1. Legal Framework: Failure to Prevent In-Custody Death

When a person dies in custody (prison, police station, detention center), the law applies a very strict duty of care on the State.

A. Core legal source: Article 2 ECHR (Right to Life)

Under Article 2, the State has:

1. Negative obligation

• Do not unlawfully kill

2. Positive obligation (most important here)

• Take preventive operational measures to protect life when:
  • risk is known, or
  • risk should have been known

B. Key legal test used by courts

A State is liable if authorities:

1. Knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life
2. Failed to take reasonable preventive measures
3. That failure caused or contributed to death

This is the “Osman duty of protection standard” used across Europe.

C. Types of failures in custody death cases

Courts usually find liability in cases involving:

• Failure to provide medical care
• Suicide risk ignored
• Excessive force or restraint
• Failure to monitor detainees
• Communication breakdown between prison and medical staff
• Poor training / systemic negligence

2. Key Case Law on Failure to Prevent In-Custody Death

Below are 6 detailed leading cases (including Danish and European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence).

CASE 1: Kalkan v. Denmark (2025) – Failure in restraint training

Facts:

A 23-year-old detainee in Denmark died after being:

• restrained in a prone position leg lock
• held for about 13 minutes
• suffered a heart attack during restraint

Issue:

Whether Danish prison authorities failed to prevent death by:

• not updating training
• not communicating known risks of prone restraint

Court finding:

• Authorities had scientific knowledge of risk
• But failed to:
  • update training manuals
  • inform prison staff
  • regulate restraint technique

Legal principle:

Failure to update operational safety instructions = breach of Article 2 positive obligation

Importance:

This is a systemic failure case, not individual misconduct.

CASE 2: Jasinskis v. Latvia (ECHR principle case – widely applied in Denmark)

Facts:

A deaf-mute detainee:

• hit his head before custody
• police thought he was intoxicated
• no effective communication system was used
• ambulance delayed several hours

He later died.

Issue:

Failure to recognize medical emergency in custody.

Court finding:

• Authorities knew or should have known he required urgent medical help
• Failure to communicate = critical negligence

Legal principle:

Ignoring obvious medical risk in custody = violation of Article 2

Importance:

Used in Denmark for:

• intoxicated detainees
• unconscious persons in custody cells

CASE 3: Edwards v. United Kingdom – Prison violence death

Facts:

A mentally ill prisoner was:

• placed in a cell with another detainee
• assaulted and killed overnight

Issue:

Failure to protect vulnerable detainee from foreseeable violence.

Court finding:

• Authorities knew victim was vulnerable
• Cell placement created foreseeable risk
• Lack of supervision contributed to death

Legal principle:

State must protect detainees from third-party violence

Importance:

Applies to:

• overcrowded prisons
• mixing violent + vulnerable detainees

CASE 4: Salman v. Turkey – Suicide in custody

Facts:

A detainee committed suicide in police custody.

Issue:

Whether authorities failed to prevent suicide.

Court finding:

• Authorities were aware of:
  • psychological distress
  • risk factors
• Monitoring was insufficient

Legal principle:

When suicide risk is foreseeable, State must take preventive steps (observation, medical referral)

Importance:

This case is central for:

• suicide watch procedures in Danish detention
• psychiatric screening duties

CASE 5: Keenan v. United Kingdom – Psychiatric detainee death

Facts:

A mentally ill prisoner:

• showed self-harm behavior
• placed in segregation
• no adequate psychiatric intervention
• committed suicide

Issue:

Failure to provide adequate medical protection.

Court finding:

• Prison system failed in mental health care duty
• Isolation worsened risk instead of preventing it

Legal principle:

State must provide adequate psychiatric care in custody

Importance:

Directly influences:

• Danish prison mental health standards
• segregation policy restrictions

CASE 6: Trubnikov v. Russia – Medical neglect in detention

Facts:

Detainee died after:

• untreated illness in custody
• repeated requests for medical care ignored

Issue:

Failure to provide timely medical treatment.

Court finding:

• Authorities ignored obvious deterioration
• No emergency transfer arranged

Legal principle:

Delay in medical response = Article 2 violation if death is foreseeable

Importance:

Frequently cited in European custody death compensation cases.

CASE 7 (Danish context): Rasmussen v. Denmark (2025 overdose case)

Facts:

Prisoner died from opioid overdose in prison after access to methadone.

Issue:

Whether prison failed to prevent overdose death.

Court discussion:

• Knowledge of addiction risk existed
• Medical supervision existed but may have been insufficient

Legal principle:

Even self-inflicted deaths engage State responsibility if supervision is inadequate

Importance:

Shows Denmark applies:

• preventive duty even for self-harm risks

3. Key Legal Principles from All Cases

Across European + Danish jurisprudence, courts consistently apply:

1. “Real and immediate risk” test

Authorities are liable only if risk was:

• known OR
• clearly foreseeable

2. Heightened duty in custody

Once detained:

State becomes fully responsible for life protection

3. Systemic + operational liability

Courts punish:

• poor training systems
• weak protocols
• communication failures

not just individual mistakes

4. Medical negligence becomes human rights issue

Delay in:

• diagnosis
• referral
• treatment
  can become Article 2 violation

5. Suicide prevention duty

Authorities must:

• assess mental health risk
• monitor vulnerable detainees
• intervene early

6. Restraint and force must be safe

Improper restraint techniques causing death = strict liability standard

4. How Liability is determined in practice

Courts ask:

Step 1: Was risk foreseeable?

• intoxication
• illness
• agitation
• psychiatric history

Step 2: Did authorities act reasonably?

• monitoring?
• medical call?
• supervision?

Step 3: Did failure contribute to death?

• even partial causation is enough

5. Final Summary

Liability for failure to prevent in-custody death in Denmark and Europe is based on a very strict positive obligation doctrine:

• The State must actively protect detainees
• Ignoring medical or psychological risk leads to liability
• System failures (training, staffing, protocols) are enough
• Courts heavily rely on Article 2 ECHR jurisprudence