CASE OF RAMSAHAI AND OTHERS  v. THE NETHERLANDS

No violation of Art. 2 (killing);Violation of Art. 2 (investigation);No separate issue under Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The first CARDINAL applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are the grandfather and grandmother of Mr PERSON , ( “ FAC ” ) , the deceased . They were both born in DATE . They were their grandson ’s guardians until he reached his majority at DATE . The third applicant , Mr PERSON , born in DATE , is the father of the late PERSON .

PERSON was born on DATE . He died on DATE .

In TIME of DATE , during the “ GPE ” festival in the NORP district of GPE ( a celebration by the NORP immigrant community of the abolition of slavery in GPE DATE ) , PERSON forced the owner of a scooter at gunpoint to give up his vehicle . Having gained control of the scooter he then made off with it .

The owner of the scooter notified a police officer who reported the robbery by radio to the GPE station of the GPE police force . The duty police officer in turn alerted police patrolling in the area .

TIME , CARDINAL uniformed police officers , ORG , patrolling in a marked police car , saw a scooter driven by an individual fitting the description given to them stopping near a high - rise building called “ NORP ” . They stopped the car and got out . Officer PERSON ran towards the person whom they had seen riding the scooter , later identified as PERSON , and tried to arrest him .

It appears that Officer PERSON saw PERSON draw a pistol from his trouser belt . Officer PERSON then drew his service pistol and ordered PERSON to drop his weapon . This FAC failed to do . Officer PERSON , the driver of the patrol car , then approached . It appears that PERSON raised his pistol and pointed it towards Officer PERSON , who drew his service pistol and fired . PERSON was hit in the neck . At TIME Officer Brons radioed Flierbosdreef police station to report that he had shot someone and to call for an ambulance .

When the ambulance arrived on the scene , at TIME , the ambulance crew found PERSON already dead .

Upon his return to GPE police station , Officer PERSON was seen by the commanding officer of the GPE / GPE police force , Police Commissioner PERSON .

Local police secured technical evidence and took the names of a number of witnesses .

Later that night officers from a special operations squad ( PERSON , “ ORG ” ) of the GPE / GPE police questioned all residents of the NORP building whom they found at home . No one could provide any relevant information .

An autopsy was performed on ORG body on DATE , after which the body was released to his next of kin .

Also on DATE the GPE / GPE police public information bureau published a press release which read as follows :

“ Police shoot down armed scooter thief

Last night , at TIME , an DATE youth who drew a firearm was shot down outside the NORP building by a policeman . Shortly afterwards he died from his injuries on the spot .

The victim had shortly before been present at the location of the GPE festival . There he had approached a young man who was in possession of a brand new scooter . He had pushed a pistol into the young man ’s side and thereby forced him to hand over the scooter . He had also forced the owner to tell him how the alarm worked and had then made his escape .

The owner of the scooter reported the robbery to CARDINAL police surveillance officers . They set off in pursuit of the thief and asked for assistance via the police radio room .

The thief managed to start the vehicle and make a rapid escape .

Shortly afterwards the suspected thief was noticed with the scooter on the ORG by officers patrolling in a police car . The fellow ( knaap ) rode the scooter off the side of the road and crossed the grass towards CARDINAL of the entrances of the NORP building . Having arrived there he rode the scooter into the hallway .

The passenger of the police car followed the suspect on foot and also ran towards the entrance . As he arrived there , the suspect came out again . The man drew a pistol . The policeman called out several times ‘ Drop the GPE . By this time the other policeman had also reached the entrance to the building . He saw that the suspect was starting to aim the firearm at his fellow officer ( het vuurwapen op zijn collega begon te richten ) and forestalled that danger with a shot from his service pistol . The suspect was hit and died shortly afterwards .

The suspect ’s pistol , which was loaded , has been seized . ORG ( Rijksrecherche ) has begun an investigation into the shooting . ”

Subsequently , as the applicants allege , Police Commissioner PERSON was quoted in the mass circulation DATE newspaper PERSON as having stated : “ Whatever kind of committee of inquiry may be set up in addition , I will not let them in . ” ( “ PERSON voor een onderzoekscommissie er daarnaast ook wordt ingesteld , ze komen er QUANTITY mij niet in ” ) .

Officers Brons and Bultstra were back on duty DATE after the shooting .

A criminal investigation was ordered , in the course of which ORG were assisted by a single lawyer retained by the police , PERSON . Ultimately ORG responsible , finding that Officer PERSON had acted in legitimate self - defence , decided that no prosecution should be brought .

The applicants brought CARDINAL sets of proceedings , CARDINAL before ORG ( gerechtshof ) of GPE aimed at obtaining a court order overturning ORG decision not to prosecute Officer PERSON , the other before ORG ( GPE voor ORG ) to seek redress for what they considered to be deficiencies in the way the GPE / GPE police had acted following the death of PERSON . Neither set of proceedings produced the result which they had sought .

During TIME DATE , a squad of police officers belonging to a mobile special operations unit and commanded by a police superintendent went from door to door to take statements from the inhabitants of each of the CARDINAL flats in the NORP building .

According to the official report drawn up the following day by Detective Sergeant PERSON of the GPE / GPE police , CARDINAL flats had been uninhabited . The inhabitants of CARDINAL flats had been absent . The inhabitants of CARDINAL flats had been at home , but had seen or heard nothing . The inhabitants of CARDINAL flats had heard the shot fired . In CARDINAL flat there was a DATE girl , named PERSON , who stated that when she had opened the lift door on the ground floor it had struck a scooter lying on the floor . As she had got out of the lift she had heard a bang . She had seen QUANTITY police officers and heard one of them say : “ I have fired . ” She had seen a male victim lying on the ground . She had panicked , fled into the lift and returned home .

Mr PERSON reported the theft of his scooter to the GPE / GPE police on DATE at TIME His statement was taken by Senior Police Officer PERSON , an officer of the investigation division ( afdeling recherche ) of the GPE / GPE police force based at GPE police station .

Mr PERSON had purchased the scooter DATE . On TIME DATE he had ridden it to the GPE festival where he had met his girlfriend . While he was with her , a youth unknown to him had come up to him and said : “ Get off . Get off . I shoot you , I shoot you . ” ( “ Deraf . PERSON . PERSON , QUANTITY schiet jou . ” ) . PERSON had felt something being pushed against his right side . Looking down , he had recognised the object as a lady ’s pistol . He had been unwilling to give up the scooter but his girlfriend had advised him to do so lest he be shot . He had then let go of the scooter and run towards the first policeman he saw .

Mr PERSON had told the police officer that his scooter had been stolen at gunpoint and that they should run after it . He had given a description of the scooter and the thief . Mr PERSON and the QUANTITY police officers had gone after the thief with the scooter , but he had ridden off .

He had heard , on the police ORG CARDINAL - way radio , that the scooter had been found . Together with the police officers he had gone to a grassy area where he had heard the scooter ’s alarm . He had seen his scooter surrounded by police and identified it as his .

He had not recognised the thief as anyone he knew .

Ms GPE was questioned by Detective Sergeant Dolman on DATE at TIME

Ms GPE had gone with her brother to the GPE festival , where she had met her boyfriend PERSON ( or PERSON ) . PERSON had just bought a new scooter . PERSON brother had gone to fetch something to drink for the QUANTITY of them .

After TIME she and PERSON had been approached by a youth whom she had noticed looking at her and the scooter . The youth had said to PERSON : “ Get off , get off ” ( “ PERSON af , stap af ” ) and had pressed an object resembling a firearm against PERSON ’s stomach . She had thought at first that this was a friend of PERSON ’s playing a prank , but had realised from PERSON ’s facial expression that this was not the case . She had prevailed on PERSON to get off the scooter when the youth had said : “ Get off , get off , or I will shoot ” ( “ GPE eraf , GPE eraf , anders QUANTITY ik schieten ” ) . PERSON had then run off to get help , whilst the youth had bump - started the scooter and made off with it . PERSON had returned with CARDINAL police officers and the QUANTITY of them had run after the youth on the scooter . PERSON had joined them for a bit but had been called back by her brother . Together they had run in the direction taken by the police officers . Arriving at the NORP building , they had seen a large number of cars . PERSON had told them that the youth had been caught and that the police had shot him . After PERSON had spoken with the police , she and he had been taken to the police station to give a statement .

This witness was questioned by Police Sergeant PERSON de Bruijn of the GPE / Amstelland Regional Police Force . He stated that he lived on the fifth floor of the NORP building . Happening to look down from the walkway , he had seen a policeman run towards the doorway . He had seen a coloured man with a shaved head come out of the doorway . He had seen the policeman try to grab the coloured man by his arm . The coloured man had made a sideways movement with his arm , as if to indicate that he did not want to go along with the policeman , and the policeman had not been able to hold on to him . The coloured man had then drawn a pistol or a revolver , whether out of his pocket or out of his trouser band Mr van den PERSON could not see . The weapon was of a silver - grey colour with a dark coloured grip . Mr van den PERSON ’s instinctive reaction had been to dive for cover behind the balustrade of the walkway . As he glanced over briefly out of curiosity , it had appeared to him that the policeman had taken a few steps sideways . The coloured man was still holding the weapon in his hand . He had not pointed it in any particular direction , but he had not dropped it either . All this happened very quickly , perhaps in CARDINAL a minute . In the meantime a second policeman had come running up . He had heard “ Drop it ” being shouted very loudly CARDINAL times . The coloured man must have heard it , but ignored it .

Mr van den LOC did not remember seeing the second policeman standing still after he had reached the scene of events . He had heard a bang and had seen the coloured man collapse . The weapon had fallen to the ground QUANTITY away . The first policeman had walked up to the coloured man to inspect . The second policeman had spoken into some device or other , after which help had arrived . He had tried to call the police on his telephone , but had been told that help was on its way . He had stood and watched a little longer before going down and giving his name to the police as a witness .

Officer PERSON was interviewed by Senior Police Officer PERSON .

At TIME , Officer PERSON had been patrolling the GPE festival with Officer Boonstra . He had been addressed by a young man whom he did not know , who told him that he had been dragged off his scooter and that his scooter had been taken from him ; this had happened TIME . The young man had given him the insurance papers for the scooter and indicated the direction in which the thief had taken the scooter .

Officers PERSON and NORP , together with the young man , had run in the direction indicated by the latter . While running Officer PERSON had radioed through the description of the scooter to other police officers . At this point he had not been aware that the thief had used a weapon ; the owner of the scooter had not mentioned it . Officer PERSON had assumed that the thief had used physical force only , the owner of the scooter having stated that he had been dragged off his vehicle .

The thief had managed to start the scooter as they had caught sight of him . They had continued running but the scooter had been faster . Officer PERSON had radioed through his own description of the scooter and its rider , the possible directions in which they might have gone and its insurance plate number . They had continued running ; upon reaching the pedestrian underpass Officer PERSON had heard , on his radio set , another policeman reporting a shooting and shortly afterwards calling an ambulance . Officer PERSON estimated that TIME had elapsed from when he transmitted his description of the scooter until the report of the shooting , but he could not be sure .

As Officers PERSON and NORP stood wondering whether there was any connection between the shooting and the theft of the scooter , the owner of the scooter , who had apparently overheard the police radio , had told them that the thief had a small silver - coloured pistol .

Officers PERSON and NORP and the owner of the scooter had made their way to the scene of the shooting in front of the NORP building . They had seen a person lying supine on the ground , with CARDINAL uniformed police officers kneeling beside him . They had advanced and recognised the scooter . Officer PERSON had taken the particulars of the owner of the scooter and made arrangements for him and his companion to be taken to the police station so that they could give a statement .

Officer GPE was interviewed by Sergeant Theodorus Johannes Gerarda Limbeek of the GPE / GPE police investigation support bureau at GPE police station . His work consisted of , among other things , monitoring and dealing with CARDINAL - way radio traffic .

On DATE at TIME Officer PERSON had been sitting at his plotting table when he had heard a report come in by CARDINAL - way radio from a surveillance police officer that he was following a youth who had just stolen a scooter . A little later the officer had radioed in to say that the thief had managed to bump - start the scooter , and to give an indication of the direction in which the thief had gone . The officer had sounded unemotional , as if it were nothing other than an “ ordinary ” robbery of a scooter .

The officer being on foot , he had requested the assistance of a motorised colleague . In so doing he had given a description of the scooter . Officer PERSON had asked a colleague on a motorcycle to go in the direction indicated .

As the motorcycle policeman had been about to leave the police station forecourt , Officer PERSON had heard Officer PERSON from his marked police car report that he had seen the scooter with the thief enter the doorway leading to the third lift of the NORP building and would go after him . Officer PERSON too had sounded unemotional .

TIME , perhaps less , Officer Braam had heard Officer PERSON saying : “ The suspect has been shot , I want an ambulance ” . Again , Officer PERSON had sounded calm and professional . Officer PERSON had then called for the appropriate services .

Officer PERSON had not heard Officer PERSON take part in the radio conversation . This reflected standard practice , namely that the driver of a police car – in this case Officer PERSON – had his CARDINAL - way radio set to the frequency of the central incident room , whereas the “ passenger ” – Officer Bultstra – had his radio set to the frequency used by the local team .

Officer PERSON was interviewed by Senior Officer PERSON of the GPE / GPE police force .

Officer PERSON was a uniformed police officer on the basic police assistance staff . The previous night she had been seated at the plotting table from TIME until TIME . Until the shooting it had been a quiet night . She had sat there with Officer PERSON and PERSON .

At TIME she had heard , on the radio frequency used by the district police , that a police officer was chasing a scooter , and also which direction the scooter had taken . She did not remember the precise words used , nor any description given of the rider .

Shortly afterwards she had heard the voice of Officer PERSON , reporting the sighting of the scooter . A second or CARDINAL later Officer PERSON had reported seeing the scooter in a doorway of the NORP building .

Superintendent Sikking had called by radio : “ All right boys , everyone go to NORP . ” ( “ PERSON met QUANTITY allen naar Huigenbos ” ) .

Very shortly afterwards Officer PERSON had said : “ I want an ambulance , I have fired ” ( “ Ik heb geschoten ” ) . PERSON had asked him to repeat that . Officer PERSON had repeated : “ I have fired . ” Most of the police officers present had then gone out and Officers PERSON and GPE had contacted the appropriate emergency services .

Officer PERSON had later heard Officer PERSON say that the ambulance was needed urgently because the suspect was in a very bad way .

It was DATE that Officer PERSON had been informed by other police officers that it was in fact Officer PERSON who had fired .

