Officer D.M., who had found M.P.\u2019s body, and others. It was examined whether M.P. could have hanged himself in the manner stated by the police officers on 15\u00a0April 2008 (see paragraph\u00a09 above). After the first reconstruction the applicant maintained that her son could not have hanged himself in the manner described. She had no remarks as to the results of the second reconstruction. The results of those reconstructions were written down in two reports.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0In order to find the instrument which had caused M.P.\u2019s strangulation, the prosecutor sent requests to the Bir\u017eai county prosecutor\u2019s office and to the forensic experts in Panev\u0117\u017eys, and questioned certain witnesses. Even so, the blanket could not be found.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0In the meantime, the applicant lodged an application to have a pre-trial investigation on the charges of failure to perform official duties (Article\u00a0229 of the Criminal Code, see paragraph\u00a052 below) opened in respect of the prosecutors who had earlier discontinued the pre-trial investigation. By a final ruling of 10\u00a0January 2011 the Panev\u0117\u017eys Regional Court refused her application, noting that it was within the prosecutors\u2019 competence which actions to take when handling a criminal case. More importantly, in this case, once the courts had annulled the prosecutors\u2019 decisions to discontinue criminal investigation, the prosecutors had continued the pre-trial investigation and the actions which the court had ordered had been carried out.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 February 2011 the Roki\u0161kis County District Court allowed an application by the applicant\u2019s lawyer to have a medical expert evaluate the results of the second reconstruction (see paragraph 27 above) in order to answer the question as to whether in hanging himself in the manner shown during the second reconstruction M.P.\u2019s neck bones should have broken. According to the applicant, one needed \u201cacrobatic\u201d skills to commit suicide in such a manner. Having performed the examination of the second reconstruction report and the additional autopsy report (see, respectively, paragraphs 14 and 27 above), on 27\u00a0November 2011 the expert concluded that he could not answer the question posed by the applicant\u2019s lawyer, because the question was speculative.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 January 2012 the prosecutor again discontinued the pre-trial investigation into the circumstances of M.P.\u2019s death and also, for the reasons set out earlier (see paragraph 22 above) refused to open one in respect of Officers D.M. and R.S. for failure to perform official duties.<\/p>\n His decision was upheld by the first-instance court, which dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0By a final ruling of 6\u00a0April 2012 the Panev\u0117\u017eys Regional Court rejected an appeal by the applicant and upheld the part of the prosecutor\u2019s decision regarding the refusal to open a criminal investigation in respect of the actions of Officers D.M. and R.S., on the grounds that they had failed to perform their duties. The court reached this decision in a public hearing in which the applicant and her lawyer took part and could present their arguments. The court concurred with the prosecutor\u2019s view that the authorities had not been aware that M.P. had been a suicide risk, so as to confer liability on the officer. Pursuant to domestic law as applied in this case, persons detained in several cells at Bir\u017eai police station had to be constantly monitored through spy holes. Even so, on the basis of the medical report the court nevertheless underlined that M.P. had died within a couple of minutes of the moment when the noose had closed around his neck, that is to say within a very short time. It would have been physically impossible for D.M. and R.S. to constantly monitor, through the holes in the cell doors, all the persons detained at the police station, including M.P. This was one more reason why the court could not hold that D.M.\u2019s and R.S.\u2019s failure to perform their duties had caused M.P.\u2019s death.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 April 2012 the Roki\u0161kis County District Court granted the applicant\u2019s appeal and quashed the prosecutor\u2019s decision of 13\u00a0January 2012 in the part discontinuing the pre-trial investigation into the circumstances of M.P.\u2019s death (see paragraph 31 above). The court held that in order to eliminate any contradictions about alleged violence against M.P., a confrontation had to be performed between the applicant and one of the police interrogators who had questioned her son on 14\u00a0April 2008 (see\u00a0paragraph 8 above). In addition, the applicant requested that other persons who were detained at Bir\u017eai police station between 14 and 15 April 2008 be questioned, and the court granted that request.