[ad_1]
According to the case, police police Jonava received information in November 2013 that during the struggle there were battles for Russian citizens, after which S.M died suddenly, in whose body signs of violence were found. S.M. The cause of death is a sting, compressing the throat with power.
Pre-trial investigation into the murder of an A.F. and two police officers, but the study was abandoned in 2015, after finding out that individuals are not committing illegal offenses.
However, a few months later, the investigation into the Attorney General's Prosecutor's Office in the V.S. Police Department continued. and V.A. possible abuse and unpaid S.M. Life imprisonment. This pre-trial investigation was also concluded in December 2015.
However, S.M. He died due to compression of the throat using a fighting action: keeping his neck with his forearm and neck and committing the strangulation act by arresting police officers V.S. and B.A. and the preliminary investigation was resolved without specifying which of the two suspects committed criminal offenses.
In the Kaunas Regional Court, Mr S. mother and son. They asked to give them 80 thousand. moral damage to the euro.
"The claim for damages comes from the VA, VS officers The use of an illegal act, the inappropriate use of a battle that led to SM died (…) As a result of this, the applicants suffered emotional shock, anxiety and have lost confidence in law enforcement, "- the court's decision states the related arguments.
The police department of the Kaunas District disagreed with the claim and argued that without collecting information that it was the deeds of an officer who led to the death of a man, there was no obligation to compensate.
"The decision to terminate the pre-trial investigation by arguing that the illegal and unreasonable actions were taken during detention, the unnecessary, inappropriate and unprofessional action of the squeeze-related fight is only a case based on the lack of sufficient data to we judge One of the officials involved in the prosecution has done all of this, "the Commission said.
In the third case, police officers V.A. and V.S., who are still in Kaunas police. Both state that they have not done any action that S.M. the death
However, the court took into account the fact that the deceased was unable to injure himself and his arrest was conducted by two officials, and he therefore concludes that "this combat operation was executed by S.M. prisoners'.
The court also pointed out that S.M. During his arrests, he was thought to have behaved inappropriately and was at risk for himself because of a psychiatric disorder or a high emotional enthusiasm, his mental condition provoked suspicions and officials. However, as the court notes, officials did not treat the prisoner as a patient who needed urgent help but used surplus military action against him.
"The case does not contain any evidence that SM violated police instructions, turned the police officers, or even fought them during detention." The aforementioned circumstance leads to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to use a combat action – compression of the throat , which could only be justified by active resistance actions, and only after using other means. All circumstances indicate that during detention, police officers realized that the behavior of a the person was most likely affected by a mental disorder but did not properly assess the situation, apparently did not take into account the nature of the violation of the law and the SM his individual qualities and behavior and used the victim of excessive and unnecessary physical abuse that caused fatal injuries, ie it has committed illegal acts ", – it is written by a court order.
The court points out that the fact that V.S. and V.A. has not been condemned, it does not invalidate the State's responsibility for the unlawful acts committed by those officials.
"In order to face civil liability it is sufficient to identify the guilt of officials and not individualize the official who committed the illegal act", – refers to the court decision.
This decision of the court of first instance may be appealed.
[ad_2]
Source link
