5.  The applicants are Czech nationals who were born in 1978 and 1938 respectively, and live in Brno. 6.  According to police records, on 18 June 2002 V.P., partner of the first
applicant who gave birth to his child in February 2003 and son of the second, of Roma origin, was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed a burglary and transported to the Brno-Královo Pole District Police Department (the “District Police Department”). Having been questioned between 2 p.m. and 3.05 p.m., he was charged with illegal entry into a dwelling and theft at 6.20 p.m. 7.  According to the statement made by the police officers, at approximately 4 p.m., V.P. had been situated in the separate waiting-room on the ground-floor. Between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., finger-prints were taken. After that, V.P. had been taken into the office situated on the second floor of the police station, in order to be informed about the charges. 8.  According to the official report, at 6.30 p.m., after signing the notice of charges, V. P. asked to use the toilet claiming that it was urgent. It was decided that two police officers would accompany him to the ground floor of the police building due to the fact that there were no bars at the toilet located on the second floor. On the ground floor, V. P. was not allowed to close the door of the toilet for security reasons. On the way back, police officer P. walked in front of V. P. and officer K. was on the latter’s right holding his wrist. There are discrepancies between different statements of officers K. and P. as to whether officer K. held V.P.’s left or right wrist with his left hand. Handcuffs were not used and the grasp was not very firm due to V. P.’s calm behaviour. The group went without any problems through the mezzanine floor between the ground and the first floor where windows were provided with bars. When officer P. had already crossed the mezzanine floor between the first and the second floor and when V.P. and officer K. were just arriving to the mezzanine floor, V. P. suddenly turned, struck with his open palm the left shoulder of the officer who held him by the wrist, broke away and jumped, head first, through a closed window into the yard. After having reeled, officer K. unsuccessfully attempted to catch him by the legs as they disappeared through the broken window. The police officers started to shout in order to have an ambulance called, ran out to the yard and provided, together with other officers, first aid to V. P. He was taken to the hospital by ambulance and died the next morning at 7.15 a.m. 9.  On the very same day, the Brno Complaints and Monitoring Unit (the “Complaints and Monitoring Unit”) started an investigation. They inspected the scene of incident, sketched and photographed it. All participants were invited to draw an official record (úřední záznam) where they would comment on the incident. 10.  The District Police Department opened an investigation on suspicion of the commission of the crime of participation in a suicide and conducted a number of investigative acts. Between 7.30 and 8.20 p.m. the Technical Criminal Unit surveyed the scene of incident, sketched it and drew a report.
An officer from the Supervision Department of the Minister of the Interior (“the Supervision Department”) inspected the scene of incident, took explanations from the Head of the District Police Department, police officer P., and police officer W. However, she did not speak to police officer K. as he was being provided with necessary medical aid resulting from the assault by V.P. Basing her conclusion on the preliminary findings of the control and monitoring bodies, she concluded that there were no grounds for suspecting the police officers of having committed a crime. Accordingly, the investigations were further led by the Complaints and Monitoring Unit. 11.  Still on 18 June 2002, the police officers who had had contact with V.P. prior to his death (police officers P. and K., and the police officers who had been investigating V.P.’s criminal activity) drew separate official records (úřední záznam) where they commented on the incident. In his official record, officer K. stated he had held V.P.’s right wrist during the escort. Officer P. did not mention which wrist it had been. 12.  On 19 June 2002 the medical report issued upon request of the Head of the District Police Department by the hospital to which V.P. had been brought, stated that death probably resulted from serious cerebral injury. 13.  At 0.30 the Head of the District Police Department described the incident to the first applicant and V.P.’s sister. A few hours later the Head of the District Police Department ordered an autopsy on the body, which was performed by two experts on the same day. 14.  A preliminary autopsy report was issued on 21 June 2002. It concluded that “The death of [V.P.] unequivocally resulted from violent causes as a consequence of massive blunt violence to the head area. This mechanism entirely corresponds with injuries following a fall from a height. During the autopsy no indications were found which would unequivocally suggest third party active intervention in the death of [V.P.]”. The autopsy findings were described in a report of 16 July 2002 which inter alia stated that “During the autopsy no indications were found which would unequivocally suggest third party active intervention in the death of [V.P.]. Therefore, the autopsy findings are not in contradiction with the police statement that the injuries had been caused by the fall from a height upon jumping through a closed window from the second floor of a building.” It was noted that V.P. was 170 cm tall, weighed 58 kg and had been brought to the Institute of Judicial Medicine without clothes. 15.  On 19 June 2002 the Head of the District Police Department ordered expert toxicological examination of V.P.’s body. On 19 July 2002 the expert concluded that no such substances had been found. 