Officer PERSON was a police - dog handler holding the rank of sergeant whose duty station was GPE police station . He was interviewed by PERSON of the GPE / GPE police force .

Officer PERSON had been on duty TIME , with his police dog .

He had heard , on his CARDINAL - way radio , that a scooter had been stolen at the GPE festival . The direction in which the thief had driven off was given . The description was of a coloured male , dressed in black , riding a red scooter . Officer PERSON had gone in the direction indicated .

Officer PERSON ’s car was passed by a marked police car in which there were QUANTITY police officers . He had recognised the driver , Officer PERSON , but not the passenger . He had seen the car being parked and the passenger emerge .

Officer PERSON had also parked his car , intending to look for the thief if he could . He had been getting the police dog out when he had heard a pistol shot .

He had run with the dog in the direction from which the sound of the shot had come . Having reached the NORP building , he had met Police Officer PERSON coming towards him . He had seen Officer PERSON kneeling near the head of a male who was lying flat on the ground .

He had asked Officer PERSON what had happened . Officer PERSON had replied that there had been shooting . Officer PERSON had asked who had fired . Officer PERSON had replied that a pistol had been aimed at them and the police had fired .

Officer PERSON had pointed out a silver - coloured pistol lying on the ground close to the man . Officer PERSON had been administering first aid . Officer PERSON had not been able to see any injury . He had had to keep his distance from the man because of the dog .

NORP The man on the ground fitted the description given of the person who had stolen the scooter . There had been a red scooter in the doorway of the building and so Officer PERSON had understood that this was the person suspected of having committed the robbery .

Officer PERSON had heard Officer PERSON notify the local health authority and the police superintendent on duty . Officer PERSON had guarded the area until the arrival of the criminal investigators ( recherche ) and the forensic experts . He had stayed on the spot until they had finished and had returned to the police station at TIME .

Police Officer Boonstra , a police officer serving a DATE apprenticeship and based at GPE police station , was interviewed by Detective PERSON .

Officer Boonstra had been assigned , together with Police Officer PERSON , to patrol the GPE festival , their task being to observe and to maintain a preventive presence . At a certain moment , a NORP male had come running up to them and had beckoned them to follow him . Because the NORP had given the impression that something was the matter , they had followed him . While running he had told Officer PERSON what the matter was . Officer PERSON had been following at a distance of QUANTITY .

DATE . Officer Boonstra had heard on his CARDINAL - way radio that a scooter had been stolen . It had not been immediately clear to him that the scooter belonged to the NORP .

At CARDINAL point they had seen the scooter QUANTITY ahead of them , being ridden slowly . Officer PERSON had told Officer PERSON that that was the scooter which had been stolen . The person riding the scooter had noticed the police officers but instead of stopping , had increased speed . While moving in the direction of the NORP building , they had heard it reported on the CARDINAL - way radio that there had been a shooting . They had not immediately linked the shooting to the stealing of the scooter . Still accompanied by the NORP , they had continued in the direction of the NORP building , where they had noticed CARDINAL or QUANTITY police cars . The NORP had recognised his scooter .

Ms Boujedaine was interviewed by Senior Police Officers Petrus Wilhelmus Marinus Leerkes and PERSON , both of the GPE / GPE police force .

Ms Boujedaine worked as chief cashier at a ORG restaurant located on the PERSON in GPE . On DATE she had been on the night shift , from TIME until TIME DATE .

She had noticed the presence of a particular youth from TIME . She described him as being of ORG , DATE , bald - headed with QUANTITY golden teeth , dressed in a black tee - shirt and trousers and black shoes and wearing a golden chain around his neck . From TIME she had noticed him distracting one of the cashiers , a young woman called PERSON .

Taken to task for failing to concentrate on her work , PERSON had explained to PERSON that the youth was her boyfriend . The youth had reacted angrily , telling PERSON to go easy on PERSON or else .

After having told PERSON , jokingly , that she might have to stay a little longer , PERSON had seen the youth staring at her fixedly . This had frightened her , but she had not wished to show fear . Just before she had turned round to draw a soft drink she had seen his right hand move towards the band of his trousers .

Ms Boujedaine ’s sister PERSON ( or PERSON ) , who also worked at that restaurant , had then said : “ PERSON , he was aiming a pistol at you ! ” Ms GPE had turned round and had seen the youth stick something down the band of his trousers . PERSON had later described the pistol as a small silver - grey model known as a “ ladykiller ” .

DATE . A NORP girl had then asked the youth a question in her own language and he had replied . She had then told PERSON that she had asked the youth whether he was carrying a pistol , to which he had replied in the affirmative .

The youth had looked as though he might have been smoking cannabis , but PERSON could not be sure of that .

He had continued to bother PERSON in her work . He had left several times and come back . At CARDINAL point he had returned on a brand new silver - grey scooter .

The youth had struck up a conversation with PERSON in which he had indicated that he wanted to clear out the safe after closing time ; he had wanted her to give him the codes for the safe . In the course of this conversation he had been eyeing the drawers of the cash registers .

NORP Several times he had repeated that it was already TIME and Ms GPE should close PERSON ’s cash register .

Ms Boujedaine had felt uncomfortable and frightened , particularly after the youth had indicated his intention to wring the manager ’s neck .

The youth had become angry again at TIME , when PERSON had terminated the conversation . PERSON had then locked up PERSON ’s cash register and secured the tray . She had seen him and PERSON leave at TIME , on the scooter on which he had arrived earlier .

Mr PERSON had come forward after hearing of the shooting at the NORP building . He wished to report having been threatened . His statement was taken by Detective PERSON .

On DATE , DATE at TIME he had been on the GPE festival ground with his wife and some friends . There had been a group of youths behind them , CARDINAL of whom had been seated on a scooter or moped ( bromfiets ) . Mr PERSON described the vehicle as having a blue fairing . At CARDINAL point the youth had started the engine and repeatedly opened the throttle , releasing large quantities of exhaust gas . This had given rise to complaints from Mr PERSON ’s group . Mr PERSON himself had then gone up to the youth and asked him either to ride off or to turn off his engine , because he was poisoning everyone with his noxious fumes . The youth had turned off the engine and approached Mr PERSON , saying : “ You ’re smoking [ a cigarette ] , you ’re going to die too . ” Mr PERSON had thought that the youth wanted to discuss the matter like a reasonable person . Instead , the youth had taken a small metal - coloured pistol out of his right - hand trouser pocket and said : “ Nobody ’s going to tell me what to do . I do as I please , we ’re all going to die anyway . ”

Mr PERSON ’s wife , greatly upset by the sight of the pistol , had pulled Mr PERSON away . The youth had got back onto the scooter .

None of the bystanders , who had been numerous , had offered any assistance . They had clearly been deterred by the sight of the pistol .

Mr GPE was questioned by Senior Police Officer PERSON of the GPE / GPE police force .

On DATE , TIME and TIME , he had been at the GPE festival in the company of his sister and his friend PERSON . He had left them to fetch something to drink for the CARDINAL of them . He had heard shouting , and he had seen PERSON run towards some police officers present . He had run after PERSON and asked him what the matter was . PERSON had answered that he would tell him later . He had found his sister in tears and asked her what had happened . She had told him how PERSON had been forced at gunpoint to hand over his scooter .

Mr GPE ’s sister had taken fright and had fled to GPE . Friends of the thief were out looking for PERSON , who was planning to go into hiding .

Ms Boujedaine was questioned a second time , this time in her own home , by Senior Police Officers Petrus Wilhelmus PERSON and PERSON of the GPE / GPE police .

She indicated that she was afraid of reprisals by the youth ’s family and asked the police officers to remove her statement from the file .

Ms Boujedaine ’s sister Mimout ( or PERSON ) , who had witnessed the events in the ORG restaurant on the PERSON , felt the same way . This had made the police officers decide not to question her .

Detective Chief Superintendent of ORG ( hoofdinspecteur van politie - rijksrecherche ) PERSON was put in charge of the investigation . He drew up a report of his actions and findings and took the statements summarised below .

Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON ’s investigation report states that after TIME on DATE the GPE / GPE police force only carried out investigations at the request of ORG “ in the periphery of LOC ” .

Supplementing his earlier statement , Mr van den LOC , now interviewed by Detective Chief PERSON , described what he had seen from the fifth - floor walkway of the high - rise building . He had seen a uniformed police officer running towards the doorway . He had seen a coloured male go to meet the policeman from the doorway . This man had been walking very slowly , at snail ’s pace . The police officer had wanted to grab hold of the man , by his left arm , as it appeared to Mr van den ORG . The coloured man had made a gesture as if to repulse the police officer . He had hit the police officer , knocking him off balance somewhat , which enabled the coloured man to pass . After he had passed the police officer , the coloured man had drawn a pistol or a revolver , a firearm at any rate , which he had held in his right hand . He had held his arm slanted downwards , thus pointing the pistol towards the ground , and had tried to continue on his way . Mr van den PERSON had not seen the police officers draw their pistols . Feeling threatened by the pistol which the coloured man had drawn and not wishing to be hit by a stray bullet , he had dived for cover . He had therefore not witnessed the actual shooting , but he had heard shouts of “ Drop it ” several times .

Officer PERSON , by then under investigation as a suspected perpetrator of a criminal act , was interviewed by Detective Chief PERSON in TIME of DATE . The lawyer retained for him and Officer PERSON , Mr PERSON , was present .

Officer PERSON had joined the GPE municipal police ( gemeentepolitie ) , as it existed at the time , in DATE . He had been promoted to operational police officer ( agent ) in DATE and had been based at GPE station from the beginning . He had been promoted to the rank of sergeant on DATE . He was a specialist in road safety .

Officer PERSON and Officer PERSON had completed some assignments and had been on their way back to the police station . They were in a marked police car , with Officer PERSON driving . They had then received the radio call about the theft of the scooter . They had been told the make of the scooter and its colour and had been given a summary description of the thief and the direction in which he had fled . They had not been told that he was armed .

Driving in the direction reported , Officers Brons and ORG had seen a scooter and a driver fitting the description given them turning into the doorway of a lift in the NORP block of flats . This had surprised them , because they would have expected him to try and evade arrest on noticing that he was being followed by a marked police car .

Officers Brons and ORG had agreed that Officer PERSON would go after the thief while Officer PERSON parked the car . Officer PERSON had run towards the doorway holding a CARDINAL - way radio . When Officer PERSON was at a distance of between twenty and QUANTITY from the doorway , the thief had emerged and run for a short distance . He had stopped and raised his hands when he had seen Officer PERSON and shouted something unintelligible . Officer PERSON had taken hold of the thief with both hands and had tried to turn him towards the building . The thief , however , had resisted . Officer PERSON had shouted something to him which Officer PERSON had been unable to understand . Officer PERSON had understood that the thief would not come quietly and that Officer PERSON needed help ; he had therefore left the car and run towards them . He had reached a point CARDINAL seven metres from the thief when the thief managed to tear himself loose and ended up at a distance of QUANTITY from Officer PERSON . Suddenly Officer PERSON had seen the thief holding a silver - coloured weapon which he had not seen him draw . It was a small pistol and it was pointed towards the ground . Officer PERSON had not seen whether or not the pistol was cocked . It had seemed to him that Officer PERSON had also seen the pistol , because Officer PERSON had stepped backwards , drawing his service pistol and adopting a defensive posture . He had heard Officer PERSON shouting “ Drop that weapon . Do n’t be silly , man . ” ( “ CARDINAL vallen dat wapen . PERSON man . ” ) at least twice . The thief had not reacted by dropping his pistol , much to the surprise of Officer PERSON seeing that Officer PERSON had him covered . Given that the thief was armed and apparently had no intention of doing as he was told , Officer PERSON had considered that Officer PERSON was under threat . He had considered it highly possible that the thief would use his weapon against Officer PERSON . He had been completely fixated on the thief . He had seen only the thief , holding a pistol with his finger on the trigger . At that point Officer PERSON had not yet considered it necessary to draw his own service pistol because the thief was covered by Officer PERSON . His hand had been close to , but not on , the holster .

Officer PERSON had then seen the thief turn to the right , towards him , and turn the front of his body in his direction at a distance of QUANTITY . He had seen the thief raise his pistol and point it in his direction . Afraid that the thief would fire at him , Officer PERSON had drawn his pistol from its holster with lightning speed ( bliksemsnel ) and had immediately fired CARDINAL shot at the thief . He had had no time to aim at any particular part of the body . He remained convinced that if he had not fired first , the thief would have shot him .

Officer PERSON had thought at the time that he had hit the thief high in the chest . Only later had he learned that he had hit the thief in the neck . The thief had remained on his feet for a short while longer ; he had then tottered and collapsed , dropping the pistol . He had tried to stand up , milling his arms about . Officer PERSON had pushed the thief ’s pistol away with his foot to prevent him from grabbing it .

Officer PERSON had approached the man as he lay on the ground . Seeing that the thief was no longer a threat , he had put up his pistol .

ORG . Officer PERSON had contacted the police station by CARDINAL - way radio and had asked for the intervention of the local health authority ( PERSON en Gezondheidsdienst , “ NORP ” ) . Feeling that they were long in coming , he had again called the police station and asked them to hurry up .

Officer PERSON had concerned himself with the victim . He , Officer PERSON , had removed himself from the scene . He had seen a man trying to enter the doorway and had asked him not to do so because the area had to be cordoned off for investigation .

Officers Brons and ORG had been taken back to the police station by a fellow officer . Officer PERSON had handed in his pistol there . Officers PERSON and Bultstra had received assistance and comfort from fellow officers and superiors and had been informed about the further procedure .

Officer PERSON had only fired once . It had never been his intention to shoot to kill but only to end the life - threatening situation . He felt that he had had no choice . He greatly regretted that the thief had died .

Officer PERSON identified the thief ’s pistol on photographs .

Like Officer PERSON , Officer PERSON was interviewed in the presence of the lawyer Mr PERSON .

Officer PERSON had begun his police career in DATE in the airport police . In DATE , after the duties of the airport police had been taken over by ORG , he had been transferred to what was then the GPE municipal police force . He had been appointed as an operational police officer in DATE , after training . He had been promoted to senior police officer ( hoofdagent van politie ) in the GPE / GPE police force on DATE .

He and Officer PERSON had been on their way back to GPE police station after completing an assignment when they had received word by CARDINAL - way radio that another policeman was pursuing on foot a thief who had just stolen a scooter . They had heard the description of the scooter and the thief , and the direction the thief had taken . It had not been mentioned that the thief was armed . They had then gone to intercept the thief .

