SECOND SECTION
CASE OF SVRTAN v. CROATIA
(Application no. 57507/19)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 2 (substantive) • Positive obligations • Life • Death of the applicants’ twelve-year-old son, accidentally shot by a person with an alleged history of alcohol abuse, violent behaviour and unlawful possession of firearms • Court unable to conclude the existence of a real and immediate risk to the victim’s life of which the authorities knew or ought to have known • General post-war context and phenomenon of widespread illegal possession of weapons at the relevant time • Authorities’ failure to act promptly and decisively despite serious allegations that the perpetrator possessed illegal weapons • Non-compliance with the special duty of diligence in the protection of public safety and, ultimately, the applicants’ son’s life, in view of the particularly high level of risk to life inherent in the use of firearms • Failure to apply rigorously a system of adequate and effective safeguards designed to counteract and prevent any misuse or dangerous use of firearms
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
3 December 2024
 
FINAL
 
03/03/2025
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Svrtan v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,
 Pauliine Koskelo,
 Jovan Ilievski,
 Péter Paczolay,
 Davor Derenčinović,
 Gediminas Sagatys,
 Stéphane Pisani, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 57507/19) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Croatian nationals, Mr Željko Svrtan and Ms Biljana Svrtan (“the applicants”), on 24 October 2019;
the decision to give notice to the Croatian Government (“the Government”) of the complaint concerning their son’s right to life and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 12 November 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns the death of the applicants’ 12-year-old son, who was accidentally shot by a certain S.K. who had an alleged history of alcohol abuse, violent behaviour and unlawful possession of firearms. It raises an issue under Article 2 of the Convention. THE FACTS
2. The applicants were born in 1967 and 1968, respectively, and live in Osijek. They were represented by Mr T. Filaković, a lawyer practising in Osijek. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Background to the case
5. On 25 August 2003 an anonymous citizen wrote to the chief of the Osijek-Baranja Police Department, Second Police Station (Policijska uprava osječko-baranjska, II. Policijska postaja) stating that he was a neighbour of a certain S.K. who possessed illegal weapons, including an automatic rifle, a pistol and several bombs. The letter specified that on 5 August 2003, which was a public holiday, S.K. had fired several burst shots from the automatic rifle in front of his house, following which four police officers came and left without taking the weapon from him, which S.K. subsequently mocked. The letter also stated that on 19 August 2003 S.K. was again shooting at around 11.45 p.m. The letter urged the police to take action to protect S.K. and his neighbours, explaining that he had become very dangerous since his wife had left him and that he had threatened his mother and grandmother that he would kill them if they reported him to the police. 6. In a special operative report issued by the Osijek-Baranja Police Department, Second Police Station signed by police officer T.K., it was stated that through interviews with two citizens he had learned that S.K. possessed a gun and probably also an automatic rifle. Both citizens had seen S.K. carrying weapons while he was drunk. Officer T.K. also stated that he was personally aware that S.K. possessed a gas pistol. 7. On 31 August 2003, while carrying out an identity check on S.K., police officers from the Osijek Second Police Station ascertained through direct observation that he was carrying a gas pistol. They established that S.K. had thereby committed a minor offence under the Weapons Act (Zakon o oružju) and lodged a request to institute minor-offence proceedings against him. It was also established that the S.K. had 2,06 g/kg of alcohol in his blood at the said occasion. 8. On the following day, the police asked the Osijek Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u Osijeku) to issue a warrant to search S.K.’s house, in view of information obtained by the police indicating that S.K. was keeping weapons in his home without a licence. 9. On the basis of a warrant issued on 1 September 2003, on the same day police officers P.B., Z.Š. and D.R. carried out a search of S.K.’s house, witnessed by civilians M.K. and I.M. During the search, which according to official records lasted for 30 minutes, no weapons were found and no objects were confiscated. 10. By a letter dated 5 September 2003, the Organised Crime Department of the Osijek-Baranja Police wrote to the Osijek Second Police Station, stating that, according to the information received and the special operative report (see paragraphs 5 and 6 above), S.K. was in possession of several unlicensed weapons, which were hidden in the attic of his house. The letter also stated that S.K. was violent towards his mother and grandmother who lived with him, and that he had threatened to kill them if they ever reported him to the police. The police were instructed to carry out field enquiries in order to verify that information and to take the necessary steps should they establish suspicion of a minor-offence or a criminal act. 11. By a letter dated 29 September 2003 the chief of the Osijek Second Police Station replied to the above letter (see paragraph 10) stating that the police had searched S.K.’s house on 1 September 2003, but did not find any weapons. 12. It does not appear that any further checks or searches of S.K.’s house took place in the period that followed. The circumstances of the applicants’ son’s death