16.  On 19 June 2002 the Technical Criminal Unit ordered an expert analysis of the biological material retained on the day of the incident from the frame of the window V.P. had jumped through. An expert report was established on 31 July 2002 by the South-Moravia Region Department of Criminalist Technique and Expertise of the Police. It specified that the hair secured on the window morphologically corresponded to V.P.’s hair. 17.  On 19 June 2002 the brother of V.P. and the first applicant filed a criminal complaint with the Supervision Department against the police officers on duty at the station. According to the protocol, V.P.’s brother alleged that V.P. had obviously been thrown out of the window. 18.  On 20 June 2002 the Director of the Brno Municipal Police Directorate, having seen the results of the internal police enquiry conducted by the Complaints and Monitoring Unit into the escort, found that the provisions of the internal police regulations had not been breached by the respective police officers. Given that the incident was being investigated by the Supervision Department, the Brno Police Directorate discontinued the investigation. 19.  On 24 June 2002 the Supervision Department initiated an inquiry into the allegations of V.P.’s brother and the first applicant on suspicion of abuse of power by the police officer. 20.  On 25 June 2002 the Head of the District Police Department and the police officers K. and P. were questioned. The unit which took their statements is not identified in the protocol. It would however seem that the statements were taken by an officer of the Supervision Department. Police officers K. and P. stated inter alia that V.P.’s behaviour had been calm during the whole escort and that nothing indicated that he would do anything unexpected. Officer K. stated that after V.P. had been picked up by an ambulance, he had gone to the doctor because he had felt pain in his shoulder. He also stated that after several days he could still only move his shoulder in a limited way. Officer K. stated that he had held V.P. by his left wrist during the escort, while officer P. stated it had been V.P.’s right wrist. 21.  On 27 June 2002 the officers of the District Police Department questioned officers K. and P. Officer K. stated again that he had held V.P.’s left wrist, while officer P. did not mention which wrist it had been. 22.  On 26 July 2002 the Supervision Department denied access to the investigation file to the first applicant’s representative as the officer in charge of the investigation was absent. 23.  On 29 July 2002 the Supervision Department informed the first applicant’s representative that the applicants could study the file after 5 August 2002. 24.  On 30 July 2002 the first applicant’s representative unsuccessfully complained about the denial of access to the case-file to the Brno-venkov District Prosecutor. He also raised other complaints about the inquiry. In a letter of 1 August 2002 the District Prosecutor informed him that the denial was due to his failure to present a power of attorney. The applicants state that their representative had a duly signed power of attorney when he requested access to the file at the Supervision Department and that the officer reasoned her denial of access to the file because the officer investigating the case was on vacation. Thus, the representative was only enabled to study the file on 5 August 2002. 25.  On 8 and 9 August 2002 the sister and the brother of V.P., respectively, were questioned. They both pointed out that V.P. had been in a good mental and physical condition and had never thought of suicide. 26.  On 15 August 2002 the Supervision Department decided not to proceed with the first applicant’s criminal complaint against the police officers. It found no reasonable suspicion of any offence on the part of the police officers. Except for the additional evidence described above, the Supervision Department based its investigation and conclusions on the official records made by the District Police Department and the Complaints and Monitoring Unit, which contained the description of the scene of incident, the photographic evidence, the autopsy report, toxicological reports, and the official records. 27.  On 22 August 2002 the first applicant filed a complaint against this decision, stating that the investigation was not objective and impartial. She pointed to a number of deficiencies in the inquiry. 28.  On 3 September 2002 the district prosecutor quashed the decision of 15 August 2002 as premature and remitted the case to the Supervision Department for further investigation. 29.  On 4 September 2002 the district prosecutor requested the Supervision Department to procure the following evidence: (i) witness statements from the officer of the Supervision Department who visited the scene of event on the day of incident; (ii) witness statements from rescuers, doctors, and experts who carried out the autopsy to provide inter alia information about V.P.’s injuries and clothes; (iii) information about all officers present at the police station at the time of the incident and their activity; (iv) written evidence on V.P.’s personality (for example any previous attempts to commit suicide); (v) forensic expert report regarding the physical mechanics of breaking windows and the subsequent fall; (vi) a reconstruction of the incident at which the district prosecutor and an expert would attend. 30.  On 1 October 2002 the officer of the Supervision Department who had inspected the scene of incident on the day of incident was heard. 31.  In a letter of 8 October 2002 the district prosecutor informed the applicant’s representative that there were no shortcomings in the conduct of the investigation by the police and that the issue that the initial investigation had been led by the Complaints and Monitoring Unit complied with Instruction of the Police President No. 130 of 30 November 2001. An officer of the Supervision Department had immediately arrived to the scene of incident but had not found any signs of commission of a crime by the police officers. 