Magherini case, Italy sentenced for man's death while restrained
There was no absolute necessity to keep him pinned down and the police had not been given sufficiently clear instructions on the use of the technique
There was no absolute necessity to keep Riccardo Magherini immobilised on the ground, the police had not been given sufficiently detailed information on the use of the technique and there were failures in the first phase of the investigation. These are the reasons behind the condemnation imposed on Italy by theEuropean Court of Human Rights for the death of Riccardo Magherini, which occurred in Florence on the night of 3 March 2014, as he lay on the ground restrained by Carabinieri. In the ruling, the judges state that the Italian state is responsible for the death because there was no 'absolute necessity' to keep Riccardo Magherini immobilised on the ground. In the ruling, the court did not go into the merits of either the responsibility of the Carabinieri or their acquittal at the end of the proceedings in Italy.
Violations of the Convention
The Strasbourg Court unanimously ruled two violations of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life and requires effective investigations. According to the ECHR, Magherini died after being immobilised and handcuffed, kept in a prone position for about twenty minutes, even after he had apparently become unconscious. The court pointed out shortcomings in the investigation, in the training of thelaw enforcement officers and in the guidelines then in force for the use of the prone position, finding that the state had not ensured theprotection of the man's life or conducted an independent investigation. Italy must pay a total of EUR 140,000 to seven plaintiffs as compensation for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 40,000 for legal fees.
The ruling will be final in three months if the parties do not request and obtain a review of the case before the Grande Chambre of the ECHR. According to the Strasbourg judges, the Italian State is responsible for Magherini's death also because the "guidelines for the forces of law and order in force at the time of the events did not contain clear and adequate instructions on the positioning of persons in the prone position in order to minimise the risks to health and life", and "there was a lack of training to ensure that officers possessed the necessary level of competence in the use of immobilisation techniques, such as the prone position, which could put life at risk". The ECHR also found criticisms in the very early stages of the investigation conducted, referring to the fact that some witnesses were heard for the first time by officers directly involved in the events.
The pending case of Vincenzo Sapia
The European Court of Human Rights is examininganother appeal in which, as in the case of Riccardo Magherini, family members hold the State responsible for the death of a relative following the use of immobilisation techniques by the police. The events took place a few months after those in Florence, in the municipality of Mirto Crosia in the province of Cosenza, where Vincenzo Sapia, affected by schizo-affective disorder, for which he had been under treatment for some time, died after being pinned to the ground. As in the case of Riccardo, one of the questions posed by the European judges to the government concerns the rules that officers must follow when restraining someone on the ground.
In its ruling, the Strasbourg Court also considered the circular issued on 30 January 2014 by the General Command of the Carabinieri entitled 'operational interventions against subjects in a state of psychophysical agitation resulting from pathologies or caused by alcohol and/or drugs', but which came into force on 13 March 2014, containing some warnings on theuse of restraint. According to the ECtHR, this shows that there was an awareness of the risks, but the Court itself considers that it is 'questionable whether the circular can be regarded as a source of sufficiently clear and detailed instructions'. Furthermore, the judges point out that this circular was later replaced in 2016 and then in 2019, and that the new texts do not contain references to the possible health risks associated with prolonged immobilisation, in particular when subjects are placed on the ground in a prone position, and to the need to mitigate these risks, with the resulting instructions.