13. On 12 October 2003, at around 5.30 p.m., S.K. called his ex-wife, Sa.K., and told her to come to his house to pick up their daughter. 14. Shortly afterwards, at around 5.45 p.m., Sa.K. arrived at S.K.’s house with her brother D.K. S.K. opened the door holding an automatic rifle with its muzzle pointed at the ground. His young daughter stood in the hallway behind him covering her ears with her palms and crying. Sa.K. entered the hallway and took her daughter in her arms. S.K approached them and pushed Sa.K. away. Since the door to the house had been left open, D.K. saw what was happening, stepped out of the car and told S.K. to let Sa.K. and her child out of the house. While S.K. and D.K. were arguing, Sa.K. left the house with her daughter and sat in the parked car. 15. Shortly afterwards, S.K. went into the house and closed the front door, but D.K. went back to S.K.’s door, kicked it open and told S.K.: “Shoot if you have the courage, you motherfucker.” D.K. then turned around and started walking towards his car, at which point S.K. stepped out of his house onto the street. He fired between seven and nine bullets in the direction of D.K., killing him on the spot. His blood alcohol level was subsequently found to be approximately 2,15 g/kg. 16. At the same time, the applicants’ minor son, M.S., who was passing by on a bicycle, was shot in the head by one of the bullets fired by S.K. He subsequently died in hospital. 17. On 12 October 2003 the police questioned S.K. He admitted that he had shot D.K. using an automatic rifle and said that he had subsequently learned that a stray bullet had hit a child whom he did not know. On that occasion, he stated that he had found the rifle, together with the ammunition, five or six days prior to the event in a ditch near the Danube while he was fishing. He had brought it home, placed it on the cupboard in the hallway and had not touched it until the day of the incident. 18. On 13 October 2003, on the basis of a warrant issued by the Osijek County Court (Županijski sud u Osijeku), police officers searched S.K.’s house. They found thirty rounds of automatic rifle ammunition and one automatic rifle extension. 19. On 14 October 2003 the police lodged a request to institute minor offence proceedings against S.K. for unlawful possession of ammunition, a minor offence referred to in section 75(1) and (2) of the Weapons Act. 20. S.K. was subsequently convicted in the minor-offence proceedings. Criminal proceedings against S.K. 21. On 13 October 2003 the police lodged a criminal complaint against S.K. with the Osijek County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Osijeku) for the murder of D.K., a serious criminal offence against public safety committed against the applicants’ son and the unauthorised possession of weapons and explosives. 22. On 5 November 2003 S.K. was indicted. He pleaded guilty on all counts. Before the court, S.K. stated that he had come into possession of the automatic rifle in question during the war in Croatia and had kept it in the attic of his house ever since. A few days before the incident, he had taken the rifle down from the attic in order to clean it and had placed it on the table in the hallway. S.K. further stated that some twenty days before that event, the police had conducted a search of his house, but the search had been cursory and they had not found the rifle. At that time, the rifle had been in a room he did not normally use, rolled up in a carpet. He added that, on the day in question, he had taken the rifle out of that room and had placed it on a shelf in the hallway. He had then taken it from the shelf and had placed it on the hallway table with the intention of cleaning it. 23. A number of witnesses were examined during the criminal proceedings. Witness T.K., S.K.’s former father-in-law, stated that after the divorce from his daughter, S.K. had often called her on the phone and had threatened to kill them all and detonate a bomb. He also stated that S.K. had been prone to conflict and problematic behaviour owing to his alcohol consumption. Witness K.K., S.K.’s mother, had not been aware that S.K. had kept an automatic rifle in the house and stated that she had first seen it on the hallway table, where he had placed it about half an hour prior to the incident. She pointed out that she did not know where the rifle had been earlier, but that she had the impression that S.K. had brought it in from the courtyard. 24. On 16 March 2004 the County Court found S.K. guilty as charged and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. The court instructed the applicants to lodge a claim for damages in civil proceedings. Civil proceedings
25. On 16 December 2004 the applicants brought a civil claim for damages against S.K. and against the State under section 13 of the State Administration Act. They claimed jointly and severally from S.K. and the State some 60,000 Croatian kunas (HRK; equivalent to some 7,960 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage for funeral-related costs. They also claimed from the State HRK 220,000 each (equivalent to EUR 29,199) in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the mental pain and anguish suffered due to the loss of their son. The applicants argued that the State had been responsible for the death of their son in particular because the police had not found the automatic rifle used to shoot him during their search of S.K.’s house shortly before the incident (see paragraph 9 above). 