The European Court of Human Rights has held that Italy violated Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in connection with the death of a young soldier found dead in army barracks, due to serious deficiencies in the investigation and the State’s failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the death.
A.D. was found dead in the courtyard of military barracks in July 2014. The authorities initially concluded that his death was likely the result of suicide by jumping, based on an early forensic report. Proceedings were subsequently discontinued, despite objections from his mother, Ms Rosaria Intranuovo, who argued that the investigation was superficial and incomplete.
The Court noted that while an investigation was opened promptly, key investigative steps were omitted at an early stage. These included the failure to secure or review CCTV footage from the barracks, the absence of a thorough examination of A.D.’s phone and email records, the failure to seal and examine the bathroom from which he was said to have jumped, and the lack of questioning of senior officers with supervisory responsibility. Although a later phase of the investigation was more comprehensive and involved independent forensic experts, the Court found that the passage of time meant that the initial shortcomings could not be remedied.
Given that the death occurred within a military facility, the Court emphasised that the events lay largely within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities and that the burden rested on the State to provide a plausible and convincing explanation. It found that the suicide hypothesis relied upon by the Government was expressed only in terms of probability and had been explicitly questioned by later expert reports, which identified inconsistencies and did not exclude alternative explanations.
The Court concluded that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of A.D.’s death and had not discharged the State’s obligation to protect life by providing a satisfactory account of what occurred. It therefore found violations of Article 2 in respect of both the procedural and substantive obligations owed by the State.
Click here to read the full judgment.