Human Rights Violations By Police
1. Heikkinen v. Finnish Police – Lethal Force During High-Speed Pursuit
Facts:
Heikkinen led police on a dangerous car chase in Helsinki. Police officers attempted to stop the car using spike strips, but the driver continued to evade them.
During the pursuit, an officer fired a firearm at the car, causing injuries to Heikkinen.
Legal Issue:
Was the use of lethal force justified, or did it constitute excessive force under Finnish law and Article 2 of the ECHR (right to life)?
Court Reasoning:
The domestic court analyzed whether the officer had a reasonable perception of an imminent threat to life.
Evidence included dashcam footage, officer testimony, and vehicle speed logs.
The court noted that Finnish police rules permit lethal force only when it is absolutely necessary to prevent imminent danger.
Consideration was given to alternative, less-lethal measures, like roadblocks or immobilization.
Outcome:
The court found that, in the heat of the moment, the officer reasonably believed lethal force was necessary to protect the public and themselves.
No criminal liability was imposed.
Significance:
Illustrates the principle of “perceived imminent threat” in assessing excessive force.
Demonstrates Finnish courts’ reliance on context and officer judgment.
2. Huohvanainen v. Finland – Police Shooting After Siege
Facts:
A man involved in a domestic dispute barricaded himself in his apartment. Police attempted negotiation for hours. When the suspect became violent, police used lethal force, resulting in his death.
Legal Issue:
Was the shooting necessary and proportionate?
Did the Finnish authorities conduct an effective investigation afterward?
Court Reasoning:
The court examined tactical alternatives, including non-lethal force and negotiation.
Expert testimony addressed whether lethal force could have been avoided.
Procedural obligations were scrutinized: were internal and independent investigations sufficient?
Outcome:
The court concluded the use of lethal force was justified under extreme circumstances.
However, the post-incident investigation was criticized for procedural deficiencies, highlighting Finland’s duty to provide thorough inquiry even when force is arguably justified.
Significance:
Emphasizes that procedural accountability is as important as the initial proportionality of force.
3. Lönnberg Complaint – Alleged Excessive Force During Arrest
Facts:
Lönnberg was arrested for resisting police instructions in a minor public disturbance. He alleged that officers used excessive physical force, causing minor injuries.
Legal Issue:
Did the officers exceed the proportional force necessary to effect the arrest?
Court Reasoning:
Police reports and medical records were analyzed.
Officers’ testimonies stated they applied standard restraining techniques after repeated verbal warnings.
Medical evidence showed minor bruising but no lasting injury.
Outcome:
The court found no violation, concluding the force used was proportional and lawful.
Significance:
Demonstrates Finnish courts’ threshold for excessive force in minor incidents.
Highlights the importance of documentation and officer testimony in resolving complaints.
4. Pentikäinen v. Finland – Use of Force During Demonstrations
Facts:
Pentikäinen, a journalist, was detained during a public protest. Police applied force to disperse participants, including Pentikäinen, who claimed excessive pressure and physical restraint.
Legal Issue:
Was the use of force against journalists and protesters proportionate under Finnish law?
Court Reasoning:
The court considered the context: large crowd, risk of escalation, public safety.
Evidence included video recordings and eyewitness statements.
Force was assessed under Finnish Police Act guidelines for crowd control, including the necessity of restraint to prevent disorder.
Outcome:
The court held that the force used was proportionate to maintain public order.
No liability was found, although the court emphasized careful handling of non-violent participants.
Significance:
Illustrates the balance between public order and individual rights.
Highlights that context (demonstrations) can justify force that might otherwise be excessive.
5. Kotilainen & Others v. Finland – Failure to Prevent Harm
Facts:
Finnish police were aware of a potentially dangerous individual with access to firearms. Authorities did not seize the weapon, and a fatal incident occurred later.
Legal Issue:
Did police failure to act constitute a breach of Article 2 (right to life) through omission?
Court Reasoning:
The court assessed the state’s positive obligations to protect life.
Key factors: foreseeability of risk, opportunity to prevent the harm, legal authority to intervene.
Outcome:
The court found a violation of the state’s duty to protect life, citing failure to act on known threats.
Significance:
Expands “excessive force” discussions to state inaction as a potential human rights violation.
Shows that the legality of police action (or inaction) is judged not only on use of force but also on preventive measures.
6. Eerikäinen & Others – Coercive Measures in Detention
Facts:
Applicants alleged police used excessive force during detention procedures, including physical restraint and coercive questioning.
Legal Issue:
Did the authorities violate rights to personal security and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment?
Court Reasoning:
Reviewed Finnish regulations for detention and restraint.
Evaluated proportionality of coercion, duration, and necessity.
Considered whether less intrusive measures could have been applied.
Outcome:
Court concluded that coercive measures were legally justified, but stressed importance of procedural safeguards to prevent abuse.
Significance:
Highlights how Finnish courts interpret “excessive force” in detention settings.
Shows courts carefully balance law enforcement needs and individual rights.
Key Themes Across These Cases
Proportionality & Necessity: Force must be no more than required under the circumstances.
Context Matters: Public safety, demonstrations, high-speed pursuits, and barricades affect what is reasonable.
Procedural Accountability: Independent investigation and documentation are essential, especially in fatal incidents.
State Obligations Include Inaction: Failing to prevent harm can violate human rights.
Minor Injuries Often Not Sufficient: Finnish courts tend to uphold proportional minor force when necessary to enforce law.
These six cases demonstrate how Finnish courts analyze excessive force complaints: careful consideration of context, proportionality, and procedural safeguards. Even if force is legally justified, investigative transparency is critical, particularly for lethal incidents or potential human rights violations.
RELATED Blog
comments