26. During the civil proceedings, the applicants stated that they had heard that S.K. had owned firearms and had been known to use them. During the criminal proceedings they had learned that S.K. had allegedly purchased the rifle with which their son had been killed from a common acquaintance and neighbour of theirs a few years before the incident. However, they had personally never seen S.K. with weapons and had therefore never lodged a criminal complaint against him for unauthorised possession of weapons. 27. A number of other witnesses were heard during the civil proceedings. Witness S.M. stated that S.K. would often drink beer in front of the shop where she worked. She described him as annoying but not aggressive. Although she had heard that he possessed firearms and that he had been bragging that the police had searched his house but had not found the weapons he had hidden, she had never seen him with one. Witness S.V. described S.K. as being a loudmouth who tended to drink and harass others, and confirmed that she herself had a number of arguments with him. She stated that she had seen S.K. carrying a gun, rumoured to be a gas pistol, and that he had once asked her to wrap up a box containing a rifle for him in the shop where she was employed. However, she had never heard of S.K. firing any other weapons prior to the tragic event. The witness added that, after one of the searches conducted in his house, S.K. had threatened to break her legs if she had been the one who had reported him. Witness S.P. stated that she had heard that the police had visited S.K. for disturbance of public order and peace, but that she had not witnessed the events in question. She had also heard stories that S.K. used to shoot guns during the New Year celebrations, but she did not have any direct knowledge of this. She pointed out that whenever shots were heard, everybody in the neighbourhood immediately thought that S.K. had fired them, although nobody knew for sure. 28. The court also heard evidence from police officers P.B., Z.Š. and D.R., who had conducted the search of S.K.’s house on 1 September 2003 (see paragraph 9 above). Officer P.B. explained that the day before the search, someone had fired a gas pistol, which was why the search of S.K.’s house had been ordered and that they had in fact gone in to look for that particular weapon. They had asked S.K. to hand over any weapons he might have had, but he had refused to cooperate. Officer P.B. recalled seing a rolled-up carpet in one of the rooms, but he did not know for certain whether the carpet had been inspected, although he believed it must have been. Officer P.B. added that he knew S.K. because of his alcohol abuse and behaviour towards his wife and mother, but not because of his possession of weapons. Officer Z.Š. confirmed that S.K. had been known to the police on account of his alcohol problems and anti-social behaviour. He did not remember a rolled-up carpet from the search, but he stated that everything must have been thoroughly searched. Officer D.R. stated that he had searched the woodshed and the attic, but he had not seen a rolled-up carpet; it must have been inspected by his colleagues. He also added that, following the tragic event, he had personally conducted the search of S.K.’s house, during which a rifle extension and ammunition had been found (see paragraph 18 above). To his knowledge, no searches had been conducted between 1 September 2003 and the day of the shooting. 29. Witness I.M., who had been present during the search of S.K.’s house on 1 September 2003, stated that the police officers had searched each room in a very thorough manner; they had opened cupboards, lifted mattresses and examined the firewood in the shed. He recalled that there had been a rolled-up carpet in one of the rooms, which the police officers had unrolled and stepped on while searching for objects, but they had found nothing in it. He added, however, that the police had not unrolled the carpet completely and that it had been left partly rolled up. The witness noted that he himself had stepped on the carpet and that there had definitely been no weapons hidden in it, in particular not a rifle. The witness also stated that he knew that there had been several previous searches of S.K.’s house and that S.K.’s father had told him that the police had found a bomb in one of the cupboards during one of the searches. 30. Following a remittal of the case, S.K. was heard again and stated that the search of his house of 1 September 2003 had not been carried out carefully or in accordance with the rules of the profession. The police officers had examined the rooms superficially and had not found the automatic rifle which had been rolled up in a carpet. He said that a police officer had even walked on the carpet, but had not noticed the rifle, the handle of which had been partly sticking out. S.K. added that he had obtained the rifle and some other weapons during the war in Croatia, sometime in 1992 on the battlefield in Eastern Slavonia. He had subsequently handed over other weapons to the authorities, but had kept the automatic rifle for safety reasons because many people in the area kept weapons at home. He had kept it in the attic for many years but had brought it down from the attic after his daughter had moved away and put it in a room that needed to be renovated, which nobody except for him ever entered. He had rolled the rifle up in a carpet so that it was not immediately visible, being aware that he had possessed it unlawfully. 31. S.K.’s former wife, Sa.K., stated that she had not been present during the search because she had moved to her parents’ home earlier that year. She confirmed that the police would come to S.K.’s house four or five times a month on account of his outbursts. When she had lived with him, she had been aware that he possessed some sort of weapon; however, he had told her that it was an air rifle, which was kept in a cupboard and did not work. 32. On 12 March 2014 the Osijek Municipal Court allowed the applicants’ claim in full. The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows:
