Published on 23 June 2025

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 26624/23
Nicole Bosefo MANDUNDU and Others
against Switzerland
lodged on 23 June 2023
communicated on 3 June 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicants are close relatives of Mr B., a Congolese national who was fatally shot by the police following a confrontation in a block of flats in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland. The incident was widely reported in the Swiss media and sparked public protests against police actions.

On 6 November 2016, at 10.28 p.m., the police received a call that a black man, Mr B., had entered a flat of a sleeping neighbour, Mr G., with a large knife and blood stains and then left. Five police officers were sent to the scene. The officers M., Bl. and Br. entered the building while two others remained outside. When the officers were about two metres away from B.’s door, he opened it and stood in the doorway. The officer Bl. said "Good evening, it’s the police" and asked B. to come out into the hallway. B. replied "leave me alone". An object was then thrown from the flat into the hallway, causing a noise similar to an explosion. The officers retreated hastily. Their radios were not working properly, so they were unable to talk to each other or call for reinforcements.

Officer M., who sustained a slight lip injury, went up the stairs and pointed his gun at B.’s flat. Officer Bl. took cover near the lift while officer Br. went down one floor. Officer M. instructed officer Bl. to join officer Br. one floor below to "hold the perimeter", leaving M. alone near B.’s apartment. At around 11 p.m. a neighbour of B., Ms S., opened the door and asked what was going on. The officer M. told her to stay in and shut the door.

Suddenly, B. came out of his flat brandishing a kitchen knife with a blade of about 20 cm and moved towards M., who tried to pull out his baton or pepper spray, but to no avail. Officer M. then fled up the stairs and reached the door of Mr G., a neighbour at the end of the hallway, which he pushed open and closed behind him. He tried unsuccessfully to radio his colleagues.

Officer Bl. heard the commotion and ran quickly up the stairs, followed by Officer Br., who drew her weapon. As Bl. reached the landing, he saw B. coming down the stairs towards him with the knife raised above his head. Despite two verbal warnings from Officer Bl. ("Stop, police"), B. continued to advance. Officer Bl. then drew his weapon and fired three shots. The first bullet ricocheted off a step and hit the ceiling and a wall. The second bullet hit B.’s right thigh from a distance of 80-125 cm. The third bullet hit B.’s chest from a distance of 70-90 cm. B. collapsed at officer Bl.’s feet. At 10.48 p.m., and then several times afterwards, the officers called the police and asked them to send an ambulance. B. was pronounced dead at a local hospital, at 11.41 p.m. It appears that the residents of the block of flats did not witness the incident, but several of them heard the events unfold. Subsequently, no crime scene examination nor incident reconstruction were carried out.

As a result of the ensuing criminal investigation, it was established that B. had traces of several narcotics in his blood. Several forensic and ballistic expert examinations were carried out, which were then examined by the District of Vevey Criminal Court, which found on 31 March 2021 that the actions of Officer Bl. were justified and proportionate and acquitted him. On 23 August 2023, the Criminal Appeal Court of the Canton of Vaud, and, then, on 24 February 2023, the Criminal Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court confirmed this decision on appeal.

Relying on Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain that unnecessary and disproportionate lethal force was used against their relative B. and that the investigation into the matter was ineffective.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Has the right to life of the applicant’s relative Mr B., ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, did his death result from a use of force which was absolutely necessary (see, for example, Wasilewska and Kałucka v. Poland, nos. 28975/04 and 33406/04, § 57, 23 February 2010, and Yukhymovych v. Ukraine, no. 11464/12, §§ 68 and 83, 17 December 2020)?

2.  Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

Application no. 26624/23