## Facts

- Pearse Jordan, age 22, was shot and killed in Belfast on November 25, 1992, by a Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officer (“Sergeant A”) during an operation targeting a suspected IRA member.
- After Jordan’s car was stopped, he fled on foot; civilian witnesses stated he was unarmed and was shot without warning, while the officer asserted warnings were given and he could not see Jordan’s hands.
- The RUC conducted the initial investigation into the shooting.
- About one year later, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) decided not to prosecute any officer for insufficient evidence; reasons were not fully disclosed to the family.
- A coroner’s inquest opened in January 1995; the coroner restricted disclosure of materials and granted anonymity to certain witnesses, including some security-force personnel.
- Under then-applicable inquest rules, potentially implicated individuals could not be compelled to testify; Sergeant A did not give evidence at the inquest.
- The Jordan family was denied legal aid for inquest representation, limiting their effective participation and contributing to delay.
- The family also pursued a domestic civil action for damages, which remained pending during the Strasbourg proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the use of lethal force against Pearse Jordan was “absolutely necessary,” violating the substantive obligation under Article 2 (right to life).
2. Whether the United Kingdom violated Article 2’s procedural obligation by failing to conduct an independent, effective, prompt, sufficiently public investigation with adequate family involvement.
3. Whether the investigative shortcomings and available procedures violated Articles 6 (fair hearing), 13 (effective remedy), and 14 (non-discrimination), alone or with Article 2.

## Decision

- The court found no violation of Article 2 on the substantive use-of-force claim because the evidence did not establish, to the required standard, that the lethal force was unnecessary or disproportionate.
- The court found a violation of Article 2’s procedural limb because the investigative framework and its application were not sufficiently independent, effective, prompt, or subject to adequate public scrutiny, and did not adequately involve the next of kin.
- The court found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 because domestic law did not provide an effective remedy for an arguable Article 2 complaint in light of the investigative deficiencies.
- The court found no separate violation of Article 6 § 1, treating Article 2’s procedural requirements as the more specific standard in this context.
- The court found no violation of Article 14 because discriminatory treatment was not established on the evidence.
- The applicant received £10,000 in non-pecuniary damages for the procedural Article 2 violation, plus costs and expenses.

## Legal Principles

- Article 2 requires an effective official investigation when a person is killed as a result of force used by state agents.
- An Article 2 investigation must be institutionally and practically independent from those implicated, capable of determining the facts and identifying responsibility, and reasonably prompt.
- The investigation must include a sufficient element of public scrutiny and must involve the next of kin to the extent necessary to protect their legitimate interests.
- Opacity around prosecutorial decisions (including limited disclosure of reasons) can undermine the public-scrutiny requirement under Article 2.
- Inquest limits that prevent examination of key actors (including rules making potentially implicated witnesses non-compellable) may impair the investigation’s effectiveness under Article 2.
- Where there is an arguable Article 2 violation, Article 13 requires an effective domestic remedy; deficient investigative mechanisms may result in an Article 13 breach.

## Conclusion

The court held that, although the evidence did not establish that the killing itself violated Article 2, the United Kingdom breached Article 2 procedurally and Article 13 by failing to provide an independent, prompt, transparent, and kin-inclusive investigation capable of accountability for a fatal police shooting.


Jordan v. United Kingdom, App. No. 24746/94, 37 Eur. H.R. Rep. 52 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2001)