Seeing a person and a vehicle matching the description given travelling towards a particular high - rise building , they had decided to park the car and arrest him . They had agreed that Officer PERSON would leave the car immediately and pursue the man , after which Officer PERSON would lock up the car and join Officer PERSON .

Officer PERSON had seen the man on the scooter ride into the doorway of the building . Having closed to a distance of QUANTITY from the building , Officer PERSON had seen the man come running out of the doorway . Seeing Officer PERSON , the man had called : “ So what ’s the matter then ? What ’s the matter then ? ” ( “ En wat nou ? En wat nou ? ” ) His arms had been dangling alongside his body . He had raised them slightly when asking that question . Officer PERSON and the man had approached each other . The man had glanced sideways to the right and left , apparently looking for a way to evade capture . His preference appeared to be for an underpass through the building , so Officer PERSON had gone to head him off . His intention had been to grab the man and arrest him .

Officer PERSON had grabbed the man by his left arm and pushed him bodily against the building . The man had made an aggressive impression on him because of his posture and his way of talking , and had appeared intent on resisting arrest . He had managed to tear himself loose and turn around . He had then taken CARDINAL steps backwards , towards the doorway . His hands had been close to his body and his body had been poised forwards , and his posture had been threatening .

NORP The man had then brought his right hand towards the left of his chest or his belly , as a person would who was about to draw a firearm from there . He had looked Officer PERSON straight in the eye and said : “ So what ’s the matter then ? ” ( “ En wat nou ? ” ) . Officer PERSON had not seen him stick his hand inside his clothing . Seeing the gesture , Officer PERSON had thought that the man was acting like someone who was about to draw a weapon . His common sense had told him to be on his guard . He had stepped backwards and placed his right hand on his service pistol , releasing the holster clip at the same time . He had not drawn his service pistol but had positioned himself so as to be able to do so immediately . Pointing to the man with his left hand , he had called out : “ Show your hands . Do n’t be silly . ” ( “ QUANTITY . PERSON . ” ) . The man had then dropped his hand and resumed his earlier posture , his arms dangling alongside his body . He had said : “ So what is it then ? What is it then ? ” ( “ En wat dan ? En wat dan ? ” ) and had walked away from Officer PERSON . His body had still been poised towards Officer PERSON and his eyes had still been directed towards him . Officer PERSON had remained in the same position .

NORP The man had again brought his right hand towards his body , the same position as before , and had taken hold of something . Officer PERSON had not been able to see what it was . After the man had moved his hand some distance away from his body , Officer PERSON had seen that he was holding a small silver - coloured pistol in his fist . The situation was now so threatening that Officer PERSON had drawn his service pistol to protect himself . In view of the man ’s behaviour he was afraid that the man might fire . Officer PERSON had taken hold of his service weapon in both hands and , adopting a defensive position , had aimed at the man ’s chest . He remembered shouting “ Drop it ” ( “ QUANTITY ” ) several times . He might have shouted other things , but he did not remember having shouted anything other than “ Do n’t be silly . Drop it . ” ( “ PERSON . Laat vallen . ” ) . He had seen the man lower the hand holding the pistol alongside his body , so that the barrel was pointing towards the ground . The man had kept the front of his body turned towards Officer PERSON , his legs slightly apart and his arms out – that is , not hanging limp – and he had kept turning his hands so that the pistol also kept changing direction . The barrel had however been kept aimed at the ground . Officer PERSON described the man ’s posture as that of a cowboy who could start shooting at any moment . He had felt threatened to the point where he had decided to fire should the man point his pistol at him . He had been in fear of his life , convinced that the man would gun him down given the chance . As far as he could recall , this situation had lasted for TIME , during which time he had called out to the man twice to drop his pistol . This the man had not done . Things had happened very quickly ; he estimated that the time from the moment he grabbed the man until the fatal shot had been CARDINAL or TIME .

Officer PERSON had seen the man suddenly react to something . Still in his cowboy - like position the man had made DATE turn to the left . Officer PERSON could not remember how long this had taken but the time involved had been very short . The man had raised his right arm with the pistol somewhat , in a manner in which he had not yet acted . This had caused Officer PERSON to think : “ Now I will shoot . ” Since the man was raising his hand and arm , Officer PERSON was convinced that he was about to fire ; he had been building up tension in his right hand to pull the trigger of his service pistol when he had heard , on his right , a loud report that he had recognised as a pistol shot . He had immediately thought : “ [ Officer PERSON ] has got him . ” Officer PERSON had felt so threatened that he would have fired if Officer PERSON had not done so . He had noticed immediately that the man had been hit . The man had moved his upper torso somewhat . His knees had then buckled and he had fallen to the ground . He had dropped his pistol in falling . He had tried , unsuccessfully , to get up . Officers PERSON and PERSON had approached the man from CARDINAL sides while still keeping him covered . Having reached the man , Officer PERSON had put up his service pistol and grabbed the man by his shoulder . He had wished to prevent the man from getting up and possibly picking up the pistol . He had been sitting next to the man . The man had been lying with his back against Officer PERSON ’s knees . At that point Officer PERSON had seen Officer PERSON approaching from his right . He could not remember if Officer PERSON had still had his service pistol in his hand . Officer PERSON had pushed the man ’s pistol away with his foot so that the man could not reach it .

Using his CARDINAL - way radio , Officer PERSON had reported to the police station to ask for urgent assistance from the local health authority . Officers PERSON and PERSON had left the scene of the incident as it was until other police officers arrived . Officer PERSON had , however , loosened the man ’s clothing to see where he had been hit . He had been hit in the neck and his shirt had been saturated with blood . Officer PERSON had tried to get him to give his name , but had received no answer . The man had gargled . He had been beyond reach . He had died quickly .

After the other police officers had arrived , Officers Brons and ORG had been taken back to GPE police station where they stayed for some time , estimated by Officer PERSON as TIME . Officer PERSON had been required to hand in his service weapon . They had had talks with a number of fellow police officers , including Police Commissioner PERSON , the district chief of police ( districtschef ) and the self - help - team ( zelfhulpteam ) .

Officer PERSON stated that the man himself had been in control of events ( zelf het scenario heeft bepaald ) . He had had every opportunity not to draw his weapon , or to drop it after doing so . Officer PERSON had shouted warnings to him repeatedly . He had not responded . Instead , he had stood in front of Officer PERSON in a threatening posture with a pistol ready for immediate use . Officer PERSON had had no other option but to draw his service weapon to protect himself . The situation had been so threatening that Officer PERSON would have fired to put the man out of action , thus eliminating the danger to himself and possibly others . As it was , that had proved unnecessary because Officer PERSON had fired first .

Ms Rijssel was a social worker living in GPE .

On DATE at around TIME she and her daughter , PERSON , had been walking home from the festival . In an underpass they had had to make way for a scooter driven by a person whom she described as a NORP youth without a crash helmet . They had seen him proceed on his way and then turn towards one of the doorways of a high - rise building . They had noticed that he was driving unusually slowly but had paid no further attention . They had , however , noticed the youth come out of the doorway and that the scooter was inside . Although some distance away , they had had a good view ; it had not been dark yet .

They had seen the youth come out of the doorway and had seen a policeman run towards him . They had then noticed a police car which they had not seen or heard until then .

They had seen the youth come out of the doorway holding his right hand inside his jacket or shirt . The hand had been on his stomach , just above his trouser band . They had decided to move closer because something was obviously happening .

Ms Rijssel had seen the youth walk towards the policeman . She had seen him raising his arms in a non - verbal “ What do you want ? ” gesture . She had heard no words spoken . The policeman had grabbed hold of the youth ’s arm and turned it onto his back . She had had the impression that the youth was being arrested . She had seen the policeman trying to push the youth with his face towards the wall . This he had not managed to do ; the youth had torn himself loose .

She had then seen the youth again putting his hand inside his shirt , in the same gesture which she had witnessed before . She had not seen him pull anything out ; she had not at any time seen the youth draw a firearm .

NORP The policeman had stayed where he was and had not moved closer to the youth . The youth had stepped sideways . PERSON had not seen the policeman draw his firearm .

Another policeman had come running up . He had stood still at a distance of QUANTITY . The youth had still had his hand inside his shirt near his trouser belt . She had then seen the second police officer draw his pistol and aim it at the youth . She had heard a shout of “ Put it down ” ( “ Leg neer ” ) , once , which in her opinion had come from the police officer who was keeping the youth covered . This had happened after the policeman had drawn his pistol on the youth . Immediately after the shout of “ Put it down ” she had heard one shot fired . The youth had collapsed immediately .

Ms Rijssel stated positively that she had not at any time seen the youth aim a pistol or anything similar at the policeman . She remembered the youth holding his hand inside his shirt , close to his trouser belt . She was sure of that , despite the speed with which events had unfolded .

Immediately after the shot had been fired she had run towards the place where the youth had collapsed . She had shouted to the policemen : “ I saw what you did . That ’s a human being . ” ( “ QUANTITY . PERSON is een mensenkind . ” ) .

NORP The policeman had felt the youth ’s pulse . The youth ’s arm had fallen limp .

More police officers had arrived , including CARDINAL on a motorcycle who had asked her to make a statement . She had refused because she did not wish to make a statement that could be used against the youth and because her words could be misinterpreted . She had told CARDINAL police officers , a man and a woman , who were cordoning the area off , that they did not need to rope off such a wide area . CARDINAL of the police officers had accused her of trying to stir up trouble and had told her that she did not know what had caused the incident . She had replied that she was not aware of the cause of the incident but did know what had happened , and had asked if the police were not supposed to fire a warning shot before firing at a person . She might well have said more than that in her emotional state .

On DATE Ms Rijssel had returned to the place where the youth had been shot to lay some flowers . She had met the youth ’s family there and spoken with them . They had told her that they had retained the lawyer Mr PERSON and she had given them her telephone number . She had later been contacted by PERSON , who had asked her to make a statement to Chief PERSON .

PERSON was a schoolgirl born in DATE and the daughter of Ms GPE . The pair of them had been walking home from the GPE festival on TIME of DATE at TIME While walking through a pedestrian underpass they had been passed by a youth on a scooter . The youth had been dressed in black . He had not been entirely dark - coloured . He had worn his hair flat . He had not been wearing a crash helmet . PERSON could not describe the scooter .

The youth had run the scooter off the path and across the grass towards the NORP building . PERSON had not seen him ride the scooter into the doorway .

PERSON mother had then said : “ Look , there ’s police . ” Ms PERSON had seen a police officer standing in front of the building , close by the youth . She and her mother had then gone towards them . PERSON had seen the police officer trying to arrest the youth , grabbing hold of him and pushing his face against the wall . The youth , however , had torn himself loose . He had made a gesture with his arms as if to say : “ What do you want with me ? ”

NORP The youth had moved one of his hands , PERSON could not remember which , towards his trouser band . It had seemed as though he had a pistol there , but that it had of course been a bluff .

A second police officer had come running . PERSON had heard “ Drop it ” shouted ; she remembered hearing it once . She had seen the QUANTITY police officers with drawn service pistols . She had seen the first police officer , the one who had tried to arrest the youth , with his pistol drawn but she had not seen him point it at the youth . She had not seen the youth with a pistol or anything like that .

The other police officer had also had his service pistol in his hand . He had aimed at the youth . She thought that the shot had been fired immediately after the shout of “ Drop it ” . After the shot the youth had turned around some way and collapsed . She had seen him drop something ; she thought it had been a mobile telephone . Later , having come closer to the scene of events , she had seen a mobile telephone lying near the youth ; she assumed that the youth had dropped it .

PERSON could not give an estimate of how far it had been from where she stood to the place where the youth had collapsed , but it had been some distance . Things had happened very quickly , as if in a flash .

NORP The official record states that the witness made her statement in the presence of her mother in view of her emotional state .

PERSON Rij was a schoolboy born in DATE and resident in the NORP building .

On DATE at TIME he had been at home with his father , in the lounge of their first - floor apartment . It had been a warm night and the windows had been open .

At a certain moment he had heard someone shout “ Stand still ” once . No more than a second after that , he had heard a bang from the direction of the doorway which had sounded like a pistol shot . In view of the shout of “ Stand still ” , which was unlikely to have come from a criminal , he had concluded that the shot had been fired by police . He had wanted to go and watch , but his mother had not let him because she considered it in bad taste to take an interest in other people ’s misfortune . TIME his father had gone to take the dog out ; he had seen many police and someone lying underneath a sheet .

PERSON was a schoolboy born in DATE .

On DATE at TIME he and his father had been walking from the location of the GPE festival towards the NORP building , where his father ’s girlfriend lived . They had noticed the presence of police on motorcycles , apparently looking for something or someone .

NORP Just before entering a pedestrian underpass , they had heard a sound identified by PERSON father as a pistol shot . It came from the direction of the NORP building . They had seen police going towards the NORP building but had been too far away to see what was happening .

On the way towards the building they had been stopped by police who were cordoning off the area .

Having entered the building through a different entrance , they had gone to the first floor and Mr ORG had looked down . He had seen a coloured youth with a bald head lying motionless in front of the entrance to the doorway . He had seen a small shiny pistol lying by the youth ’s feet . He had heard others say that they had initially thought that the youth had taken out a mobile telephone and that the police had fired mistaking it for a pistol . But it had definitely been a pistol .

Mr Oostburg and others had assumed that the youth had drawn a pistol and aimed it at the police and that the police had fired for that reason .

He had later seen the emergency services arrive . It had been apparent that the youth was dead because they had covered him with a white sheet .

Police Officer Boonstra was interviewed by Detective Chief PERSON .

He stated that he and his colleague Police Officer PERSON had been unaware of the fact that LOC was armed . He and Officer PERSON had been approached by a coloured youth , who had asked them to follow him and had run on . Since he and Officer PERSON had not immediately run after him , the youth had turned round and gestured to them to follow him . This had led them to assume that there was something the matter and they had followed . It had been Officer PERSON , who had been closer to the youth than Officer PERSON , who had spoken with him . It had also been Officer PERSON who had radioed through the insurance plate number and possibly the colour of the scooter as well as the police ORG precise location and the direction in which they were heading with the youth , but he did not recall Officer PERSON giving a description of the thief .

After they had lost sight of the scooter , they had heard it reported by radio that there had been a shooting at the NORP building . Officers Boonstra and PERSON had gone there to see if they could be of assistance . Not realising that the person who had stolen the scooter was armed , they had not connected the shooting to the theft .

Only when they and the owner of the scooter had reached the scene of the shooting and the owner had recognised his vehicle did they ask him what precisely had happened . That had been when the owner of the scooter had told them that he had been forced at gunpoint to surrender control of the scooter . Officer PERSON had told him that he ought to have mentioned that earlier ( “ Dat had je wel eens eerder mogen zeggen . ” ) .