“Considering the evidence presented, each item separately, as well as all the evidence together, the court finds that S.K. had been reported to the Ministry of the Interior ... for disturbing public order and peace by firing automatic firearms, and that the employees of the Osijek-Baranja police had intervened several times following reports from citizens, and conducted searches of S.K.’s house ... and the last [such] search ... was carried out by three police officers in the presence of two witnesses, the defendant and his mother on 1 September 2003, following an order issued by the Osijek Minor Offences Court, and on that occasion no weapons were found. During the search, all the rooms of the house, as well as the woodshed, the attic and the basement, were inspected, furniture was inspected, and a rolled-up carpet on the floor of one room was not completely unrolled, as transpires from the testimony of witness I.M., who was present during the search. The court has accepted the material evidence as credible, and therefore true, because its credibility was not challenged by any party, so it accepts the [above] factual situation as established. Applying substantive law to [that] established factual situation, the court takes the position that the claim is well-founded in its entirety. That is to say, during the proceedings it has undoubtedly been established that S.K. had unauthorised possession of a weapon – the automatic rifle from which the bullet that killed the claimants’ son was fired ... S.K. had been reported several times to the ... police for disturbing public order and peace by firing from automatic firearms, and the police intervened several times, according to reports from citizens, and searched S.K.’s house ... and the last search ... was carried out on 1 September 2003, when the police conducted a search superficially and contrary to the rules of the profession ... and did not find the automatic rifle in question, which had been in the house, in a room not used for habitation – rolled up in a carpet – and which was superficially searched by the police officers, as also emerges from the testimony of Officer P.B., who remembers a rolled-up carpet in the room but does not remember whether it was inspected, Officer Z.Š., who does not remember whether he saw the rolled-up carpet in the house, Officer D.R., who remembers seeing a rolled-up carpet, but did not examine it, and witness I.M., who remembers that the police did not completely unroll the rolled-up carpet in the room, even though they stepped on it. As a result of the above, the State’s [objection ratione personae] is not accepted. The State’s liability for damages stems from the provisions of section 13 of the State Administration Act ... as in force at the material time, since it is apparent from the testimony of the police officers who conducted the search that they did not examine the rolled-up carpet or unroll it completely, and also from the testimony of witness I.M., from which it follows that the carpet was not fully unrolled, while the court fully believes the testimony of S.K. that the automatic rifle had always been in his house, and that he kept it in the attic and occasionally took it down for cleaning, and that on the day of the search, that is, 1 September 2003, the rifle was in the rolled-up carpet in a room which he did not use and the carpet was not fully unrolled during the search.”
33. Following an appeal by the State, the Osijek County Court (Županijski sud u Osijeku) upheld the first-instance judgment in its part concerning S.K. but reversed the remainder of the judgment dismissing in full the applicants’ claim against the State. The court concluded that the search of S.K.’s house had been conducted lawfully since it had been in accordance with the relevant provisions of the domestic law, and stressed that the mere fact that the search had not resulted in finding the object being searched for did not render the search unlawful. Pointing out that only S.K. had claimed that the said rifle had been hidden in the rolled-up carpet in his home, the court also noted that S.K. had changed parts of his statement between the criminal and civil proceedings against him. The applicants had not proved that the search had been conducted unlawfully, thereby failing to prove the existence of a causal link between the actions of the police officers during the search of S.K.’s house and the death of their son. The murder of the applicants’ son had been committed through the willing and conscious acts of S.K. and not because the police had failed to find his weapon during the search. The court also noted that S.K. had failed to hand over the rifle in question despite the numerous requests the State had made to its citizens via the media to turn over any illegally possessed weapons, as well as the warnings issued concerning the dangers of their possession. Finally, as regards the costs of the proceedings the second-instance court explained that it did not order the applicants to cover the State’s costs of representation since they were already unlikely to ever be paid the awarded compensation for pecuniary damage by S.K. who was purging a long-term prison sentence and possessed no property. 34. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the second-instance judgment, which the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed as ill-founded on 22 November 2017. In doing so, the Supreme Court accepted the conclusion of the second-instance court that the search had been carried out lawfully and that there had been no causal link between the search and the damage caused. 35. On 23 May 2018 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). In their complaint, they stated that the lower courts’ judgments had violated their constitutional right of equality before the law (Article 14 of the Constitution), as well as their right to a fair hearing (Article 29 of the Constitution). In the reasoning of their complaint, they also stated as follows:
“The damage suffered by the complainants up to the present day is not in issue. [S.K.] killed their son ... The harmful act as a result of which their son M. was killed was a shot fired from an automatic rifle by [S.K.]. The causal link between the responsibility of [the State] and the damage incurred stems from the fact that the police officers did not find the automatic rifle during the search of [S.K.’s] house, although the rifle was undisputedly in the house and the police officers ought to have found it. Had they found the automatic rifle during the search, and they should have done so since it had undisputedly been in [S.K.’s] house, then [S.K.] would not have even been able to fire the lethal shot... The complainants truly do not know how they could have explained the causal link better to the second-instance court and the Supreme Court in order for them to accept the liability of the Republic of Croatia in this case. Through those actions the complainants were put in an unequal position compared with other citizens of the Republic of Croatia. The complainants and their son were not granted the basic safety which should have been ensured, namely the protection of life, and it is precisely for police officers to guarantee such protection. A basic principle of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, as set out in Article 21 § 1 of the Constitution, reads: ‘Every human being has the right to life’. [The complainants’ minor son] also had the right to life. But that right was taken away from him as a result of the police officers’ negligence in failing to properly search [S.K.’s] house.”
36. On 17 April 2019 the Constitutional Court declared the applicants’ constitutional complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. The applicants’ lawyer received the Constitutional Court’s decision on 29 April 2019. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND REPORTS
37. The relevant provisions of the Constitution (Ustav Republike Hrvatske, Official Gazette no. 56/1990 with subsequent amendments) read as follows:
Article 14 § 2
“All persons shall be equal before the law.”
Article 21
“Every human being has the right to life.”
Article 29 § 1
“Everyone shall be entitled to have his or her rights and obligations, or suspicion or accusation of a criminal offence, decided upon fairly and within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.”
38. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code (Kazneni zakon, Official Gazette nos. 110/97, 27/98, 50/00 and 129/00), as in force at the material time, read as follows:
Endangerment of life and property through a generally dangerous act or means
Article 263
“(1)  Anyone who endangers the life or limb of people or property of substantial value by fire, flood, explosives, poison or poisonous gas, ionising radiation, mechanical force, electricity or other energy or by some generally dangerous act or generally dangerous means shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of between six months and five years.
... (3)  If criminal offences referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article are committed in a place where many persons are gathered, the perpetrator shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of between one and eight years.”
Serious criminal offences against general safety
Article 271
“(2)  If, as a result of the criminal offence referred to in Article 263, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, Article 264, paragraph l, Article 265, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 266, paragraph 1, of this Code, the death of one or more persons is caused, the perpetrators shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of between three and twelve years.”
Unauthorised possession of weapons and explosive substances
Article 335
“(1)  Anyone who unlawfully constructs, acquires, possesses, sells or in any other way obtains for himself or another a firearm, ammunition or explosive substances, the acquisition, sale or possession of which is unauthorised for citizens, shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment for up to three years.”
39. The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Zakon o kaznenom postupku, Official Gazette nos. 110/97, 27/98, 112/99, 58/02, 143/02 and 178/04), as in force at the material time, read as follows:
Article 211
“(1)  The search of a dwelling, other premises, movable property or a person shall be undertaken with the purpose of finding the perpetrators of a criminal offence or finding objects relevant for the criminal proceedings if it is likely that they are to be found on certain premises or with a certain person. (2)  A search represents the investigation of the searched object by means of senses and aids under the conditions and in the manner prescribed by this [Code] and other regulations. (3)  The search of a person must be carried out in a manner preserving the dignity of the searched person. The search of a person shall be carried out by a person of the same sex. (4)  The search must be carried out in a manner that enables the least possible violation of house rules and disturbance of citizens. (5)  Should it not be possible to achieve the purpose of the search of a dwelling, other premises and movable property in any other manner, the authority carrying out the search shall dismantle the object of the search with the help of an expert. Unnecessary damage shall be avoided when dismantling the object of the search.”
