In its ruling of 15 January 2026 (No. 32707/19), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) assessed a tragic case from Italy: an Italian citizen had died after being restrained by the police in a prone position. Despite being handcuffed, the police officers held the man in a position that could significantly impair breathing for around 20 minutes. Medical reports concluded that this restraint – in addition to cocaine poisoning and the victim's uncooperative behaviour – had contributed significantly to his death from so-called positional asphyxia.
The police officers involved were initially convicted in Italy in the first and second instances. However, the Court of Cassation overturned these judgments. As a result, a total of ten relatives of the deceased brought the case before the ECtHR.
er Gerichtshof hatte zu prüfen, ob eine Verletzung von Art. 2 (Recht auf Leben) und Art. 3 (Verbot der Folter) EMRK vorlag. Er erinnerte zunächst daran, dass staatliche Gewaltanwendung grundsätzlich auf das absolut Notwendige zu beschränken sei. Die anfängliche Fixierung des Betroffenen erachtete der EGMR im Interesse der Sicherheit noch als gerechtfertigt. Anders beurteilte er jedoch die Fortsetzung der Massnahme: Spätestens ab dem Zeitpunkt, als sich das Opfer nicht mehr bewegte und nicht mehr ansprechbar war, habe keine absolute Notwendigkeit mehr bestanden, die Fixierung in Bauchlage aufrechtzuerhalten. Darin erblickte der Gerichtshof eine Verletzung von Art. 2 EMRK.
The ECtHR further held that the state had a positive obligation to issue clear and appropriate instructions for the use of restraint techniques in the prone position. The aim must be to minimise the risks to the health and life of the persons concerned. In this context, the Court stated:
«In view of the above, the Court is not satisfied that, at the material time, the State authorities adequately discharged their positive obligation to train their law-enforcement officers in such a manner as to ensure that they possessed the requisite level of competence when employing immobilization techniques, such as the prone position, that could pose a threat to life. (…) In view of the above, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive limb.»
Finally, the Court also addressed the effectiveness of the criminal investigation. One particular problem was that the initial investigative steps – namely the questioning of the paramedics – were carried out by the same police officers who had been involved in restraining the victim. The ECtHR also considered this to be a violation of Article 2 of the ECHR in its procedural dimension.
Against this background, the Court refrained from conducting a separate examination of Article 3 of the ECHR. It awarded the relatives of the deceased compensation totalling €140,000, plus an additional €40,000 for costs and expenses.