Jeg læser det som en dom for overtrædelse af pligten til at give tydelig og passende instruktion i at fastholde en person liggende på maven, og træne retshåndhævende myndighedspersoner i den henseende.

Kalkan v. Denmark (application no. 51781/22)

The applicant, Nermin Kalkan, is a Danish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Vejle (Denmark). The case concerns Ms Kalkan’s son’s death in prison in January 2011 from a heart attack after having been restrained in a prone position leg lock. Allegedly he had been in a violent and agitated state and had had to be restrained in this manner several times. He had been serving a sentence for robbery and threats against prison staff.

Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention, Ms Kalkan alleges that prison guards were not given clear instructions on use of prone positions, and that its use on her son for 13 minutes was excessive.

Violation of Article 2 in respect of the positive obligation on the State to give prison guards clear and adequate instructions on the use of the prone position when restraining prisoners and to train its law-enforcement officials accordingly

Just satisfaction:

non-pecuniary damage: 25,000 euros (EUR)

costs and expenses: EUR 6,000

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-8242269-11587447%22]}

(jeg slettede min anden kommentar, da jeg troede, at jeg havde forvekslet sager - men det er denne sag - se her, at det er Kalkan, der er indklager i sagen: https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/regionale/trekanten/kriminalforsorgen-frifundet-var-ikke-skyld-i-ekrem-sahins-doed )