In the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 protects the right to life. The article contains a limited exception for the cases of lawful executions and sets out strictly controlled circumstances in which the deprivation of life may be justified. The Court subsequently held that Article 2 no longer permitted the death penalty and that it was contrary to Article 3. No State Party to the Convention may therefore resort to the death penalty, whether or not it has ratified Protocol No. 13.

The European Court of Human Rights has commented that "Article 2 ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention". The obligations on a State under Article 2 consist of three principal aspects: the duty to refrain from unlawful deprivation of life; the duty to investigate suspicious deaths; and in certain circumstances, a positive obligation to take steps to prevent avoidable losses of life.

Text

Deprivation of life

The first, and most obvious obligation under Article 2 is for the state, through its agents, to refrain from itself causing the deprivation of life, that is to say that domestic law must regulate the permissible use of lethal force by agents of the state. The court first considered the obligations imposed by Article 2 in the case of McCann and Others v United Kingdom brought by the relatives of three individuals shot by members of the SAS in Gibraltar.McCann & Others v UK 21 EHRR 97.

This case imposes two obligations to the State:

To conduct a full, open and transparent investigations into why the public bodies have taken a life. This should be public, independent and should involve members of the family of the victims (R (Amin) v S.O.S. Home Dept).R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKHL 51. A positive duty to refrain from unlawful killing, better expressed as the "Duty of command, control and training" i.e. to ensure those who take the life (such as police marksmen) are highly trained and overseen at all times.

If the state has not followed these obligations then it will be found to be an unlawful killing. Further reading of cases on the matter include: Kelly and Others v UK; Osman v UK; McKerr v UK; Jordan v UK; Shanaghan v UK; and R(Amin) v SOS Home Dept itself.Kelly and Others v The United Kingdom 30054/96 ECHR.McKerr v The United Kingdom 28883/95 ECHR. Shanaghan v The United Kingdom 37715/97 ECHR.

Positive duty to protect life in certain circumstances

Article 2 has been interpreted to include the positive obligation of the state to ensure preventive measures are taken to protect citizens. The leading case on the matter is Osman v UK which overruled the UK court's decision in Hill v West Yorkshire as to the fact that public bodies could not be held to be negligent if they had done all that would be reasonably expected of them to avoid immediate and real risk of life.Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire UKHL 12, AC 53. Whether authorities have done this is decided case by case. In the case of Osman v UK, the claimant contended that the police authority should have been more alert to the obsessive behaviour of Paget-Lewis and his targeting of their son, however there was found to be no risk of life endangerment.Osman v The United Kingdom (1998) Case No: (87/1997/871/1083)

Some cases establish further obligations for states. For instance, LCB v UK establishes a positive obligation for states to take "appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction."The case entails the applicant's complaint concerning a failure to monitor radiation exposure of her father, who was a serviceman present during the Christmas Island nuclear tests in 1957/58; the applicant was diagnosed with leukaemia as a child and since discovered a large incidence of cancer within the children of these veterans. She claimed that the State had failed to warn her parents of the risk to her health caused by her father's exposure, and that they failed to monitor her father's exposure levels, therefore breaching Article 2 of the Convention. There was held to be no violation of Article 2 here.

Similarly, in the case of Öneryildiz v Turkey, the Grand Chamber also emphasised the positive obligation on the State to take the 'appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 2' as well as stating that the Article 2 protection 'could be relied on in connection with the operation of waste-collection sites, on account of the potential risks'. Öneryildiz v Turkey 48939/99 ECHR 657 Dangerous industrial activity therefore must be regulated, licensed and monitored.

Makaratzis v Greece pushes these obligations further, so that the state must have mechanisms to deter offences against people.Makaratzis v Greece (2005) 41 E.H.R.R. 49. This was initially applied to the use of firearms. Although the court recognised the defensive benefits in gun ownership, it found a much larger threat in unchecked gun use. This case highlighted that Article 2 covers not only intentional killing but where force is used which may unintentionally kill. It was held to be a violation as chaotic gun use by the police force put the applicant's life at risk.

Preventative measures to protect life

The criteria of positive obligations now references as the Osman obligation, as established in Osman v UK, have been used in further cases as follows:

Gongadze v Ukraine – The court found a breach of duty to take preventative measures, from the applicant's complaints that under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the State had failed to protect her husband's life from the police officers who were involved in his disappearance and murder.Gongadze v Ukraine 34056/02 ECHR. Akkoç v Turkey – The applicant's husband received harassment and death threats which were reported and ignored, and following this he was shot dead.Akkoç v Turkey 22947/93 and 22948/93 ECHR. There was a breach of the Osman criteria as authorities failed to satisfy their positive obligation to protect him when his life was at risk, violating Article 2 of the Convention.

