Introduction

The case investigates the death of the applicant’s son, A.D., who served as a corporal at the Camillo Sabatini military barracks in Rome. On 6 July 2014, his body was discovered in the courtyard in front of the accommodation building of the barracks by a sergeant during his rounds. A.D. 's body was found in a prone position approximately 10 metres from the wall of the accommodation building, beneath an open window of an unused bathroom on the second floor.

According to medical staff, A.D.’s death was caused by multiple traumatic injuries, including the loss of brain matter and blood, and cardiac arrest resulting from a fall. The initial investigation consisted of brief interviews with five fellow soldiers, his former girlfriend, and the sergeant who discovered the body. A verdict was later reached that A.D. had committed suicide due to the end of his romantic relationship with his former girlfriend.

Opening and discontinuance of the criminal investigation

A criminal investigation was opened by a public prosecutor against unknown persons for the offence of inciting suicide under Article 580 of the Criminal Code and was entrusted to the Investigative Unit of the Provincial Command of the Rome Carabinieri.

A.D.'s body was examined by a pathologist, who concluded that the death was attributable to multiple severe traumas and that injuries were consistent with a fall or jumping. Consequently, the public prosecutor requested the preliminary investigation judge of the Rome District Court to close the case, on the grounds that A.D. 's death was voluntary and that there was no evidence that the victim had been subjected to ill-treatment or violence that could have directly or indirectly caused his death.

The position of the applicant and the new investigation

Nevertheless, the applicant requested that the investigation continue, claiming it had been carried out inadequately and incompletely. According to the applicant, the investigation failed to explain certain severe injuries on the body that did not appear to have resulted from a fall, and it was unable to provide the results of the expert assessment. As a result, the applicant appointed her own forensic expert to examine A.D.’s body and the circumstances of the death. The forensic expert found that the previous report did not correspond to the position in which A.D. 's body had been found and that the images it contained were inconsistent with that explanation.

Consequently, the judge rejected the request to discontinue the proceedings, stating that he was not persuaded by the investigation's conclusions and that, in light of the applicant's assessment, the investigation should be continued, and a fresh medical examination was needed. 

The expert agreed that the injuries were consistent with a fall from the second floor; however, he identified numerous red flags, including the distance of the body from the building, the absence of defensive injuries, unexplained blood patterns, and the composed position of the body.  These anomalies cast doubt on the credibility of the suicide by jumping theory. Experts concluded that none of the hypotheses considered suicide, accidental fall, or assault could fully explain the circumstances of the death, and that external impact on the body could not be ruled out.

Expert Hearing and Witness Evidence

At the hearing in March 2017, the experts reiterated that they were unconvinced by the suicide-by-jumping hypothesis. The experts also discussed speculative alternative scenarios involving the application of force to A.D.'s back and head, but stressed that these remained hypotheses rather than conclusions.

Witness statements collected between July 2016 and April 2017 described A.D. as emotionally distressed due to a romantic breakup and professional setbacks, including failed examinations, but consistently indicated an absence of expressed suicidal intent. Most military personnel denied any knowledge of hazing. However, two witnesses reported that A.D. had experienced difficulties with a superior following an incident in the barracks showers, though inconsistencies were noted in one account.

Prosecutorial Assessment and Second Discontinuance Request

Despite the expert findings, the carabinieri investigation unit concluded that no evidence supported abuse, violence, or hazing. The unit emphasised circumstantial factors, emotional distress, failed exams, sleep problems, and a reported childhood self-harm episode as reinforcing the suicide hypothesis. It also noted that A.D. 's email account had been accessed after his death, though the responsible party could not be identified due to data retention limits.

On 22 July 2017, the public prosecutor again requested the discontinuance of proceedings. While acknowledging unresolved anomalies, he maintained that suicide remained the most plausible explanation. He dismissed alternative expert hypotheses as speculative and offered non-scientific explanations for key anomalies, including the abrasions, pulmonary emphysema, and blood patterns.

Applicant’s Objection and Final Discontinuance

The applicant objected, arguing that the prosecution had ignored the experts' conclusions and relied on assumptions rather than scientific evidence. She highlighted a combination of “warning signs,” witness testimony about difficulties in the relationship with the boss, and the lack of reliable evidence indicating suicidal intent. She also criticised the lack of preventive protocols in the barracks.

Nevertheless, on March 28, 2019, the judge conducting the preliminary investigation decided to terminate the proceedings. Although the judge explicitly acknowledged serious shortcomings in the investigation, unresolved “gray areas,” and the loss of important evidence such as camera surveillance footage and timely recordings of telephone conversations and email correspondence, he concluded that, with the passage of time, further clarification of the situation had become impossible and that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations in a potential trial.

Proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights

The applicant claimed before the ECtHR that Article 2 had been violated because the authorities had failed to protect her son's life and had not conducted an effective investigation. The Court first examined the procedural aspect of Article 2 and found that the investigation had been ineffective. Key evidence had not been secured promptly, important lines of inquiry had not been pursued, and delays had irreversibly undermined the investigation's ability to establish the facts.

Turning to the merits of the article, the Court emphasised that A.D. died while in the exclusive custody of the State, which placed an increased responsibility on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation. Taking into account the experts' conclusions and the unresolved anomalies, the Court ruled that the suicide hypothesis was not sufficiently convincing. Although the Court did not establish that A.D. had been killed, it found that the State had failed to fulfil its obligation to provide explanations.

Conclusion and Outcome

The ECtHR unanimously ruled that Italy had violated Article 2 of the Convention in both procedural and substantive terms. The Court ordered the applicant to be awarded €42,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. This decision reinforces the State's responsibility to investigate deaths that occur in military contexts and highlights the importance of conducting timely, effective, and well-founded investigations into suspicious deaths that occur under State control.