Article 211a
“(1)  The search of a dwelling shall include the search of one or more rooms used by a person as his or her home, as well as rooms connected with these premises by the same purpose of usage.”
40. The relevant parts of the 1997 Weapons Act (Zakon o oružju, Official Gazette no. 46/97, with subsequent amendments), as in force at the material time, read as follows:
Section 11
“(1)  It is prohibited to acquire, hold, carry, manufacture, repair and modify, trade and transport, unless otherwise specified by this Act:
1.  all types of automatic weapons;
...”
Section 38(2)
“Weapons shall not be carried without a licence and an identity card or other identification document.”
41. The State Administration Act (Zakon o sustavu državne uprave, Official Gazette nos. 75/93, 92/96, 48/99, 15/00, 127/00, 59/01 and 199/03), as in force at the material time, read as follows:
Section 13
“Damage suffered by a citizen, a legal person or another party owing to unlawful or irregular operations of State administration bodies or bodies of local and regional self-government units, namely legal persons vested with public authority in State administration affairs entrusted to them, shall be compensated for by the Republic of Croatia.”
42. The relevant provision of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the reopening of proceedings following a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (namely, section 428a) is cited in Lovrić v. Croatia (no. 38458/15, § 24, 4 April 2017). 43. Since 1992 the Croatian authorities have organised a number of special campaigns to encourage citizens to surrender illegally possessed weapons. It would appear that in the first ten years, over 33,500 weapons were handed over voluntarily. On 31 May 2001 the Government adopted the National Programme to increase general security through the voluntary surrender of weapons, ammunition, mines and explosives (Nacionalni program povećanja opće sigurnosti dobrovoljnom predajom oružja, streljiva i minsko-eksplozivnih sredstava), popularly called “Farewell to Arms”. According to official statistics, during 2001 and 2002 over 6,500 firearms were voluntarily handed over. 44. The relevant parts of the National Strategy and Action Plan for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons (Nacionalna strategija i Akcijski plan za kontrolu malog i lakog oružja, Official Gazette no. 113/09), adopted by the Government of the Republic of Croatia on 10 September 2009, read as follows:
“Suppression of illegal possession and effective control of small and light weapons represent one of the key prerequisites for the security and stability of every country, including the Republic of Croatia. In Croatia, this need is particularly pronounced owing to the relatively large number of small arms and light weapons that were accumulated during the Homeland War, as well as the specific geostrategic position of the Republic of Croatia as a transit area for arms smuggling to western Europe. Recognising the above-mentioned danger, and respecting the recommendations and efforts of the international community directed against organised crime and terrorism, there is a need for an effective and coordinated undertaking of all available measures and activities with the aim of more effectively suppressing the illegal production, procurement, possession, trade and smuggling of small arms and light weapons, as well as all other abuses and negative phenomena in this connection. It is a very complex process that requires the continuous cooperation of all ministries and other State administration bodies in order to achieve the maximum effect. For this purpose, the Government of the Republic of Croatia is adopting the National Strategy for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons with the associated Action Plan. The National Strategy is a strategic document that defines the key goals and priorities of the national policy on the control of small arms and light weapons, and the Action Plan contains clearly defined measures to improve the current activities in this area, with the aim of creating the safest possible environment for Croatian citizens and enabling uninterrupted economic and social development.
... 2. Current situation
...
2.2. Spread of weapons in the Republic of Croatia
During the Homeland War, large quantities of various firearms, ammunition, mines and explosives were found on the territory of the Republic of Croatia. At the end of the war, most of the weapons were placed under the control of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Croatia and the Ministry of the Interior, but some of the weapons remained in the illegal possession of citizens. With the aim of systematically reducing the illegal possession of weapons, the Republic of Croatia has, over the years, carried out a number of activities and measures. Multiple amendments and additions to legal regulations have been made, through which citizens have been able to voluntarily hand over weapons in their illegal possession, and numerous actions have been carried out for this purpose. In 2002 the Ministry of the Interior carried out a campaign called ‘Goodbye arms’ in which citizens could hand over unregistered weapons to the local police department or station, or legalise them. The ‘Fewer weapons - fewer tragedies’ campaign, implemented in 2007 in cooperation with the UN Development Programme (UNDP), has also been successful. When it comes to the number of weapons that are still in the illegal possession of citizens, despite many years of repeated actions carried out to encourage the voluntary surrender and/or legalisation of weapons, it is impossible to give a precise estimate. They are mainly weapons whose acquisition, registration and possession by citizens is prohibited by the Weapons Act. In addition to the prohibited weapons, there are still many weapons in the illegal possession of citizens, the acquisition and possession of which is permitted by law (with appropriate authorisation). In the above-mentioned circumstances, the Weapons Act ... still allows citizens to permanently surrender all types of firearms, by reporting them to the nearest police department or police station, after which the police take possession of them at the place where they are located. If citizens report their weapons before the police launch investigative actions under the Minor Offences Act or Code of Criminal Procedure, that is, before the beginning of the application of the police powers established by the Police Act, no minor offence or criminal charges will be brought against them ...”
RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW AND REPORTS
45. The relevant part of General comment no. 35 on Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, issued by the UN Human Rights Committee on 16 December 2014 (footnotes omitted) reads as follows:
“9. The right to security of person protects individuals against intentional infliction of bodily or mental injury, regardless of whether the victim is detained or non-detained. For example, officials of States parties violate the right to personal security when they unjustifiably inflict bodily injury. The right to personal security also obliges States parties to take appropriate measures in response to death threats against persons in the public sphere, and more generally to protect individuals from foreseeable threats to life or bodily integrity proceeding from any governmental or private actors. States parties must take both measures to prevent future injury and retrospective measures, such as enforcement of criminal laws, in response to past injury. For example, States parties must respond appropriately to patterns of violence against categories of victims such as intimidation of human rights defenders and journalists, retaliation against witnesses, violence against women, including domestic violence, the hazing of conscripts in the armed forces, violence against children, violence against persons on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and violence against persons with disabilities. They should also prevent and redress unjustifiable use of force in law enforcement,18 and protect their populations against abuses by private security forces, and against the risks posed by excessive availability of firearms. The right to security of person does not address all risks to physical or mental health and is not implicated in the indirect health impact of being the target of civil or criminal proceedings.”
RELEVANT EUROPEN UNION LAW AND REPORTS
46. The relevant parts of the Directive (EU) 2021/555 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 March 2021 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons read as follows:
“... (23)  For the most dangerous firearms, strict rules should be laid down in this Directive in order to ensure that those firearms are, with some limited and duly reasoned exceptions, not allowed to be acquired, possessed or traded. Where those rules are not respected, Member States should take all appropriate measures, which might include the impounding of those firearms.
... Article 6
1. Without prejudice to Article 3, Member States shall permit the acquisition and possession of firearms only by persons who have good cause and who:
(a)  are at least 18 years of age, except in relation to the acquisition, other than through purchase, and possession of firearms for hunting and target shooting, provided that in that case persons under 18 years of age have parental permission, or are under parental guidance or the guidance of an adult with a valid firearms or hunting licence, or are within a licensed or otherwise approved training centre, and the parent, or an adult with a valid firearms or hunting licence, assumes responsibility for proper storage pursuant to Article 7; and
(b)  are not likely to be a danger to themselves or others, to public order or to public safety; the fact of having been convicted of a violent intentional crime shall be considered to be indicative of such danger.
... Article 9
1. Without prejudice to Article 2(2), Member States shall take all appropriate measures to prohibit the acquisition and possession of the firearms, the essential components and the ammunition classified in category A. They shall ensure that those firearms, essential components and ammunition unlawfully held in contravention of that prohibition are impounded.
... Annex I
... II. For the purposes of this Directive, firearms are classified in the following categories:
Category A – Prohibited firearms
... 2. Automatic firearms
...“
OTHER RELEVANT MATERIALS
47. The South Eastern and Eastern Europe Clearinghouse for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SEESAC) had a mandate from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe (SCSP) to further support all international and national stakeholders by strengthening national and regional capacity to control and reduce the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons, and thus contribute to enhanced stability, security and development in South Eastern and Eastern Europe. In 2006 SEESAC published a report entitled “Small arms and light weapons Survey of Croatia”, the relevant parts of which read as follows:
“It is estimated that there are approximately 968,000 weapons in civilian hands, comprising 371,000 registered and 597,000 unregistered weapons. The number of registered firearms, per capita, is 20% of the figure in the United              States, 40% of the figure in Serbia, 50% of the figure in BiH, 100% of the figure in Bulgaria and Switzerland, and 800% of the figure in Hungary. The estimated number               of unregistered weapons present significant public safety threats as evidenced by a comparatively high number of armed assaults, murders, robberies and suicides, and a challenge to state and regional security through the ongoing activities of serious and organised crime.