32.  On 24 October 2002 the doctors who had carried out the autopsy and established the autopsy report made an official statement before the Supervision Department. They reiterated that no indications of active intervention of a third party had been found but clarified that this could not be unequivocally determined due to the extensive and interrelated injuries. 33.  On 20 February 2003 the Supervision Department concluded that due to the expert report in the field of forensic biomechanics that had been ordered on 21 January 2003, there was no need to conduct a reconstruction of the incident. 34.  On 21 February 2003 the Supervision Department again decided not to proceed with the first applicant’s criminal complaint against the police officers, finding that there was no reasonable suspicion of an offence. The Supervision Department relied on the forensic biomechanics report of 6 February 2003 which had stated that the incident was caused by the own active jump of the victim with the primary impact on his vertex and which had explicitly excluded any use of force by third persons. In response to the request of the district prosecutor and apart from the evidence described above, 53 official records were procured which described the activities of the policemen during the presence of V.P. at the police station. The rescuers were heard and written evidence was analysed as to the personality of V.P. 35.  On 28 February 2003 the District Police Department discontinued the investigation into the participation in suicide, the inquiry having not shown that the crime of participation in suicide or any other crime had been committed. 36.  On 14 March 2003 the first applicant’s representative was again denied access to the case file. 37.  On 21 March 2003 the first applicant filed a criminal complaint suggesting that the police officers had assisted in the applicant’s suicide. She requested the Brno Regional Prosecutor to supervise the criminal investigation into the allegations. She pointed to various deficiencies in the inquiry, stating that it lacked objectivity and was perfunctory. On 26 March 2003 the second applicant joined these proceedings. 38.  On 29 May 2003 the applicants complained to the regional prosecutor that they received no information concerning the outcome of the investigation into their new allegations. 39.  On 25 June 2003 the regional prosecutor informed them that he had found no evidence supporting the allegation that a crime had been committed. He concluded that V.P. had not intended to commit suicide but had unsuccessfully attempted to escape, being unable to control his dive from the height of 8.1 metres. He rejected other allegations of breach of the procedure, but admitted the following procedural shortcomings: (i) a failure of the Municipal Prosecution Office to defer the case to the Brno-venkov District Prosecution Office as specialized authority for criminal activity of police officers, (ii) that original investigation by the Supervision Department had been “entirely insufficient”, (iii) that the applicants’ representative had been wrongly denied access to the file, (iv) a failure to seize V.P.’s clothes and to examine them by the way of criminal expert report, (v) contradictory information in the case-file regarding the issue whether the officer K. could have been at the scene of incident at 6.30 pm which was however due to an administrative error. The prosecutor concluded that these procedural shortcomings had no impact on the exactitude of the established facts, but he requested that the evidence be completed. 40.  On 12 August 2003 the district prosecutor requested the Supervision Department to supplement the evidence following the regional prosecutor’s decision. 41.  On 9 October 2003 the Supervision Department once again decided not to proceed with the applicants’ criminal complaint against the police officers, finding that there had been no reasonable suspicion of an alleged offence. It was noted, inter alia, that V.P.’s clothes had been given to the latter’s family at the hospital. 42.  On 16 October 2003 the applicants appealed against this decision, challenging a number of factual inconsistencies and errors in the case-file. 43.  On 12 November 2003, the expert who established the forensic biomechanics expert report was heard by the District Prosecutor. He apologized for several formal mistakes in his report but maintained that the substantial conclusions were correct. He explained that the errors in the name of the deceased and in the location of the incident were due to the fact that he had copy-pasted parts of the report from a previous report. He also apologized for the error under point three of the report where it was stated that V.P. fell first on his legs. The expert explained that that was his error and referred to the autopsy report which unequivocally showed that V.P. fell first on his head. 44.  On 13 November 2003 the district prosecutor dismissed the applicants’ appeal as ill-founded. In respect of the challenged report of 6 February 2003, the district prosecutor noted that the expert had admitted that it contained errors but further noted that these had been classified as formal. The prosecutor agreed with the opinion of the regional prosecutor that V.P. had most probably attempted to escape. Given that the windows were partly shaded, he could not see the concrete surface below nor could he exactly estimate the height. Thus he might have thought that it would be possible to escape. The prosecutor concluded by stating that this had only been the prosecutor’s personal view and that the victim’s intentions would never be known.