Officer PERSON had told Officer PERSON later that he too had been unaware that the thief had been carrying a firearm and had been just as indignant at not having been told . Both officers counted themselves lucky not to have been fired at during the pursuit .

Mr PERSON was interviewed again by Detective Chief PERSON . He was asked to make a further statement as to when he had mentioned the firearm to Police Officer PERSON .

Mr PERSON stated that his scooter had been stolen from him at the GPE festival site on DATE between TIME A coloured youth had forced him to hand it over at gunpoint . He recognised the pistol on a photograph bearing the number QUANTITY ( see below for a description of the photographs ) as the pistol with which he had been threatened . He had noticed that the pistol was cocked and ready to fire . This had frightened him into giving up the scooter .

Spotting CARDINAL police officers , he had run up to them and asked them to follow him . They had not done so immediately but only after he had waved at them a second time . While running he had told them about the theft of the scooter and given them the scooter ’s insurance documents and a description of the scooter and the thief .

Mr PERSON had told the police officers about the firearm at the same time when he had handed the insurance papers to them .

When he had heard , over the police ORG CARDINAL - way radio , that there had been a shooting , he had immediately connected it with the robbery of his scooter . He had then told the police officers that the thief had had a small silver - coloured pistol .

Mr ORG was a civil servant born in DATE .

On DATE at TIME he had been driving his car along the GPE . He had seen a marked police car following in his rear - view mirror . The police car had been brought to a sudden stop , at which moment a police officer had emerged and run in the direction of the doorway of the Huigenbos building . Thinking that something was happening , Mr ORG had decided to have a look for himself . He had parked his car , got out and walked towards the doorway towards which the policeman had headed . Street lights had been turned on . It had been TIME . He estimated the distance from where he was to the doorway of the NORP building to have been QUANTITY .

He had seen a youth aged DATE , dressed in dark - coloured clothing , emerge from the doorway . He had not seen any scooter in the doorway . There had been a policeman standing opposite the youth , separated by a distance of QUANTITY . The police officer had been pointing a pistol at the youth . The youth had been holding some dark - coloured object , which Mr ORG had not been able to make out , in his right hand and had been pointing it towards the police officer . The police officer had gestured to the youth with one hand , apparently ordering him to throw away whatever it was he had in his hand , while keeping the youth covered with his service pistol in his other hand . He had not heard anything shouted or said , the distance being too great . He had seen the youth throw away the unidentified object in his right hand .

While the first police officer was keeping the youth covered , PERSON ORG had seen a second police officer come running towards his colleague with the apparent intention of providing assistance . This second police officer had drawn his service pistol and had held it in both hands , levelled at the youth ’s head . He had heard a shot fired immediately . The shot had been fired after the youth had thrown the object away . Events had unfolded very quickly : the lapse of time between the youth throwing away the object and the firing of the shot had been a few fractions of a second . The youth had made some movements in the direction of the lamppost and had collapsed .

At that point panic had broken out . Police had arrived in cars and on motorcycles . After the shooting , more people had joined Mr ORG . The police had ordered them to leave ; PERSON and the others had left . Mr ORG had asked a police officer why no ambulance was being ordered . The police officer had replied : “ We will see about that later . ”

Having entered the NORP building and looked down onto the scene of events from the second floor , Mr ORG had seen the victim covered with a white sheet . He had not seen a pistol lying next to the body . He had heard from bystanders that the youth had thrown away a mobile telephone , but he had not seen that .

It had taken Mr ORG TIME to reach the second floor of the building . He had seen numbered signs being set out and photographs being taken . It appeared that the bystanders had not been meant to see that , because police officers were holding a large sheet above the body and taking photographs underneath . Mr ORG thought that the youth might at that moment still have been alive , because he had heard a rattling sound , as if the youth ’s throat was full of blood .

Mr ORG estimated the time needed for the ambulance to arrive at TIME or more . He had seen someone with medical equipment examine the victim , together with a person who appeared to be a public prosecutor .

NORP In Mr ORG ’s opinion , any threat had disappeared after the youth had thrown away the object . He had not witnessed what had happened before .

Mr ORG appended a sketch plan to his statement .

Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON confronted Officer PERSON with the statement by the witness ORG to the effect that PERSON had thrown something away before the fatal shot . Officer PERSON denied this . In view of the threat posed by the thief , Officer PERSON had been much fixated on the thief ’s hands . Until the thief drew the pistol , he had had nothing in them .

Detective Chief PERSON asked Police Officer PERSON for further information as to when he had become aware that the theft of the scooter had taken place with a firearm .

Mr PERSON had told him that he had been pulled off the scooter but had not mentioned the fact that a firearm had been used . Both he and Officer PERSON had therefore assumed that only physical force had been used .

Mr PERSON had given Officer PERSON the scooter ’s insurance papers immediately and of his own motion and had at the same time given a description of the thief . Officers PERSON and NORP , joined by PERSON PERSON , had run after the thief . However , they had lost him . Officer PERSON had then passed on the thief ’s presumed direction of flight and the insurance registration number via his CARDINAL - way radio .

At no time while they were running had he heard Mr PERSON say that the thief was armed . He had noticed , however , that Mr PERSON was frightened and spoke in a soft tone of voice . It was therefore quite possible that PERSON PERSON had mentioned the fact but that he had not heard it while they were running .

NORP Only after the report of the shooting had come through had Officer PERSON heard Mr PERSON say : “ He had a small silver - coloured pistol . ” They had then gone towards the NORP building . Officer PERSON had asked Mr PERSON : “ Why did you not tell us that before ? ” but Mr PERSON had not given a clear reply . He had appeared very upset .

Afterwards Officers PERSON and PERSON had reflected on their luck at not having been shot . Had Officer PERSON been told at an earlier stage that the thief had used a pistol to steal the scooter , he would have passed that information on immediately and before all else . In addition , he and Officer PERSON would not have run after the thief : their supervisory duties at the festival had required them to be unarmed themselves .

Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON confronted Officer PERSON with the statement by the witness ORG .

Officer PERSON considered it unlikely that Mr ORG could have parked his car and walked back to the place from which he claimed to have witnessed the events in such a short time . Officer PERSON himself had needed TIME to run QUANTITY from where the police car had been parked to LOC and Officer PERSON .

It appeared that Mr ORG had missed the struggle with PERSON ; he had not mentioned it in his statement . That would be consistent with the distance between where Mr ORG had parked his car and the scene of events .

It was incorrect that Officer PERSON had held his service weapon in one hand . It took CARDINAL hands to hold it in the defensive position . Officer PERSON had made gestures , but that had happened before PERSON drew his pistol .

NORP PERSON had had nothing in his hands until the moment he had drawn his pistol . He had , however , not pointed it at Officer PERSON ; he had pointed it at the ground . He had held it in his hand continuously . He had definitely not thrown anything away or dropped anything . He had only let go of the pistol once Officer PERSON had shot him , but even then only as he collapsed .

Officer PERSON had held his CARDINAL - way radio set in his left hand as he had left the police car . He had kept hold of it until he dropped it . He did not remember when that had been , but it must have been no later than when he drew his service pistol because in the defensive position he had needed both his hands to hold it . He could not remember either whether he had already dropped the radio at the time of the struggle . He had , however , later seen it lying on the ground , level with ORG chest and QUANTITY away from him . He had left it there .

The ambulance had been called for immediately , not once but twice . Officer PERSON had not seen it arrive . By that time he and Officer PERSON were being taken to the police station , having spent TIME at the scene of the events .

Officer PERSON had heard LOC death rattle . That had stopped already before he and Officer PERSON had left . It had appeared to Officer PERSON that PERSON lungs were filling with blood , but Officer PERSON could do nothing to stop that .

The official record of this interview states that Officer PERSON consented to being questioned without his counsel present .

Detective Chief PERSON decided to question this witness a second time in the light of the statement of PERSON ORG .

He reiterated that he had been fixated on the coloured man with the firearm . He had clearly seen the coloured man hold a firearm in his right hand , which he had pointed downwards . The coloured man ’s other hand had been empty .

Mr van den ORG had not witnessed the actual shooting , having taken cover behind the balustrade . He had looked to see what had happened right after the shot had been fired . This had been only a fraction of a second later . He had not seen the coloured man ’s pistol fall to the ground . When Mr van den PERSON had looked , the pistol had been lying on the ground , next to the coloured man , as shown on photograph no . CARDINAL . The pistol shown on photograph no . CARDINAL was very similar to that which Mr van den PERSON had seen in the coloured man ’s hand .

For the remainder , Mr van den ORG confirmed his earlier statement .

Officer PERSON had been driving a police car with a police dog along the GPE . Officer PERSON had heard that a scooter had been stolen at the GPE festival ground and had heard the description given of the scooter and the thief . He was looking for the thief . There was no information that the robbery had taken place at gunpoint .

Officer PERSON had been passed by another police car . He had recognised the driver as Officer PERSON . He had seen the police car pull up and the passenger emerge .

He had parked his car and got out . In so doing he had seen Officer PERSON get out of his car . Going round the back of the car to get out the police dog , Officer PERSON had heard a pistol shot from the direction of the NORP building . The dog had reacted furiously to the sound . It had been necessary to handle the dog with particular care , because in its excitement the dog might have attacked people .

He had met Officer PERSON and had asked him what had happened . Officer PERSON had replied that a pistol had been aimed at the police and a shot had been fired by the police , but had not named the officer who had fired the shot .

Officer PERSON had walked up to the victim lying on the ground , keeping at a distance of QUANTITY metres because of the unpredictable reaction of the dog . The victim had been motionless , except for opening and closing his mouth a few times . Officer PERSON had heard no death rattle .

When Officer PERSON arrived at the scene , there had been only the QUANTITY police officers and the victim . He had not seen anyone else close by . The dog would have reacted if anyone else had been present .

Officer PERSON appended a sketch to his statement .

Ms Hup was interviewed by Detective Chief PERSON . She had been the driver of the ambulance which had been sent out to collect ORG after he had been shot .

At TIME the ambulance crew had received an instruction to drive to the NORP building because someone had been shot . The ambulance had left at TIME , using its blue flashing light and sounding its siren . There had been some traffic but PERSON had not been particularly bothered by it . The ambulance had arrived on the scene at TIME well within the time allowed , which was TIME .

Ms Hup and the other member of the ambulance crew , Mr PERSON , had taken out the stretcher , which was given to police officers . Ms GPE and Mr van Andel had then taken their equipment and had run towards the victim . She described the victim as a NORP youth . There had been a small silver - coloured pistol lying next to him , which she and Mr van Andel had had to avoid touching while doing their work .

Ms Hup had not heard the victim rattle or make any other sound . She had assisted Mr PERSON as he gave first aid . They had connected the victim to the heart monitor . Mr van Andel had checked eye pupil reflexes by shining a light into each eye but had got no reaction and had noted the absence of a pulse and breathing . From the information thus obtained Mr van Andel had concluded that the victim had died on the spot .

PERSON and Mr PERSON had seen the wound where the bullet had entered , which was in the neck on the right . They had not seen the exit wound .

PERSON and Mr PERSON had then covered the body with a white sheet . They had then spent some time talking with police officers . They had not removed the body , which had been picked up later by a special vehicle .

Mr PERSON , a paramedic , had been the other member of the crew of the ambulance driven by PERSON .

At TIME they had received instructions to go to the NORP building where someone had been shot . They had been given a route to take . They had left at CARDINAL . It had been an ORG transport , meaning urgency and the use of optical and acoustic signals . The blue flashing light and the siren had been switched on continuously . They had arrived at the scene at CARDINAL .

Ms Hup and he had run quickly towards the victim . Police officers had carried the stretcher , he and PERSON the other equipment .

Mr PERSON described the victim as a NORP youth , DATE . A police officer had told him that the youth had been shot . He had seen the entry wound in the neck but no exit wound . There had been a small pistol lying close by the victim . Mr PERSON had not noticed a CARDINAL - way radio lying on the ground .

The victim had given no signs of life . There had not been any rattle . Mr van Andel had checked his vital functions and had noted the absence of any heart function ( checked with a heart monitor ) or pupil reaction . This , combined with the gunshot wound , had led Mr PERSON to conclude that the youth was dead . After conferring briefly with one of the police officers present and telling him that there was nothing more to be done , he and ORG had covered the body with a sheet .

Mr PERSON and PERSON had then returned to the ambulance and had reported themselves ready for further duty at TIME The body had been removed later . This would have been done by the local health authority using a vehicle that looks similar to an ambulance , but it might have taken some time .

Mr Pel was a police forensic investigator ( technisch rechercheur ) . He had been on call on TIME of DATE . He had been instructed to go to the NORP building where there had been a shooting . He had arrived after the ambulance had left .

On his arrival at the scene , he had seen a white sheet covering the victim and a pistol lying on the ground .

Mr Pel and a colleague , Mr Popping , had identified items of evidence and marked them with numbered markers before photographing them . He had also examined the body of the victim and in particular his hands for traces of gunshot residue ( schotrestbemonstering ) . This had required that the sheet with which it was covered be lifted .

Mr Pel had heard no death rattle .

PERSON was a maternal great - aunt of PERSON .

She had been informed on DATE by an aunt of PERSON ’s that he had stolen a scooter and had been shot dead for that reason by the police . TIME , CARDINAL , she and other relatives of the deceased had held a prayer meeting at the place where it had happened .

During this prayer meeting , CARDINAL persons were presented to her who had allegedly witnessed the events . They had told her that , when driving by in a car , they had seen a parked police car with the doors open , one policeman standing hear the NORP building and another policeman running in the same direction . They had seen a youth , who had apparently come out of the doorway , walking with his hands raised . She had not been told how high he had raised his arms , but they had told her that he had raised them . They had not told her of any struggle between the youth and the police officer . They had not told her that the first police officer had kept the youth covered with his service pistol . The second police officer , the one who had come running , had shot the youth down . They had not seen the youth with any firearm ; they had been definite about that . They had seen the youth being hit and collapsing . They had seen him covered with a sheet .

NORP Some persons present had mentioned a mobile telephone which the police had said was a pistol .

The CARDINAL persons who had said that they had witnessed the shooting had been evasive when asked whether they were prepared to make statements to the police . They had been more willing to talk to a lawyer . An appointment had been made for this purpose with Mr Hamer , the applicants’ representative in the proceedings now pending before the ORG , but they had failed to turn up . PERSON had been told that they had gone to GPE .

NORP These CARDINAL individuals were NORP who spoke limited NORP and LANGUAGE . PERSON had no idea why they were so reluctant to co - operate fully .

