The case of Osman v United Kingdom is a landmark decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that highlights the balance between the right to life and the state’s duty to protect its citizens. This case is significant because it clarifies the extent to which the state must take steps to protect individuals from harm by third parties. In this essay, we will analyze the facts and legal issues in the case, as well as the significance of the court’s decision.
Osman v United Kingdom Case Facts
The case of Osman v United Kingdom involved a tragic incident that occurred in the UK in 1993. Ali Osman, a teacher, had been harassed and threatened by one of his former students, Ahmet Mehmet Osman. Ali Osman reported the harassment to the police several times, but no action was taken. Eventually, Ahmet Mehmet Osman entered Ali Osman’s school and shot him, causing severe injuries that left him paralyzed.
Ali Osman and his wife brought a claim against the police for failing to protect him from harm. The Osman’s argued that the police were aware of the threats made by Ahmet Mehmet Osman and that they had a duty to take action to protect Ali Osman’s life.
Legal Issues in Osman v United Kingdom Case
The legal issues in the Osman case were whether the UK had violated Article 2 (the right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 2 states that everyone has the right to life and that no one shall be deprived of their life intentionally, except in certain limited circumstances.
The Osman’s argued that the UK had failed to take reasonable steps to protect Ali Osman’s life, which amounted to a breach of their positive obligation under Article 2. They claimed that the police had been aware of the threats made against Ali Osman and that they should have taken action to protect him.
The UK government argued that there was no evidence that the police knew or should have known that Ali Osman was at risk of serious harm. They argued that the police had acted reasonably in response to the information they had received about the threats made by Ahmet Mehmet Osman.
Osman v United Kingdom Decision
The ECtHR held that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the ECHR. The court stated that the state has a positive obligation to take measures to protect individuals from harm by third parties. The court found that the police had been aware of the threats made by Ahmet Mehmet Osman and that they should have taken steps to protect Ali Osman’s life.
The court held that the authorities had not done enough to protect Ali Osman, despite the fact that they knew he was at risk of serious harm. The court stated that the police had failed to take reasonable steps to protect Ali Osman’s life, and that this amounted to a breach of their positive obligation under Article 2.
The court also noted that the state’s positive obligation to protect individuals from harm is not absolute. The court stated that the state must take reasonable steps to protect individuals from harm, but that it is not required to take steps that are impractical or that would impose an unreasonable burden on the state.
Significance of the Decision
The Osman case is significant because it clarifies the extent to which the state must take steps to protect individuals from harm by third parties. The case established that the state has a positive obligation to protect individuals from harm, and that this obligation extends to situations where the harm is caused by a third party.
The case also established that the state’s positive obligation to protect individuals from harm is not absolute. The state must take reasonable steps to protect individuals from harm, but it is not required to take steps that are impractical or that would impose an unreasonable burden on the state.