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Fifth round of the investigation<\/em><\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0As requested by the court, the prosecutor then performed a confrontation between the applicant and the police interrogator and questioned eight individuals who had been detained at Bir\u017eai police station at the time of M.P.\u2019s death. They all stated that they had heard no suspicious sounds during that night. In particular, D.\u017d., M.P.\u2019s co-accused in the case of theft, who had also been detained in the same Bir\u017eai police station but in another cell, averred that the two of them had talked through the slots intended for passing food at about 9 p.m. on 14\u00a0April 2008. M.P. did not state that any violence had been used against him or that he had been threatened. Neither had D.\u017d. heard any suspicious sounds from M.P.\u2019s cell.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 October 2012 the prosecutor again discontinued the pre-trial investigation into the circumstances of M.P.\u2019s death, holding that it had been the result of suicide.<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0As she was dissatisfied with the way in which the pre-trial investigation had been conducted, on 14\u00a0November 2012 the applicant applied to have the entire office of the Panev\u0117\u017eys regional prosecutor\u2019s office removed from the investigation. By a final ruling of 7 March 2013 the Panev\u0117\u017eys Regional Court held that her complaints were without substance, and that there was no reason to believe that any prosecutors from that office would not be able to effectively carry out the pre-trial investigation.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0By a ruling of 31 January 2013 the Panev\u0117\u017eys Regional Court however allowed an appeal by the applicant against the prosecutor\u2019s decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 35 above). The applicant was present at the court hearing. She asked that an expert report be prepared in order to establish whether the video recordings from Bir\u017eai police station had not been tampered with. The court granted her request.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Sixth round of the investigation<\/em><\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0The prosecutor then proceeded with the pre-trial investigation. On 20\u00a0June 2013 the forensic experts produced report no.\u00a011\u2013745(13), wherein they concluded that even if there were small gaps between the clips, each of the clips in those video recordings was complete, and that none of the clips had any signs of having been altered by deletion or addition.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0By a decision of 8\u00a0July 2013 the prosecutor again discontinued the pre-trial investigation. He relied on the entirety of the evidence in the criminal file, including the expert conclusions regarding the video\u2013recordings (see the above paragraph).<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant appealed, arguing that the pre-trial investigation had been flawed, and that a number of pieces of evidence, such as, among other things, the marks on her son\u2019s wrists and the video recordings, had been improperly evaluated.<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0By a decision of 1\u00a0October 2013 the Panev\u0117\u017eys Regional Court again quashed the prosecutor\u2019s decision. The court considered that there still remained certain contradictions, in particular, whether the short gaps within the video recording had occurred owing to a technical problem or because of another cause. It was also necessary to ascertain whether the video files had been provided in sequence. Moreover, no clear answer had been obtained from the medical expert as regards the possible reasons for M.P.\u2019s injuries in the light of the results of the second reconstruction (see\u00a0paragraphs 27 and 30 above). A supplementary medical evaluation had to be performed in which the specialists would be provided with all the existing information about M.P.\u2019s injuries so that the mechanism of his death could be determined and the question of whether there had been signs of violence against M.P. answered. The applicant and her lawyer were given the opportunity to pose questions to the experts. Lastly, the court underlined that a person\u2019s death, and even more so a death in a police station, was \u201ca particular situation (yra ypatingas atvejis)\u201d, which had to be thoroughly examined.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0Seventh round of the investigation<\/em><\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0In accordance with the Panev\u0117\u017eys Regional Court\u2019s instructions (see\u00a0the paragraph above), the prosecutor then asked the forensic experts to examine the video recordings at issue. On 1\u00a0April 2014 an expert at the Forensic Science Centre of Lithuania (Lietuvos Teismo ekspertiz\u0117s centras) then concluded (report no.\u00a011\u20133422(13)) that it was most likely that the gaps between the clips had appeared when transferring the video files to DVD. The video files were in chronological order. The expert also noted that one of the cameras had recorded two paramedics at the police station at 8.12\u00a0a.m. on 15\u00a0April 2008.