Detective Chief PERSON interviewed Mr ORG a second time .

Mr ORG repeated that he had not witnessed any struggle between the victim and the first police officer .

Asked whether he had seen a policeman with a dog , he answered that he had not paid attention to anything other than what was happening where the victim lay . He had , however , seen police officers with dogs ; he did not remember how many . There had also been civilians with dogs . No police officer with a dog had passed close by him as he was standing still witnessing events from a distance .

Mr ORG remembered a police officer telling him that “ they ” – meaning the police – would decide when the ambulance would come ; that although the victim could no longer talk , “ they ” could ; and that there were other wounded persons , who had fled .

Mr ORG had seen NORP and had been told that they had seen everything . However , they would not co - operate because they were members of a criminal organisation .

At the start of his investigations Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON asked the forensic experts about the distance between Officer PERSON and PERSON at the moment of firing . He was told that this had been QUANTITY . On DATE he spoke to the pathologist who had carried out the autopsy ( see below ) , PERSON , who told him that the shot had definitely not been fired in contact with ORG body .

On DATE Detective Chief PERSON telephoned ORG inquiring after the weather conditions on TIME DATE . He was given the following information :

“ Warm DATE and TIME ; somewhat overcast

TIME

TIME

TIME Dark ”

On DATE Detective Chief PERSON interviewed the DATE PERSON . She confirmed what she had stated to members of the mobile special operations unit on TIME DATE . She added that she had only looked outside after having heard the bang . PERSON was already lying on the ground . She had not seen the police officers properly . She had gone back up , glanced down from the seventh floor and gone inside .

Detective Chief PERSON had returned to the scene of the incident with GPE and PERSON and with Mr ORG and his wife after taking their respective statements . They had shown him where they had been standing and Detective Chief PERSON had paced the distance to the lamppost where PERSON had lain . This had been QUANTITY in the case of PERSON and PERSON and QUANTITY in the case of PERSON and PERSON .

Detective Chief PERSON had also gone back with Officer PERSON , who had shown him where he thought Officer PERSON had parked the car . This was QUANTITY away from the lamppost . He had asked Officer PERSON to run that distance and timed him with a stopwatch . It had taken him TIME . Detective Chief PERSON noted in his report that the distance from where the car was parked had actually been measured on TIME of the shooting and found to be QUANTITY .

On DATE Mr Hamer had telephoned Detective Chief PERSON telling him that PERSON had at some time in the recent past been involved in an incident with a police officer , possibly a fight . Detective Chief PERSON had investigated DATE . It turned out that several police reports existed naming PERSON , but that these had not involved either Officer PERSON or Officer PERSON in any capacity .

On DATE Detective Chief PERSON interviewed the applicants . They told him that they were not aware that ORG had had a pistol and could not imagine this to be the case . PERSON had , however , possessed a mobile telephone , which was nowhere to be found . The third applicant also told Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON that he had heard of CARDINAL NORP who had witnessed the shooting , but who were unwilling to provide information because they were illegally resident in the GPE .

The NORP had already been mentioned to Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON by Mr PERSON . Detective Chief PERSON had discussed them with Public Prosecutor PERSON , who had decided that they should be interviewed on the premises of ORG in the presence of the lawyer acting for ORG , PERSON , and that their true identity should appear in an official document . On DATE Mr Hamer had informed Detective Chief PERSON that the CARDINAL NORP could not be found .

Officer PERSON handed his service weapon and ammunition to Superintendent PERSON of the GPE / GPE police force on DATE at TIME

The weapon was a Walther PCARDINAL automatic pistol loaded with CARDINAL rounds , CARDINAL chambered and CARDINAL in the magazine . Officer PERSON also handed in a reload magazine containing CARDINAL more rounds .

NORP The ammunition was standard police issue ( i.e. CARDINALxCARDINAL mm parabellum Action CARDINAL , see below ) .

The weapon and ammunition were placed at the disposal of the police commissioner and kept at the police station pending a decision by the public prosecutor .

The owner of the pistol and ammunition was stated to be the GPE / Amstelland Regional Police Force .

An official record dated DATE and drawn up by Senior Police Officer PERSON of the GPE / GPE police force , central investigation department , investigation information bureau , describes the weapon that was seized .

It was a Beretta CARDINAL B , QUANTITY ( CARDINAL ” ) calibre , semi - automatic pistol , loaded with CARDINAL live rounds – CARDINAL chambered , CARDINAL in the magazine – bearing fully jacketed bullets .

A form DATE unsigned , but which gives personal identification numbers of the crew members ORG and PERSON – states that the ambulance went to the NORP building on an urgent call to pick up an unnamed male but had returned empty . The call had been received at TIME , the ambulance had left at TIME It had reached the patient at TIME The ambulance had been ready for other calls at TIME and had returned to base at TIME

NORP The type of incident was listed as not falling into any standard category . It was recorded that the patient , stated to have been a pedestrian , was dead when the ambulance arrived . The patient was subjected to physical examination , including verification of the pulse , breathing , lungs , pupil reaction and the heart , with appropriate equipment .

Damage was noted to the neck .

It is stated that the patient was “ shot during pursuit ” and died on the spot .

A large - scale sketch map of the area in front of the NORP building shows the locations of the body of ORG , ORG , the lamppost which illuminated the scene and the position , in vertical projection , of the witness ORG who had been on the fifth floor , with the measurements rounded off to multiples of QUANTITY .

The accompanying official report states that ORG and ORG themselves marked the places where they thought they had been when the fatal shot was fired .

A smaller - scale map covering a larger area gives the positions of ORG , ORG and their car , Officer PERSON , the unknown NORP , the ambulance , and the witnesses PERSON den GPE , GPE , PERSON , ORG and ORG .

This report was drawn up by Senior Police Officer PERSON of the GPE / GPE police force , together with Police PERSON , on DATE .

It states that PERSON , who is DATE , has served in the police force for DATE . The use of force that is the subject of the report is stated to have taken place on DATE at CARDINAL past QUANTITY in the evening , while PERSON was on duty , on the public highway DATE namely , at the NORP building in GPE , on the grass by the third lift . The relevant parts of the report read as follows ( the original numbering has been kept ) :

“ CARDINAL . Type of unit during incident : Basic police work , viz . uniformed service . ...

Action under direction of superior officer : Action did not take place under the direction of a superior officer .

Direction by reporting officer : The reporting officer did not direct the action at that location .

Number of police officers present : CARDINAL .

Number of police officers who used their firearms : CARDINAL .

Dress in which action took place : Uniform .

Type of use of force : Firearm . ...

Type of use of firearm : Self - defence .

Purpose of use of force : Pre - emption of violence ( afwenden van geweld ) against the police officer(s ) concerned ( self - defence ) .

Aim achieved : Yes . ...

Date of last test using live ammunition ( ‘ toets’ beurt scherp ) : DATE .

Date of last ‘ Fire Arms Training System’ [ i.e. simulator ] test ( ‘ toets’ beurt FATS ) : DATE .

Date of last theoretical instruction ( day programme ) : DATE , CARDINAL DATE .

Service firearm used : PERSON PCARDINAL .

Ammunition used : Action CARDINAL .

Permission of competent authority for the special use of force ( inzet bijzondere geweldsmiddelen ) : None .

Warning(s ) preceding the use of force : None .

Number of warning shots : None .

Number of shots fired : CARDINAL .

Number of accidental shots : None .

Aiming point(s ) of firearm use : Person , once .

The object aimed at was : In motion .

Specific aiming point(s ) of firearm use : Body , general .

Distance from target ( in metres ) : CARDINAL – QUANTITY .

Position during firearm use : Standing .

Supported grip during firing : Yes .

Hit by police firing : Yes .

Part of body hit : Torso / neck . ...

Posture of object(s ) or person(s ) : In motion .

Consequences of police use of force for suspect(s ) : Death . ...

Nature of injury / injuries of suspect : Entrance and exit wound .

Consequences of police use of force for police officer(s ) : None .

Consequences of police use of force for third party / parties : None .

Identity of suspect(s ) known to police officer beforehand : No .

Threat and/or violence by suspect shortly before or at the time of police use of force , directed against : Police officer himself and fellow officer .

Type of threat or violence by suspect(s ) : Firearm .

Protective equipment used : None . ...

Consequence of use of force by suspect(s ) to [ other ] suspect(s ) : None .

Consequence of use of force by suspect(s ) to third party / parties : None . ...

Light available at the place of the incident : Twilight ( owing to time of DATE or weather conditions ) .

Circumstances : Among buildings .

Free field of fire : Yes .

Other persons at the place of the incident : Fellow police officer . ”

NORP The GPE coroner ( lijkschouwer ) , PERSON , a medical practitioner , viewed the body of Moravia Ramsahai TIME , before it was removed from the scene of the incident . His report was recorded on a pre - printed form addressed to the public prosecutor .

He had not given PERSON any medical advice or treatment in DATE . Having examined the body himself , he stated that he was not convinced that death had resulted from natural causes .

The following is added in handwriting :

“ Fatality resulting from shooting on the ground in front of the ‘ Huigenbos’ building , level with lift CARDINAL .

Examination on DATE , TIME , at the scene of the crime [ sic ] .

Gunshot wound on the right side of the neck .

Further examination has been dispensed with in view of the judicial autopsy which is due to take place .

Provisional conclusion : died as a result of a shot from a firearm with injury to vital neck organs / structures .

GPE DATE

( signed ) PERSON , medical practitioner ”

NORP Senior Detective PERSON , a police officer serving at GPE police station , officially seized the body where it lay at TIME and provisionally identified it as LOC from identity documents found in his clothing .

The body was removed at TIME on DATE and taken to the morgue of the hospital of ORG under Senior Detective PERSON ’s personal supervision .

A report drawn up by forensic investigators ( technisch rechercheurs ) PERSON and Jan Popping describes the action taken following the incident to secure information and evidence at the scene of the shooting .

The detectives had been informed that a uniformed colleague had tried to arrest someone and had fired his service weapon , which had resulted in the death of PERSON .

The report describes the location of the body . Next to it they had found a Beretta CARDINAL B pistol , calibre QUANTITY , with the hammer cocked . They had also found a spent cartridge .

They had found the scooter in the doorway .

Next to the doorway there was a staircase , closed from the outside by tall windows . In CARDINAL of these windows they had found a bullet hole . Under the bullet hole they had found a bullet lying on the floor . No ricochet marks had been found in the stairway . This had made it impossible to determine the bullet ’s precise trajectory .

Outside the doorway they had found a yellow ear - plug , which they assumed had come out of the barrel of the service pistol used by their uniformed colleague when he fired .

They had secured the Beretta pistol , the yellow ear - plug , the bullet , the spent cartridge and a white disposable lighter found underneath the body of the victim , and had taken swabs from the victim ’s hands to be checked for traces of gunshot residue .

On DATE they had received Officer PERSON ’s PERSON PCARDINAL service pistol and CARDINAL magazines , the first holding CARDINAL rounds , the second holding CARDINAL .

The bullet , the spent cartridge and Officer PERSON ’s service pistol were handed over to staff of ORG ( gerechtelijk laboratorium ) in PERSON . The Beretta pistol , the yellow ear - plug , the disposable lighter and the sample taken from Moravia Ramsahai ’s hands were handed to staff based at GPE police station .

CARDINAL photographs were appended to this record , photocopies of which – in black and white – are contained in the ORG ’s file .

The first CARDINAL photographs show an overview of what is described in the report as the scene of the crime ( QUANTITY delict ) . It is apparent that they were taken at night : they are dark and lampposts and other electric lights are lit . An area in front of a large building is shown to have been cordoned off with bicoloured tape . On photographs numbers CARDINAL through CARDINAL , a white or light - coloured object is visible which could be a body covered by a white sheet . A pistol or pistol - shaped object is visible on photograph number CARDINAL , lying next to the white or light - coloured object . Photograph number CARDINAL shows small signs bearing numbers .

Photographs numbers CARDINAL and CARDINAL show an automatic pistol lying on the ground . It is discernible on photograph number CARDINAL that the pistol is made out of shiny metal and bears the brand name “ Beretta ” . The hammer is in the cocked position .

Photograph CARDINAL shows another overview , taken from approximately the same vantage point as photograph number CARDINAL . Numbered signs have been placed next to particular objects , including the pistol – numbered DATE and the white or light - coloured object , which is numbered CARDINAL . The sign bearing the numeral CARDINAL is visible in the background , in front of the building and close to it .

Photograph number CARDINAL shows a small object lying on the ground , stated in the report to be the yellow ear - plug . A number CARDINAL sign is set next to it .

Photograph CARDINAL shows tall windows , through which a stairway is visible . The sign bearing the numeral CARDINAL is in front of it . Next to the stairway is a doorway , where an object which could be a scooter is shown lying on the ground , next to a sign bearing the numeral CARDINAL .

Photograph number CARDINAL shows a hole in a pane of glass stated in the report to be the bullet hole found in the window of the stairway . The hole is indicated with an arrow and marked with the numeral CARDINAL .

Photograph CARDINAL shows what is stated in the report to be the inside of the windows closing off the stairway . The hole in the pane of glass , marked with the numeral CARDINAL , is visible . On the floor below the same window and close to it lies a small object , marked with a sign bearing the numeral CARDINAL , lies a small object .

Photograph number CARDINAL shows a small object , stated in the report to be the bullet and marked with a sign bearing the numeral CARDINAL , lying on the floor at the bottom of a window .

Photograph number CARDINAL shows what is stated to be the doorway where the scooter was found . It shows the doors of a lift which a sign identifies as “ FAC ” . On the lower portion of the photograph an object is visible which is difficult to make out on the photocopies contained in the ORG ’s file , but which could be a scooter .

Photographs numbers CARDINAL through CARDINAL show parts of a scooter which appears to be lying on its side .

Photograph number CARDINAL shows another overview of the scene outside , on which an object covered in what appears to be a sheet is visible , as well as what appears to be the front of a ground floor office , an area in the background which is brightly lit and which may be identified as the entrances to the staircase and the hallway , and a sign bearing the numeral CARDINAL . The sign bearing the numeral CARDINAL is some distance away from the object covered by what appears to be a sheet . The number CARDINAL is stated in the report to indicate the spent cartridge .

Photograph number CARDINAL shows another overview , including the sign bearing the numeral CARDINAL .

Photograph number CARDINAL shows an overview on which the object covered in what appears to be a sheet and the sign bearing the numeral CARDINAL are visible .