... Overall, the level of reported and investigated crime in Croatia has not changed significantly over the course of the previous four years; however, the level of serious and organised armed crimes has increased by more than 50% over five years with armed assault, armed robbery, armed murder all rising year on year with one exception. More than 95% of organised armed crime is committed with unlicensed handguns. The increased incidence of armed crime versus other types of crime demonstrates the need to continue supporting initiatives designed to tackle the symbiotic problems of organised crime and illicit firearm (particularly handgun) ownership through more effective law enforcement, a more robust penal code and an enhanced judicial system. It is estimated that approximately half a million people remain traumatized by the armed conflict of the 1990s. Traumatic disorders are more prevalent in the male population, especially among war veterans. Auto aggressive behaviour and the wide availability of weapons have led to a high number of male suicides with guns. In general, the rate of suicides per capita is substantively above the EU average. Current support to veterans and sufferers of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) should be intensified, and the Law on Arms should include a robust provision to ensure PTSD sufferers are not able to access firearms. There continues to be a high and disturbing level of armed domestic assaults, often involving people suffering from PTSD. No conclusive statistics exist on the exact number of such incidents, however, a sample period in early 2006 revealed an average of 12 incidents per month involving firearms used against family members or neighbours. In contrast to the type of firearm used to commit organised criminal acts, firearms used in domestic assaults and murders are a mixture of both registered and unregistered, with an apparently high number of firearms remnant from the war. This trend demonstrates the continuing need to tackle the linked problems of PTSD, domestic violence and unregistered firearms through enhanced law enforcement, awareness raising, support to victims and a firearms collection.
... A strong image of the male defender of the country prevails in Croatia with firearm ownership clearly linked to this image. Fifty percent of respondents in the survey consider the protection of their family and property as the main reason for keeping a firearm, despite comparatively               high levels of overall security. This apparent contradiction can likely be attributed to a failure of the state to sufficiently outreach to the public through effective, community-based policing and proactive local administration.
... The majority of the public support a future weapons collection and amnesty, which is envisioned in the draft of the Weapons Law. The only criticisms were that previous programmes were too short and that, since 2003,              there was no longer an option to turn in illegal weapons without fine or punishment resulting in an increased number of ‘abandoned’              firearms. A collection will never reach all illegal weapons, as those used for criminal end will not be surrendered for fear of punishment; only aggressive law enforcement can tackle this problem.”
48. The Balkan Homicide Study (BHS) was a prosecution and court casefile-based international homicide study conducted by the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law (headed by Ms A.M. Getoš Kalac) between 2016 and 2019 in Croatia, Hungary, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Romania, and Slovenia. According to the BHS dataset, which focuses only on Croatia, 47.8% of cases were committed using cold weapons, 24.5% using firearms out of which 64.1% of offenders did not have a license to use a firearm. Among these firearm cases, 80.8% of attempted homicides and 64% of completed homicides were committed without a firearm license. 49. According to another national court casefile-based violence study conducted by the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law (headed by Ms R. Bezić) between 2021 and 2023 in 4 major Croatian cities (Zagreb, Split, Rijeka and Osijek), the CroViMo Violence Lab, of all violent acts committed using a firearm, 73.3% were committed without a license. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
50. The applicants complained that their son’s death had been caused by the failure of the domestic authorities to prevent S.K.’s violent acts and, in particular, to confiscate his illegally possessed automatic rifle, contrary to Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law ...”
AdmissibilityThe parties’ observations

51. At the outset, the Government invited the Court to examine the scope of the applicants’ case before it. In that connection, they noted that in their application to the Court, the applicants had complained only about the outcome of the civil proceedings for damages which they had instituted against the State. In doing so, the applicants had relied solely on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. They had mentioned the death of their son only in the context of the legal basis of their claim for damages and had not expressly or in substance complained of a violation of his right to life. In the light of the above, the Government invited the Court to declare the complaint under Article 2 of the Convention inadmissible. 52. The Government further maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, because in their constitutional complaint they had not expressly or in substance relied on Article 2 of the Convention or the corresponding provision of the Constitution (Article 21). Instead, they had merely raised complaints under Articles 14 and 29 of the Constitution, claiming a violation of their right to a fair hearing and to equality before the law, allegedly committed as a result of the civil proceedings they had brought against the State (see paragraph 35 above). 53. The applicants maintained that they had essentially complained both before the Court and before the Constitutional Court of a violation of their son’s right to life. They explained that their only legal avenue of redress had been to lodge a civil claim against the State for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage, which was why they had had to frame their arguments so as to relate to the civil proceedings that had preceded their constitutional complaint.

Outcome for Article 2: violation