The Osman obligation also applies to persons in detention. Some examples of this include:

Edward v UK – There was a failure to pass on information regarding the prisoner's mental state as well as a failure to protect the cellmate who was then murdered by them.Edward v The United Kingdom 46477/99 ECHR. In detention cases there is a very high burden of proof on the State to show they took reasonable steps to protect prisoners in custody. Keenan v UK – Outlined the idea that preventative steps should be taken to care and watch out for suicidal prisoners.Keenan v The United Kingdom 27229/95 ECHR. Saoud v France – In this case a mentally ill person was arrested with extreme force and held down for thirty minutes, causing his death by asphyxiation.Saoud v France 9375/02 ECHR. The authorities had an obligation to protect his health as a person who had just been arrested, which includes providing medical care when required.

In health care, an obligation exists to an undefined degree as laid out in Cyprus v Turkey.Cyprus v Turkey 25781/94 ECHR Although there was found to be no breach, the court acknowledged the obligation of States to safeguard lives within the jurisdiction, by not denying healthcare which is made to be available to the general population.

Duty to investigate suspicious deaths

The Article 1 obligation to secure Convention Rights combined with the Article 3 obligation as set out in LCB to take 'appropriate steps' to protect life, creates a general duty to investigate unnatural deaths for the purposes of creating accountability, and deterring the breach of Article to right to life.LCB v The United Kingdom ECHR Case no. 14/1997/798/1001.

The investigation must be effective, independent and prompt. The duty to investigate is even stronger where the death has occurred whilst a person was detained by the state. The leading authority on this is Salman v Turkey (2000).Salman v Turkey (2002) 34 E.H.R.R. 17

The facts of this case include an applicant who, reliant on Article 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention, claimed her husband died by torture in police custody and that she was unable to receive an effective remedy regarding the complaint. It was held that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, due to authorities' lack of adequate investigation into the suspicious death of Agit Salman in custody.

The case of Calvelli and Ciglio v Italy entailed a delay by police in investigation of a baby's death, causing the prosecution against the negligent doctor to be time-barred. Calvelli and Ciglio v Italy GC 32967/96 The applicants argued that the procedural delays that created obstacles to prosecution, breached Article 2's requirement that the right to life is protected by law. The case was considered admissible, however in the Grand Chamber there was held to be no violation, as the applicants waived their right to pursue civil proceedings due to a settlement with insurers.

The obligation to investigate is a general obligation for deaths, including killings by government agents (as seen in McCann v UK), private killings (as seen in Menson v UK) and deaths caused by known persons (as seen in Togcu v Turkey, Kaya v Turkey and Yasa v Turkey).Menson v the United Kingdom 47916/99 ECHR.Togcu v Turkey 27601/95 ECHR.Kaya v Turkey (1999) 28 EHRR 1. Yasa v Turkey 22495/93 ECHR. The case of Yasa v Turkey shows that a state of emergency does not excuse this obligation.

These investigations need not be criminal investigations depending on the circumstances. For example, the case of Powell v UK showed that disciplinary investigations of professional may be sufficient.Powell v the United Kingdom 45305/99 ECHR.

The case of Hugh Jordan v UK states that the investigation can vary so long as it meets the strict requirements of effectiveness.Hugh Jordan v the United Kingdom 24746/94 ECHR.

Effectiveness thus creates certain criteria to be followed: Investigators must be 'independent and impartial both at law and in practice' – in the case of Ergi v Turkey there was a breach because the investigators relied solely on evidence provided by the police who were being investigated.Ergi v Turkey 23818/94 ECHR. Ramsahai v Netherlands – evidence provided by the colleagues of those being investigated does not satisfy the requirements for impartial investigations, even as in the case of Jordan v UK, the colleagues where supervised by independent body.Ramsahai and Others v The Netherlands 52391/99 ECHR. Jordan v UK – investigation must be adequate, adequacy requires the investigation to show the cause of death and find those responsible for it.Jordan v the United Kingdom 24746/94 ECHR. The investigation must be fast and reasonably expedient, and legal aid may also need to be provided. McKerr v UK – must allow for public scrutiny and provide punishments that would deter others.

Use of force and exceptions in paragraph 2

This constitutes the negative obligation of the state under the Convention. The states must, under Article 3, refrain from any random deprivation of life. This article, however, offers states a few exceptions to that rule. This constitutes a license to use force and is not to be construed as a license to kill.

The exceptions are well defined and are subject to a very narrow interpretation by the Court.

There are three conditions set by the court: The use of force must be absolutely necessary; It must be in defence of a third party; It must be subject to a proper and effective investigation which is both impartial and independent. Key rulings in this matter are McCann and Others v United Kingdom, Makaratzis v Greece, and Nachova and others v Bulgaria. Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria (2005) [GC] 43577/98 and 43579/98.