Photographs numbers CARDINAL and CARDINAL show the body of a male lying on the ground . The body is clothed in dark colours . The shirt is undone and the torso is visible . The body is shown lying on its left side , the left arm outstretched . The hair has been cropped very close to the head or shaved off .

Photograph CARDINAL shows the torso , head and neck of a male body . The head is turned so that the right side of the neck is visible , showing a wound which could have been caused by the entry of a bullet fired from a firearm .

Photograph CARDINAL shows the head of the body of a coloured male lying supine on the ground . The face is visible . The hair has been cropped very close to the skin or shaved off .

NORP This report , by Senior Detective PERSON , states that on DATE at TIME the body was shown to PERSON , PERSON mother , and Mr PERSON , his cousin . They both recognised the body and identified it as ORG .

NORP This report was drawn up by Police Superintendent PERSON and Senior Police Officer PERSON , serving with ORG ( ORG ) of the GPE / GPE police force , and temporarily assigned to ORG ) , ORG ( PERSON ) .

NORP The report states that a public prosecutor at ORG ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) , PERSON , had ordered a judicial autopsy on the body of FAC . The body was accordingly removed from the morgue at ORG and transferred to the forensic laboratory in PERSON . The autopsy was carried out by the pathologist PERSON .

Clothing and jewellery removed from the body are described in the report . It is mentioned that an additional CARDINAL.CARDINAL PERSON cartridge was found in the shirt pocket . Separate reports of seizure were drawn up in respect of these objects .

NORP The pathologist ’s provisional conclusions , in handwriting , are appended to the report . These are :

“ A. CARDINAL . There was a presumed gunshot entry wound in the neck , on the right . Course of bullet runs towards the rear , the centre and somewhat downwards to presumed exit wound in the back on the right .

B. CARDINAL . Laceration of the brachiocephalic ( innominate ) artery and vein at the back .

Extensive bleeding in soft parts of the neck .

In the right chest cavity CARDINAL cc of blood , internal organs and mucous membranes exsanguine .

C. No pathological organic abnormalities .

D. Further examination :

alcohol , exploratory toxicological examination and further pathological - anatomical examination .

Provisional conclusion : A gunshot wound penetrating the body front to back ( doorschotverwonding ) .

Cause of death : extensive damage to tissue , massive internal bleeding . ”

On DATE a full autopsy was carried out on PERSON body at FAC ( ORG ) in ORG , near GPE , by the medical practitioner and pathologist PERSON .

The summary and conclusions of this report were as follows ( the numbers between brackets refer to paragraphs of the report ) :

“ ( a ) Summary

The autopsy showed that :

A. There was a probable gunshot entry wound in the right side of the neck ( CARDINALA ) . The course of the bullet runs backwards , towards the middle and somewhat downwards to a probable exit wound in the right of the back ( CARDINALB ) .

Laceration of the brachiocephalic ( innominate ) artery and vein on the right ( CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) .

NORP There was extensive bleeding in the soft parts of the neck ( CARDINAL ) .

There were perforations of the upper lobe of the right lung ( CARDINAL ) .

In the right chest cavity [ there were ] QUANTITY of blood , there were internal organs and membranes drained of blood ( CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE ) .

C. There were no pathological organic abnormalities relevant to the death .

D. Toxicological examination showed the alcohol content of the blood to be CARDINAL permille and that of the urine to be CARDINAL permille according to report number CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

Further toxicological examination into other foreign substances will be the object of a separate report of ORG .

As was stated by the recording police officer ( verbalisant ) , M.S.G. Ramsahai died shortly after receiving a gunshot wound .

It follows from the findings under A. that M.S.G. Ramsahai was hit by CARDINAL bullet in the neck area . The injuries as a result of the gunshot wound , described under CARDINAL through BCARDINAL , led to his death through organ and tissue damage and massive internal bleeding ( in light of the findings under BCARDINAL ) .

( b ) Conclusion

In the case of ORG PERSON , DATE , injuries resulting from a single gunshot wound were established by which , inter alia , major blood vessels and the right lung were perforated . These injuries led to his death . ”

NORP The report , dated DATE , further states that a blood sample , some fluid from the vitreous humour of the eyes , a piece of skin from the entry wound and some hair samples will be kept for DATE , after which they will normally be destroyed unless orders to the contrary are received .

This report by Detective PERSON relates to the seizure of a video tape recorded by closed - circuit television in the ORG restaurant mentioned above on DATE . It is stated that the tape shows PERSON for a considerable length of time and that a copy has been made .

Having taken note of the report of Coroner PERSON , Public Prosecutor PERSON gave permission for the body of PERSON to be disposed of by burial or cremation .

Police Superintendent PERSON of the GPE / GPE police drew up a record describing the events which he himself had witnessed .

On TIME DATE PERSON had been out in uniform , in charge of the police detachment monitoring the GPE festival . At TIME he had heard on his CARDINAL - way radio that CARDINAL surveillance officers were pursuing a thief who had stolen a scooter . From other messages he concluded that other officers had also set off in pursuit , including Officers Brons and Bultstra in a police car . At around TIME had heard that ORG were pursuing the thief in the direction of the Huigenbos building . Shortly afterwards , he had heard that there had been shooting and that an ambulance was needed .

Superintendent Groenewegen had immediately made his way to the NORP building .

Upon arrival , he had seen a man lying on the ground , wounded in the neck . He had seen a silver - coloured pistol lying on the ground , QUANTITY from the man ’s feet . He had also spotted a police CARDINAL - way radio lying on the ground , QUANTITY from the body at hip level .

NORP The ambulance had arrived at TIME and its crew had emerged with a stretcher .

Shortly afterwards , someone had thrust a CARDINAL - way radio set into ORG hands , telling him that it was Officer Bultstra ’s . ORG had understood that this was the set which he had seen lying on the ground .

NORP This report was drawn up by PERSON , pharmacist and toxicologist , to whom parts of ORG body had been entrusted for the purpose of establishing whether they contained any alcohol , narcotic or stimulant substances or prescription drugs .

The presence of alcohol was investigated by CARDINAL analysts working independently and following a prescribed method . It was found that the blood sample provided contained QUANTITY of alcohol per litre , the urine contained QUANTITY , the vitreous humour of the left eye contained QUANTITY and that of the right eye contained QUANTITY .

The presence of amphetamines in the urine sample was initially suspected but could not be confirmed by subsequent testing .

Other substances found in the urine sample were nicotine , cotinine ( a breakdown product of nicotine ) and psilocine ( an alkaloid compound found in certain hallucinogenic toadstools – genus DATE known colloquially as “ magic mushrooms ” ) . The concentration of psilocine in the blood was too low to be determined .

The file contains an official record of the seizure of a tape - recording made of police CARDINAL - way radio conversations on TIME DATE and a transcript .

ORG Other official records drawn up by police officers describe personal effects found on Moravia Ramsahai ’s body – clothing , jewellery , the contents of his pockets DATE and their return to his next - of - kin , the return to PERSON of the scooter taken from him by PERSON , and the opening of a temporary document register for the case .

The file also contains a printout giving the results of the firearms training undergone by Officer PERSON in DATE . It shows that during this period Officer PERSON had fired CARDINAL practice rounds , scoring an average of PERCENT hits , and had undergone refresher training on DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON wrote to Detective Chief PERSON on behalf of the third applicant , PERSON father , and the PERSON family . He informed Detective Chief PERSON that the third applicant intended to appear as an injured party ( beledigde partij ) in any prosecution that might be brought against the person responsible for shooting FAC dead and asked for information on the case , including copies of all documents contained in the case file .

On DATE Mr Hamer wrote in similar terms to ORG in charge of the investigation , PERSON .

On DATE ORG replied that she had not yet received the case file . However , attempts were being made to find witnesses put forward by PERSON clients .

On DATE Mr Hamer wrote to ORG again asking for a copy of the case file . He expressed the wish that the decision whether or not to prosecute the police officer responsible for the shooting should not be taken before the PERSON family had had a chance to study the file and add their comments ( becommentariëren ) . He also asked ORG to ensure that the public prosecution service made no public statement to the effect that the police officer had acted in self - defence . DATE , apparently in response to a letter received from ORG , PERSON repeated this request in more forceful terms .

On DATE ORG wrote to the parents of ORG . In addition to expressing ORG condolences , the letter contained the following passage :

“ Having studied the documents of the investigation I have decided not to prosecute the police officer who fired at your son . In my considered opinion ( naar mijn oordeel ) there existed , for the police officer in question and his fellow officer , such a threatening situation at the moment of the shooting that the shooting was justified .

I will , if you wish , explain the reason for my decision in person . ”

DATE the public prosecution department issued a press release which read as follows :

“ Shooting incident GPE

On DATE a shooting incident took place in GPE in which an DATE youth was shot dead by a police officer after having stolen a scooter . ORG has investigated the circumstances of this shooting .

ORG has decided not to initiate a prosecution against the police officer . It has emerged from the investigation that the situation was a life - threatening CARDINAL and that the police officer acted to put an end to a situation that was threatening his life and that of his fellow officer . The victim drew a loaded pistol first and , despite having been called upon to drop it , he failed to do so and aimed it at CARDINAL of the police officers . The police officer is therefore entitled to claim self - defence .

The investigation has further shown that the police acted appropriately ( adequaat ) immediately after the shooting . The alleged delay in the arrival of the ambulance , the [ alleged ] dropping of an object by the suspect and the indication , or failure to indicate , by the person reporting the theft of the scooter that the suspect was in possession of a firearm , have also been investigated . It has turned out that the statements of [ members of ] the public who appeared on the scene in large numbers ( het toestromende publiek ) were incomplete and incorrect on these points . ”

On DATE Mr Hamer wrote to ORG complaining that he had not yet received a copy of the case file .

On DATE Mr PERSON wrote to ORG asking about any criminal investigations which might have been carried out concerning PERSON and requesting copies of documents from the relevant case files which might show whether or not Moravia Ramsahai had had any previous encounters with ORG .

On DATE Mr Hamer wrote to ORG asking , among other things , for the drawing which he assumed the pathologist had made of the injuries visible on the body and for an official determination of the bullet ’s trajectory , if this had not already been made .

On DATE Mr PERSON wrote to ORG reminding her of an offer she had made to grant the third applicant an interview in which she would explain in person her decision not to prosecute Senior Police Officer PERSON . Mr PERSON indicated that the third applicant wished to take ORG up on that offer and asked her to allow the press and television media to attend .

ORG replied on DATE , stating that she was still prepared to meet Mr PERSON ’s clients , but not in the presence of the media .

On DATE ORG wrote to PERSON again . In response to his requests made in his earlier letters , she referred him to the case file . Additional information , such as the precise trajectory of the bullet , did not exist and was unobtainable for technical reasons .

On DATE , having learned that ORG did not intend to prosecute , PERSON wrote to ORG announcing the third applicant ’s intention to seek a court order for the prosecution of Senior Police Officer PERSON .

On DATE the CARDINAL applicants applied for such an order to ORG by means of a protest against the failure to prosecute ( LAW Wetboek van Strafvordering ) . The application was signed by PERSON as the ORG representative and by each of the applicants individually . They stated that the information available did not admit of the conclusion that the shooting of Moravia Ramsahai by Officer PERSON was sufficiently justified . They also pointed out that certain key parts of the investigation after the shooting had been carried out by the GPE / GPE police force – meaning Officer PERSON ’s direct colleagues DATE and argued on that ground that the investigation had not been “ effective ” and “ independent ” . Further complaints addressed the failure to question ORG until DATE after the event , the failure to question all the police officers who had arrived at the scene after the shooting about what had been said by ORG , the failure to determine the precise trajectory of the bullet ( which the applicants submitted would have been possible ) , the failure to secure gunshot residue samples from the hands of ORG , and other alleged lacunae in the investigation . Reference was also made to the statement of ORG Commissioner PERSON , as reported in the newspaper PERSON , to the effect that he would not allow an independent inquiry , and to the fact that ORG ( hoofdofficier van justitie ) of GPE retained overall responsibility for the investigation and the prosecution , if any .

On DATE the Acting Procurator General ( plaatsvervangend procureur - generaal ) at ORG submitted an opinion in response to the ORG complaint about the failure to prosecute Senior Police Officer PERSON . He expressed complete agreement with an official report prepared by Public Prosecutor PERSON and forwarded to him by ORG on DATE . He considered it sufficiently clear from the evidence available that Officer PERSON had acted in self - defence and was not convinced that Public Prosecutor PERSON , who had decided not to prosecute , was in any way biased . Although perhaps some might have preferred the non - prosecution decision to have been taken by an official body further removed from the GPE police , that was not a wish which needed to be taken into account by the courts . It followed that the applicants’ complaint of DATE was unfounded .

On DATE , Mr Hamer , having been informed of the date on which a hearing would be held to consider the ORG complaint , wrote to ORG asking for the hearing to be held in open court .

On DATE Mr PERSON wrote to the Acting Procurator General at ORG , complaining about the failure of the registry of that court to provide him with copies of the complete case file and asking for this failure to be rectified . He made a similar request to the President of ORG .

The registrar of ORG replied on DATE , pointing out that the question to be decided was whether to hold a hearing ; in such circumstances it was appropriate for participants in a hearing to be allowed to view the file but , for reasons of caution , copies were refused . By a separate letter of the same date , the registrar informed Mr PERSON that the hearing would not be public but that Mr PERSON could raise the issue at the hearing if desired .

The Acting Procurator General replied on DATE , stating that he was not an appellate body competent to review decisions of the registrar of ORG to withhold documents . In any event , Mr PERSON had been able to see all available documents .

NORP The applicants’ complaint under LAW was heard in chambers by a “ judge delegate ” ( raadsheer - commissaris ) on DATE . Mr PERSON made extensive oral submissions on the applicants’ behalf . These included a request for an adjournment in order that the official report of Public Prosecutor PERSON and Officer PERSON ’s service record ( including , especially , any recorded complaints against him ) be added to the file .

On DATE , with the agreement of the Advocate General in charge of the case , Mr PERSON wrote to the judge presiding the division of ORG which was to hear the ORG complaint against the failure to prosecute , pointing to an alleged inconsistency between the statements of ORG and the statements of other police officers , as reported in the press release , which in his submission would justify a further criminal investigation .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG complaint against ORG decision not to prosecute . Its reasoning included the following :

“ CARDINAL . Hearing in chambers

Representations from the complainants were heard on DATE in chambers by the judge delegate . They were assisted by Mr Hamer . Before the hearing the complainants had asked ORG to deal with their complaint in open court . The judge delegate did not accede to this request but allowed the complainants the opportunity to repeat and explain this request at the hearing in chambers , which they did . Contrary to what the applicants stated at that hearing , they had been offered the opportunity to examine the case file beforehand , together with their counsel . In addition , the complainants can not claim a right to see a document that ORG does not possess either , namely , in addition to other documents to which the complainants may have alluded , ORG letter with which the official report of Public Prosecutor PERSON had been forwarded to the Procurator General .