<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0As instructed by the Roki\u0161kis County District Court on 25 November 2013, the experts at the State Forensic-Medicine Service (Valstybin\u0117s teismo medicinos tarnyba) had been given the material of the pre-trial-investigation file, which had amounted to four volumes, to perform an expert examination of the cause of M.P.\u2019s death. They conducted the examination from 26\u00a0May to 28\u00a0November 2014 and produced report no.\u00a0EKM\u00a052\/14(01). The experts firstly concluded that M.P. could have died as had been demonstrated during the second reconstruction, which had been performed on 14\u00a0December 2010 (see paragraph 27 above). They also noted that M.P.\u2019s neck organs could have been placed under pressure because of his own weight, and also underlined the fact that, when a person\u2019s body is in a certain position, his or her weight is sufficient to bring about suffocation. The experts also explained that the death of M.P. should have occurred while he was in a vertical or similar position, as proven by the location of the post-mortem discolouration, and that the bruises on M.P.\u2019s back could have been caused when he was in the noose and his back came into contact with the frame of the bunk bed during his convulsions. As to the injuries to M.P.\u2019s wrists, which the applicant alleged had been inflicted during handcuffing, the experts had explained that those had appeared after the first autopsy when M.P.\u2019s hands had been bound during preparation of his body for burial, which was the usual practice. On the basis of the documentary evidence \u2013 photographs of M.P.\u2019s corpse from the scene, the bailiff\u2019s statements of 16\u00a0April 2008 (see paragraph\u00a015 above) and the additional autopsy report (see paragraph 14 above) \u2013 the experts also categorically and officially stated that there had been no bruising around M.P.\u2019s eyes, unlike what had been claimed by the applicant.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0By a decision of 19\u00a0December 2014 the prosecutor again discontinued the pre-trial investigation. He relied on the entirety of the evidence which he cross-referenced \u2013 including that obtained after the last resumption of the criminal investigation \u2013 and held that no crime had been committed, holding that M.P. had died as a result of suicide. For the prosecutor, suicide as the cause of death was also corroborated by the statements of M.P.\u2019s lawyer, who stated that on 14 April 2008 M.P. had been acting calmly, had been responsive, had not complained about anything and had not been agitated (see paragraph 8in fine above). Among other things, the prosecutor also noted that an empty box of matches had been found in M.P.\u2019s cell, and that the cell had had a toilet and burned matches could have been disposed of there (see paragraphs 11, 21 and 26 above). Although the blanket which had been given to the forensic expert on 15\u00a0April 2008 (see paragraph 13 above) had not been found during the later stages of the pre-trial investigation, there was sufficient data to confirm that M.P. had put his neck into a noose made from a blanket, and there was no evidence that someone had forced him to do that or that someone had hanged him.<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant appealed against the prosecutor\u2019s decision, asserting that the criminal investigation had not proven that her son had committed suicide. She still insisted that the evidence which had been gathered during the pre-trial investigation had been contradictory and had raised doubts. The applicant still considered that her son could have been a victim of police violence.<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0The criminal proceedings in respect of M.P.\u2019s death were ultimately terminated by a ruling of the Panev\u0117\u017eys Regional Court on 27\u00a0April 2015, dismissing an appeal by the applicant. The court noted that numerous pieces of evidence had been collected and examined. It also emphasised that two of the applicant\u2019s main criticisms had been answered. Firstly, after the last re-opening of the pre-trial investigation an examination of the video recordings was performed by a forensic expert, who had disproved the applicant\u2019s allegation that the video recordings from Bir\u017eai police station had been tampered with (see paragraph\u00a042 above). Secondly, report no.\u00a0EKM\u00a052\/14(01) (see paragraph 43 above), as well as earlier medical reports (see paragraphs 13 and 14 above), had reached the same conclusions \u2013 that M.P. had died as a result of being strangled in a noose. The court noted that those medical reports had explained that M.P. could have died in the manner which had been demonstrated in the second reconstruction, and also noted that there had been no signs of injuries on M.P.\u2019s body which he could not have inflicted himself. The applicant\u2019s allegation that M.P.