Rights explained Article 2
Article 2 ECHR: The Right to Life, Its Limits and the Cases That Shaped It
Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to life, requires that everyone's life be protected by law and forbids intentional deprivation of life outside a short list of exceptions. The Court's Registry describes it as one of the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, one that in peacetime admits of no derogation. The text is brief, but decades of case law have turned it into a set of duties that reach police operations, investigations and the protection of people at known risk.
What does Article 2 protect?
The first sentence is short: "Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law." The second sentence prohibits intentional deprivation of life, with a single carve-out for the execution of a sentence of a court following conviction of a crime for which the penalty is provided by law.
The Court's guide on Article 2 reads the provision as containing two substantive obligations: to protect the right to life by law, and not to take life intentionally outside the listed exceptions. It also derives a procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation into alleged breaches. Article 15 confirms the special status: even in war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation, no derogation from Article 2 is allowed except for deaths resulting from lawful acts of war.
Which limits does paragraph 2 allow?
Paragraph 2 does not create a general balancing test. It says a deprivation of life is not a breach when it results from force that is no more than absolutely necessary in one of three situations. The guide adds that these provisions must be strictly construed.
- in defence of any person from unlawful violence
- in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained
- in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection
Which cases define Article 2?
McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (1995) is cited in the guide for the rule that deprivations of life are subjected to the most careful scrutiny, taking into account not only the acts of State agents but also the planning and control of the operation. Osman v. the United Kingdom (1998) is the source of the positive obligation to take preventive operational measures where the authorities knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual.
The Court also stresses that this duty must not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities, so not every claimed risk triggers it.
Is there a sport dimension?
The Court's factsheet on sport lists one Article 2 case: Harrison and Others v. the United Kingdom, decided on 25 March 2014. The applicants were relatives of the 96 supporters who died in the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. They complained that the original inquest had been inadequate and that they had waited over 24 years for an investigation meeting Article 2 standards.
The Court declared the applications premature and inadmissible, noting the measures taken since the Hillsborough Independent Panel was set up in September 2012 and the pending inquests. It added that the applicants could return to Strasbourg if they were dissatisfied with the outcome. The decision therefore did not rule on the merits.