The documents concerning the complaint

ORG has considered , in addition to the documents mentioned and their appendices , the official report on the matter drawn up by ORG PERSON , dated DATE , which was sent by ORG ( ... ) to PERSON , with official records and other documents appended thereto .

Hearing in camera

ORG endorses the judge delegate ’s decision that the hearing be held in camera and not in open court .

ORG The complainants pointed out that when a fatality has occurred as a result of violence by the ORG , there should be ‘ some form of independent and public scrutiny capable of determining whether the force used was or was not justified in a particular set of ORG ( ORG in the case of GPE v. GPE , DATE ) . The following should be noted in this connection .

In this case an investigation was begun by the regional police force , but pursued mainly by ORG , which is independent of the regional police force to which Officer PERSON belonged and reports to ORG . Its duties specifically include investigating cases such as the present . In addition , the complaint by the relatives has now been examined by ORG , an independent tribunal .

The complaint submitted by the complainants , who rely on , among other things , LAW , and seek the hearing of their complaint in open court , falls within the ambit of the rules governing in camera hearings laid down in the new legislation . It would go beyond the powers of the judiciary to develop the law if a hearing , the purpose of which was precisely to decide whether a particular person should be put on public trial , were itself held in public . Moreover , that would defeat the purpose of the applicable legal provisions .

Consideration of the complaint

The complaint relates to actions by a police officer which resulted in a fatality .

During the so - called GPE festival in GPE on DATE a moped scooter was stolen on the festival ground at gunpoint using a small - calibre pistol .

Sergeant J. Brons and Senior Police Officer PERSON , in response to a report on the matter by fellow police officers , proceeded in pursuit of the thief in a marked police car . They found the thief riding the stolen scooter . Both the scooter and the driver fitted the description given . The person concerned was the subsequent victim Moravia S.G. Ramsahai . They saw PERSON ride the scooter into the doorway leading to lift CARDINAL of the NORP building on the GPE .

Bultstra left the car , which had been stopped there , and ran to the building to proceed with the arrest . He was holding a CARDINAL - way radio set . Bultstra grabbed hold of ORG and tried to press him against the wall of the building . He did not manage to do so . Next , ORG noticed that ORG reached towards his trouser belt several times and then drew a pistol , which , however , he held with the barrel pointing towards the ground .

At this , ORG dropped his CARDINAL - way radio set and drew his pistol and aimed it at ORG , after which he repeatedly shouted to ORG to drop his weapon . ORG did not obey this order . All this happened in a very short space of time .

In the meantime , PERSON had locked up the car and had come running towards NORP and PERSON . When PERSON was still QUANTITY away from GPE , ORG turned somewhat towards PERSON and raised his pistol in the direction of PERSON . PERSON then immediately drew his own pistol and fired . PERSON was struck by a bullet on the right side of the neck and collapsed . He died shortly afterwards from injuries caused by the shot .

The foregoing version of events can be deduced from the statements , which are consistent with each other , of ORG , and the witness PERSON den PERSON , the latter having seen significant parts of the events from a relatively short distance , namely from the fifth - floor walkway of the building .

In these circumstances it is likely that there was an immediate unlawful assault against CARDINAL policemen , and in particular PERSON , using a potentially lethal weapon , namely a pistol , albeit with a calibre of CARDINAL PERSON . The assault was such that the deadly shot was necessary by way of defence against that assault .

If there had been more time to take aim then it is conceivable that , as has been argued , the shot fired by ORG might have hit a less vulnerable part of ORG ’s body . It is probable , however , that , as the policemen have in fact stated , everything happened in a very short time , PERSON having fired in a very speedy reaction without having enough time to take careful aim . There was a need to react with such speedRamsahai could have fired his weapon at any time from the moment he raised it . PERSON was entitled to assume that PERSON might be about to open fire immediately , as was subsequently shown : his weapon turned out to have a round chambered and the hammer was in the ‘ single ORG position .

Even with the benefit of hindsight , there is no reason to consider ORG ’s threatening behaviour any less serious . He had , after all , stolen a means of transport that DATE by making threats with a loaded firearm and it is probable that he had on DATE used the weapon CARDINAL other time to threaten someone . His blood had an alcohol content of QUANTITY and his urine had an alcohol content of QUANTITY , in addition to which psilocine was found in his blood , the active ingredient of certain hallucinogenic mushrooms .

The reliability of the foregoing evidence established by ORG is not affected in its essentials by the fact that the police gave a somewhat different version of events in a press release . That also applies to the differing statements of the witness ORG ( in whose case it may be considered likely , given demonstrable inconsistencies as regards place and time , that he was not actually present at all ) and the witness GPE , who claims not to have seen any pistol in LOC ’s possession at any time , which is unlikely , since there was in fact a pistol , whereas the witness FAC , whose reliability is not in doubt , actually went for cover when he saw that weapon . The statements made by other witnesses cited by the complainants are irrelevant or else do not detract from the above findings in any essential respect .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . Contrary to the ORG contention , there is no reason to doubt that the evidence available , considered globally , was not subjected to conscientious and comprehensive examination , although ORG can agree with the complainants that a reconstruction of events would have been desirable .

Nor does the fact , as alleged , that ORG failed to offer the complainants complete access to the file or a say in the matter before reaching the impugned decision lead to any different conclusion .

No appeal lay against this decision .

On DATE , in parallel with the proceedings before ORG , PERSON lodged a complaint with ORG on behalf of the third applicant to the effect that the press release issued by the GPE / GPE police was incorrect and therefore improper vis - à - vis the third applicant .

In a separate letter of the same date and on behalf of the same applicant , Mr PERSON complained that Police Commissioner PERSON had had a conversation with Senior Police Officer PERSON of which he had not kept any official record , but that he had failed to arrest Officer PERSON or have him questioned and he had failed to order Officers PERSON and Bultstra not to speak to each other until they had both been questioned . A further complaint raised in this letter concerned Police Commissioner PERSON ’s apparent refusal to agree to an independent inquiry , as reported in the newspaper PERSON .

On DATE the regional commanding officer of the GPE / GPE police force submitted a written response to the third applicant ’s complaints to ORG . It was stated that Police Commissioner PERSON had come to GPE police station after being informed of the events complained of , in order to provide moral support . He had not been in charge , or even involved , in the investigation so his presence did not need to be recorded . Police Commissioner PERSON had not been opposed to an independent inquiry , contrary to the newspaper report , but had simply not seen the point of it in view of the inquiry being carried out by ORG . As to the press release , it was not clear why the third applicant had found it objectionable .

On DATE Mr PERSON transmitted to ORG a rebuttal to the regional commanding officer ’s letter of DATE , pointing to what in his view were inconsistencies . In particular , the statement of fact in the press release that the police officer who had shot PERSON had done so in defence of his fellow police officer was contradicted by the information available .

On DATE the regional commanding officer of the GPE / GPE police force transmitted a counter - rebuttal to ORG . It was stated that Police Commissioner PERSON had spoken to Officer PERSON following the shooting not in order to establish the facts , but to offer Officer PERSON emotional support after a profoundly distressing experience . There had been no need to make an official record of this conversation . The decision whether or not to make such records was , and remained , in the hands of ORG . It was noteworthy in this connection that the investigating officer had not seen the need to seek more information about the conversation in question . The police had offered its full co - operation in the investigation and an additional independent investigation was unnecessary . An explanation was given for the suggestion in the press release that Officer PERSON had fired to protect Officer PERSON . The discrepancy noted , however , was not fundamental and therefore did not justify an official retraction .

On DATE ORG transmitted its advisory opinion to the Acting PERSON ( loco - burgemeester ) of GPE . It took the view that the statements made by Police Commissioner PERSON in the media had been undiplomatic , likely to create misunderstanding and be hurtful towards the third applicant and , to that extent , the third applicant ’s complaints were well - founded ; they were ill - founded for the remainder .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Acting PERSON informed the third applicant that he had decided to adopt as his own the opinion given by ORG .

The applicants stated that a further complaint had been submitted to ORG ) but they provided no further information in this respect .

The provisions of LAW ( PERSON ) potentially relevant to the case provide as follows :

“ Anyone who is compelled to commit an act by circumstances beyond his control shall not be liable for punishment in respect of that act . ”

“ CARDINAL . Anyone who commits an act which is necessary in order to defend his own or someone else ’s physical integrity ( lijf ) , sexual integrity ( eerbaarheid ) or property against immediate unlawful assault shall not be liable for punishment in respect of that act .

A transgression of the limits of necessary defence shall not be punishable if it has been caused by a strong emotion occasioned , with immediacy , by an assault . ”

“ Anyone who commits an act prescribed by law shall not be liable for punishment in respect thereof . ”

“ Anyone who deliberately deprives another of his life shall be guilty of manslaughter ( doodslag ) and shall be liable for punishment by a term of imprisonment of DATE or a fifth - category fine . ”

“ Anyone who deliberately and with malice aforethought ( met voorbedachten rade ) deprives another of his life shall be guilty of murder ( moord ) and shall be liable for punishment by imprisonment for life or for a term not exceeding twenty years , or a fifth - category fine . ”

At the time of the events complained of , relevant provisions of LAW provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . If the perpetrator of a punishable act is not prosecuted , or if the prosecution is not pursued to a conclusion , then anyone with a direct interest ( rechtstreeks belanghebbende ) may lodge a written complaint with ORG within whose area of jurisdiction the decision has been taken not to prosecute or not to pursue the prosecution to a conclusion .

NORP The expression ‘ person with a direct interest’ shall include any legal entity ( rechtspersoon ) which , in pursuance of its purpose and as apparent from its actual activities , has an interest that is directly affected by the decision not to prosecute or not to pursue the prosecution . ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG shall not take its decision without first having heard representations from the complainant , or at least after having properly summoned the complainant ... ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG may summon the person whose prosecution is being sought in order to afford him the opportunity to present observations on the request made in the statement of complaint and the grounds on which it is based . Such summons shall either be accompanied by a copy of the statement of complaint or contain an indication of the facts to which the complaint relates .

No order of the kind referred to in Article CARDINAL shall be given unless and until the person whose prosecution is being sought has been heard by ORG , or has at least been properly summoned . ”

“ CARDINAL . The complainant and the person whose prosecution is being sought may be assisted before judges in chambers . They may be represented by counsel ...

NORP The president of ORG shall ... allow the complainant and the person whose prosecution is being sought , as well as their counsel or authorised representatives ( gemachtigden ) , to inspect the case file if a request is made to that effect . Inspection shall take place in the manner determined by the president . The president may , of his own motion or at the request of PERSON , exempt particular documents from inspection in the interests of privacy , the investigation , the prosecution of criminal acts , or on significant general - interest grounds . ”

“ The person whose prosecution is being sought shall not be obliged to answer questions put to him in chambers . He shall be so informed before the hearing begins and that fact shall be mentioned in the official record . ”

“ The hearing of the complainant and of the person whose prosecution is being sought may also be delegated to CARDINAL of the judges of ORG . ”

“ CARDINAL . If the complaint falls within ORG jurisdiction , the complainant can be admitted ( de klager ontvankelijk is ) , and if ORG finds that a prosecution ought to have been brought or pursued to a conclusion , ORG shall order the prosecution to be brought or pursued in respect of the fact to which the complaint relates .

ORG may also refuse to give such an order for reasons relating to the general interest .

NORP The order may also include the direction ( last ) that the Public Prosecutor shall make the request referred to in LAW [ i.e. a request to the investigating judge ( rechter - commissaris ) to initiate or continue a preliminary judicial investigation ( gerechtelijk vooronderzoek ) , respectively ] or that the person whose prosecution is being sought shall be summoned for trial . The first - mentioned order may also be given by ORG if ORG has already had the person whose prosecution is being sought officially notified of the decision of closure of a preliminary judicial investigation or if the time - limit prescribed in LAW has already expired .

NORP In all other cases the Court of Appeal shall ... dismiss the complaint . ”

“ The judges of ORG who have considered the complaint shall preferably not take part in the trial . ”

“ CARDINAL . Reasons shall be given for any decision taken in chambers . If a public hearing in chambers is prescribed , such decision shall be delivered in open court .

Unless otherwise provided , the decision shall be notified to the suspect and the other participants in the proceedings without delay . ”

At the time of the events complained of , relevant provisions of ORG ( Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie ) provided as follows :

“ The public prosecution service shall have exclusive responsibility for upholding the laws , prosecuting all criminal acts and ensuring the execution of all criminal judgments . ... ”

“ Officials of the public prosecution service shall follow the orders given to them in the course of their official duties , in the name of the Monarch , by the competent authority . ”

“ ... [ P]ublic prosecutors and acting public prosecutors shall , in their official duties , report to the head of the public prosecution department ( parket ) in which they carry out their duties . ”

Relevant provisions of LAW provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The Procurator General at ORG shall , within the area of jurisdiction of ORG to which he is appointed , ensure the proper investigation of the criminal acts which are triable by the regional courts ( arrondissementsrechtbanken ) or the district courts ( kantongerechten ) . ...

To that end , he shall give orders to the heads of the public prosecution departments appointed to the regional courts . ”

“ CARDINAL . The Public Prosecutor shall be charged with the investigation of criminal acts which are triable by the regional court to which he is appointed and by the district courts within the area of that regional court ’s jurisdiction , as well as the investigation , within the area of that regional court ’s jurisdiction , of criminal acts triable by other regional courts or district courts .

To that end , he shall give orders to the other persons charged with [ such ] investigation . ... ”

The Police Act DATE ( PERSON ) , in relevant part , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . If the police act in a municipality to maintain public order and to carry out their task of assisting the public ( hulpverleningstaak ) , they shall be under the authority of the PERSON .

NORP The PERSON shall be empowered to give the police officers directions in carrying out the tasks referred to in the first paragraph . ”

“ CARDINAL . If the police act to maintain legal order through criminal law enforcement , or carry out tasks in support of the administration of justice , they shall be under the authority of ORG .