\u2019s death could have been caused by someone else had been examined throughout the criminal investigation but no evidence of that had been found. The court also noted that the prosecutor had reached reasoned conclusions after having performed a comprehensive analysis of the gathered evidence. Although the applicant had expressed doubts in respect of the evidence gathered, in her appeal she had not presented any new arguments regarding what particular pre-trial investigation actions had not been performed, what data had not been evaluated, or what investigative actions, had they been performed, would have clarified any important circumstances in this case. Lastly, the court concluded that during the pre-trial investigation all actions provided by law had been used to obtain evidence. Even so, there was \u201cno unquestionable data (neabejotini duomenys)\u201d that a crime had been committed.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Internal investigation into the incident at Bir\u017eai police station<\/strong><\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0After M.P.\u2019s death, the police also conducted an internal investigation. It was led by a senior investigator at the Panev\u0117\u017eys city police. On 30\u00a0May 2008 the internal investigator produced report no.\u00a050-1-IS-42, which was approved by the chief of the Panev\u0117\u017eys city police.<\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0Having examined the available material, which included both the criminal case-file regarding the theft and the material of the criminal case-file concerning the circumstances of M.P.\u2019s death, the internal investigator concluded that there was no information which could lead to a conclusion of any kind of abuse of M.P. by the police officers.<\/p>\n 49.\u00a0Within the course of the internal investigation, the safeguarding of M.P. while in police custody was also examined. On the basis of video recordings from the police station the internal investigation established that during his shift the guard D.M. had patrolled his area only a few times and had stopped only briefly at the doors of the cells. He had also only twice slowly walked the corridor along his post and only once, while patrolling his area, had he looked inside cell no.\u00a01, where M.P. had been held. The investigator concluded that D.M. had thus failed to perform his duties in accordance with the internal instruction on ensuring constant supervision of detainees, and had thus committed a disciplinary offence. Lastly, the investigator noted that by making a statement during the internal investigation that he had ensured constant supervision of the detainees, D.M. had given false testimony. Afterwards D.M. was given a reprimand.<\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0As to the other guard \u2013 R.S. \u2013 the internal investigation established that he had monitored the situation at his post via video cameras, which he considered a possible way of carrying out his duties. The internal investigator admitted that such a method of carrying out his duties could not be seen as unreasonable, even if there had been certain technical errors in how his functions had been assigned. As a result, no disciplinary sanctions were imposed on R.S.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE<\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant domestic law and practice as to the protection of the right to life and effective investigation is set out in \u010cesnulevi\u010dius v.\u00a0Lithuania (no.\u00a013462\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a047-50, 10\u00a0January 2012).<\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0The Criminal Code provides:<\/p>\n Article 229. \u00a0\u00a0Failure to Perform Official Duties<\/p>\n \u201cA civil servant or a person equivalent thereto who fails to perform his or her duties through negligence or performs them inappropriately, where this results in significant damage to the State or to a legal or a natural person, shall be punished by deprivation of the right to be employed in certain positions or to engage in certain types of activity or by a fine or by arrest or by imprisonment for a term of up to two years.\u201d<\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0The Instruction on Ensuring Safety and Supervision in Territorial Police Detention Stations (Teritorini\u0173 policijos \u012fstaig\u0173 are\u0161tini\u0173 apsaugos ir prie\u017ei\u016bros instrukcija), approved by the Police Commissioner General on 29\u00a0May 2007, stipulated that special enhanced supervision measures had to be taken with regard to persons held in police custody who were considered as having suicidal tendencies. The grounds to include a person on such a list were the following: documents in the person\u2019s file, prior convictions, verbal information received by officers, the person\u2019s behaviour or letters or other sources of information as well as any actual attempts to self-harm or to commit suicide. The instruction also provided that persons with prior convictions were to be held separately from those with no criminal record.<\/p>\n
\nEgidijus K\u016bris,
\nIulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n