The Public Prosecutor shall be empowered to give the police officers directions in carrying out the tasks referred to in the first paragraph . ”

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW DATE provides as follows :

“ A police officer appointed to carry out the tasks of the police force shall be authorised to use violence in the lawful exercise of his duties when it is justified by the purpose thereby intended to be served , also taking into account the dangers involved in such use of violence , and when that purpose can not otherwise be served . The use of violence shall be preceded , if possible , by a warning . ”

At the relevant time , the Standing Orders for the Police , ORG and officers invested with special investigative powers ( PERSON , de Koninklijke Marechaussee en de buitengewone opsporingsambtenaar ) provided , in relevant part :

“ CARDINAL . Use of a firearm , other than a firearm suitable for automatic fire or long - range precision fire , is permitted only :

( a ) to arrest a person who poses a firearms hazard ( vuurwapengevaarlijk persoon ) ;

( b ) to arrest a person who is trying to evade , or has evaded , being arrested or brought before the competent legal authority ( die zich aan zijn aanhouding of voorgeleiding tracht te ontrekken of heeft onttrokken ) and who is suspected or has been convicted of a serious indictable offence ( ernstig misdrijf ) which must in addition be considered a serious disruption of legal order .

In the cases referred to in the first paragraph under ( a ) and ( b ) , the firearm shall not be used if the identity of the person to be arrested is known and it may reasonably be assumed that the delaying of the arrest will not jeopardise legal order in a manner that may be considered unacceptable . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Immediately before he uses a firearm , other than a firearm suitable for automatic fire or long - range precision fire , the officer shall issue a warning , in a loud voice or in another form that can not be misunderstood , that fire will be opened if the order is not followed without delay . Such a warning , which may if necessary be replaced by a warning shot , shall be omitted only if the circumstances do not admit of it .

A warning shot shall be fired in such a way as to avoid , as far as possible , endangering persons or property . ”

In relevant part , LAW DATE ( ORG ) provide as follows :

“ In these Rules , the expression ...

‘ pistol’ [ shall mean ] a semi - automatic pistol , brand name Walther , type PCARDINAL , calibre QUANTITY ; ... ”

“ The weapons of a police officer and of a special police officer , as referred to in LAW of LAW shall , while they are on duty , consist of :

a. a short truncheon of a brand and type approved by the Ministers [ the Minister of ORG ( Minister PERSON ) and the Minister of Justice ( Minister PERSON ) ] ;

b. pepper spray ;

c. a pistol . ”

“ The pistol ... shall be loaded with cartridge ammunition , brand name ORG PERSON , type Action , model CARDINAL , calibre QUANTITY . ”

“ The regional police force manager ( korpsbeheerder ) shall ensure that a police officer ... has a weapon at his disposal only if he meets the requirements of proficiency in its use as laid down by the Ministers . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . For tasks determined by the Minister of ORG , after consultation with the Minister of ORG , the Procurator General shall have special - duty police officers ( bijzondere ambtenaren van politie ) ... at his disposal .

NORP The Minister of Justice shall be charged with the management of the police officers referred to in the first paragraph . These police officers shall ... be appointed , promoted , suspended and dismissed by the Minister of Justice . ”

According to Rule CARDINAL of the Rules governing the organisation of the operational divisions of ORG ( Organisatieregeling dienstonderdelen PERSON ) , ORG is a nationwide service placed directly under the primary collective responsibility of ORG at ORG . Its day - to - day affairs are managed by a Director who reports to ORG ( Rule CARDINAL ) .

At the relevant time , a ORG issued on DATE by the Ministers of Justice and ORG entitled the “ Circular on the Tasks and Deployment Criteria of ORG ” ( Circulaire Taken en inzetcriteria GPE , Official Gazette – Staatscourant DATE , no . CARDINAL ) laid down the ORG ’s terms of reference .

ORG per se had , and has , no basis in statute or delegated legislation . Its members did : they were special - duty police officers as referred to in section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( paragraph CARDINAL of the Circular ) .

The specific tasks for which the ORG was intended included investigating deaths in police custody and investigating the use of firearms by police officers ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . In particular , all cases involving the use by a police officer of a firearm , leading to death or injury , were to be investigated by ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

An application for an investigation by ORG was made by ORG to the head of the ORG ’s local unit . If ORG request was met with a refusal , he could apply to the mandated Procurator General for a decision ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

After ORG had obtained the agreement of the head of the unit , or of the mandated Procurator General , as the case might be , the investigation became ORG responsibility . So did any resulting prosecution . The mandated Procurator General might , in special cases , indicate that he wished to be involved in any follow - up decisions to be taken by ORG . ORG might also take a collective decision to assume direct responsibility for the follow - up decisions themselves . In addition , the mandated Procurator General received periodic reports on the actions of ORG in relation to ORG investigations for ex post facto scrutiny by ORG collectively . Every police officer whose actions were investigated by ORG was subsequently to be informed of the outcome of the investigations ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

According to section CARDINAL of LAW , the PERSON of the municipalities located within each police jurisdiction ( regio ) provide for a complaints procedure involving a board of independent members who advise the regional police force manager – i.e. PERSON those municipalities , appointed in accordance with a list appended to LAW ( section DATE in dealing with complaints .

NORP In relevant part , FAC ( PERSON met betrekking PERSON , het onderzoek en de afdoening van klachten over het optreden van ambtenaren van het politiekorps GPE / Amstelland ) provide as follows :

“ The complaints procedure is intended to improve , where possible , the relationship between citizens and the police . ”

“ CARDINAL . The complaints procedure has CARDINAL parts :

( a ) informal mediation by a complaint mediator within the local team or the police station to which the complaint relates ;

( b ) formal consideration by the regional police force manager following investigation by ORG advisory opinion .

Formal consideration shall take place if :

( a ) the complainant expressly so desires ;

( b ) the complainant so requests after mediation ;

( c ) it is clear that a mediation attempt will not lead , or has not led , to adequate treatment of the complaint ;

( d ) the ORG is of the opinion that formal consideration is desirable because of the special nature of the complaint . ”

NORP If there is a suspicion that the complaint may relate to an indictable offence committed by a police officer , it shall be transferred to ORG .

NORP The complaints procedure in accordance with these Rules shall be resumed if ORG indicates that it would be preferable .

NORP If ORG takes responsibility for dealing with the complaint , the complainant shall be so informed . In so far as the complaint relates at the same time to conduct that does not raise any suspicions of an indictable offence , the Chief Public Prosecutor shall also include such conduct in his investigation and express an opinion about it . ORG shall receive a copy of ORG decision on the complaint .

NORP If ORG initiates a criminal investigation based on the complaint , statements made during the complaints procedure shall be disregarded unless the police officer concerned by the complaint has agreed otherwise . ”

“ CARDINAL . There shall be an independent ORG . It shall consist , preferably , of CARDINAL members including the Chairman .

NORP The members and the Chairman shall be nominated by ORG and appointed by the regional police force manager , after consulting the PERSON of the municipalities located within the police jurisdiction . The Secretary of ORG shall be appointed by the regional police force manager .

The ORG ’s task shall be to give an opinion as to whether the actions ( optreden ) of the police officer concerned by the complaint were proper ( behoorlijk ) . In addition , it shall uphold the quality and uniformity of the complaints procedure within the police jurisdiction . It shall advise the PERSON and the regional police force manager in dealing with a complaint and shall , if it sees fit , make recommendations for the improvement of the organisation and its internal procedure .

The ORG may further determine its internal working procedure in Rules . ”

“ CARDINAL . The complainant and the police officer concerned by the complaint shall receive information about the procedure as soon as possible after the complaint is lodged . This information shall include a statement that they may be assisted by a lawyer or other trusted assistant ( vertrouwenspersoon ) . They shall also be informed of the progress of the proceedings .

NORP The Chief Public Prosecutor shall be informed of the filing and handling of written complaints . ”

The complaint proceedings shall be suspended if a criminal complaint has been made in relation to the action complained of , or if a complaint has been made to ORG , or if proceedings are pending before a judicial authority , as long as no final decision has been made on that complaint or in those proceedings , as the case may be . The same shall apply if the complainant exercises the right to complain under LAW . ”

In so far as the authorities referred to in LAW of these Rules or ORG or the regional police force manager have already stated their findings ( uitspraak ) about an action , or if the complaint concerns a decision against which an objection or an appeal is or has been open to the complainant , the [ complaint ] shall be inadmissible . ”

“ The ORG shall be authorised to give directions relating to mediation if there is occasion to do so . ”

“ CARDINAL . Formal consideration of the complaint shall be undertaken by the regional police force manager after the ORG has given its advisory opinion .

If no mediation is attempted , the complaint mediator , now acting as rapporteur , shall investigate the complaint . He shall report his findings . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The Board shall report its findings to the PERSON and advise on how to deal with the complaint .

The DATE ’s advisory opinion may contain the following findings :

( a ) ORG has not been able to establish that the action complained of actually took place ;

( b ) ORG is of the opinion that the action complained of was [ or was not ] proper in whole or in part , as the case may be .

The ORG may , if the complaint so requires , express its views ( zienswijze ) about any measures to be taken . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The PERSON or the regional police force manager shall send his decision on the complaint to the complainant . The ORG ’s advisory opinion shall be appended thereto . The decision shall mention that the complainant may submit his complaint to ORG if he does not agree with the decision .

NORP If the decision of the regional police force manager differs from the ORG ’s advisory opinion , this shall be mentioned in the reasoning of the decision , together with the grounds for such difference . ”

In relevant part , LAW ( PERSON ) provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The injured party ( benadeelde ) shall be entitled to compensation , to be determined ex aequo et bono , in respect of non – pecuniary damage :

( a ) if the person liable intended to cause such damage ;

( b ) if the injured party has suffered physical injury , damage to his honour or reputation , or other harm to his person ( op andere wijze in zijn persoon is aangetast ) ;

( c ) if the damage consists of harm to the memory of a deceased person and has been caused to the deceased ’s spouse ( who was not separated from the deceased by a judicial decision ) , registered partner or a first- or second - degree blood relative of the deceased , provided that the harm has been caused in a way that would have given the deceased , were he still alive , an entitlement to compensation for harm to his honour or reputation .

NORP The right to compensation referred to in the previous paragraph shall not pass to a third party or be subject to attachment , unless it has been established by agreement or has been claimed in court . For it to pass under a universal title , it shall be sufficient for the entitled person to have informed the other party that he claims such compensation . ”

“ CARDINAL . If a person dies as a result of an occurrence for which another is liable towards him , that other person shall be obliged to make good the damage caused by the loss of subsistence :

( a ) to the deceased ’s spouse unless he or she is judicially separated from the deceased , [ the deceased ’s ] registered partner and [ the deceased ’s ] underage children , up to a sum that shall at least be equal to the subsistence to which they are entitled by law ;

( b ) to other relatives of the deceased , related by blood or marriage , if the deceased was providing for their subsistence in whole or in part at the time of death or was obliged so to do pursuant to a judicial decision ;

( c ) to anyone who lived with the deceased in a family unit ( in gezinsverband ) before the occurrence on which the liability is based and whose subsistence [ the deceased ] provided for in whole or in significant part , to the extent that it may be assumed that this situation would have continued had the death not occurred , and if such persons can not now reasonably provide sufficiently for themselves ;

( d ) to anyone who lived with the deceased in a family unit and to whose subsistence the deceased contributed to by doing their joint housekeeping , to the extent that [ that person ] suffers damage as a result of the need to make alternative housekeeping arrangements following the death .

Furthermore , the person liable shall be obliged to refund the funeral expenses to the person who has borne these costs , to the extent that they are consistent with the deceased ’s condition in life ( omstandigheden ) .

Anyone who is sued for damages pursuant to the foregoing paragraphs shall be entitled to the same defence as would have been available to him vis - à - vis the deceased . ”

“ CARDINAL . Anyone who commits against another person a tortious act ( onrechtmatige daad ) which is imputable to him shall be required to make good the damage suffered by that other person .

A tortious act shall be constituted by the impairment of a right , or an act or omission violating a statutory duty or a rule of unwritten law pertaining to proper social conduct , except where there is a legal ground of justification .

A tortious act shall be imputable to a tortfeasor if it has been brought about through his fault or if he is answerable for the cause thereof in accordance with the law or received opinion . ”

On DATE ORG gave a decision ( no . RCARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINALSv ) in proceedings under LAW in another case involving a death caused by a police officer ’s use of his service firearm . It contains the following reasoning :

“ In the opinion of ORG , a criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the lethal use of force by a public authority ( een opsporingsonderzoek dat is gericht op de toedracht van letaal overheidsgeweld ) [ carried out ] by an institution such as ORG sufficiently meets the requirement that the investigating officials who actually undertake the investigative work ( recherchewerk ) should be independent from those involved in the said use of force by the public authority . In addition , ORG considers the public prosecutor sufficiently independent and qualified to assess , by objective standards , in the light of the results of the investigation carried out under his responsibility , whether a prosecution should be brought . Except for the ( investigating ) judge , no other public official should , in principle , be involved in the matter .

ORG considers it necessary that a reconstruction of events take place under the responsibility of the investigating judge , an independent official par excellence , with the co - operation of [ the police officer involved ] and eyewitnesses . ...

It should be noted already at this stage that ORG is allowing for the possibility that in this case it can not be found that merely stopping [ the deceased ] by a blocking gesture – a suggestion made by CARDINAL eyewitness – and the use of pepper spray may be considered realistic alternatives for the shot fired and stated by [ the police officer ] to have been in self - defence , given the considerable likelihood that those methods might prove ineffective in the circumstances described . On the other hand , ORG does not wish to impose constraints on the investigation by the investigating judge .

ORG will therefore order [ the public prosecutor ] to apply for a preliminary judicial investigation ( gerechtelijk vooronderzoek ) . It will then be for the public prosecutor to assess whether the investigation results constitute grounds for further , more detailed investigations , or committal for trial , as the case may be , or in the alternative , whether consent should be sought for issuing notice that the prosecution will not be pursued . ... ”

The PERSON PCARDINAL is a double - action semi - automatic pistol . It has a number of safety features , including an internal firing - pin retaining mechanism which prevents the firing - pin from striking the primer of the cartridge unless the trigger is pressed all the way through . This enables the weapon to be carried safely with a round chambered and ready for immediate use while preventing its being fired accidentally .

NORP In the version issued to the GPE police , the PERSON PCARDINAL fires a CARDINALxCARDINAL PERSON ( also known as QUANTITY or QUANTITY ) cartridge . The ammunition issued as standard , “ Action CARDINAL ” manufactured in GPE by ORG , has a bullet which is designed specifically for police work . This bullet , a non - deforming hollow one made out of a brass alloy , sheds much of its kinetic energy when it hits a solid object ( a human body for example ) , which in riots or hostage - taking situations may prevent it from wounding someone other than the intended target unintentionally while at the same time causing the least possible damage to body tissue .