The article contains a limited exception for the cases of lawful executions and sets out strictly controlled circumstances in which the deprivation of life may be justified.
The court first considered the obligations imposed by Article 2 in the case of McCann and Others v United Kingdom brought by the relatives of three individuals shot by members of the SAS in Gibraltar.
In the case of Osman v UK, the claimant contended that the police authority should have been more alert to the obsessive behaviour of Paget-Lewis and his targeting of their son, however there was found to be no risk of life endangerment.
For instance, LCB v UK establishes a positive obligation for states to take "appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction.
[9] Similarly, in the case of Öneryildiz v Turkey, the Grand Chamber also emphasised the positive obligation on the State to take the 'appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 2' as well as stating that the Article 2 protection 'could be relied on in connection with the operation of waste-collection sites, on account of the potential risks'.
[17] Although there was found to be no breach, the court acknowledged the obligation of States to safeguard lives within the jurisdiction, by not denying healthcare which is made to be available to the general population.
[18] The facts of this case include an applicant who, reliant on Article 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention, claimed her husband died by torture in police custody and that she was unable to receive an effective remedy regarding the complaint.
[18] It was held that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, due to authorities' lack of adequate investigation into the suspicious death of Agit Salman in custody.
[18] The case of Calvelli and Ciglio v Italy entailed a delay by police in investigation of a baby's death, causing the prosecution against the negligent doctor to be time-barred.
[19] The applicants argued that the procedural delays that created obstacles to prosecution, breached Article 2's requirement that the right to life is protected by law.
[19] The case was considered admissible, however in the Grand Chamber there was held to be no violation, as the applicants waived their right to pursue civil proceedings due to a settlement with insurers.
[24] The case of Hugh Jordan v UK states that the investigation can vary so long as it meets the strict requirements of effectiveness.
There are three conditions set by the court: Key rulings in this matter are McCann and Others v United Kingdom,[1] Makaratzis v Greece,[11] and Nachova and others v Bulgaria.
[28] Nachova and others v Bulgaria concerns two men who were killed by military police in 1996, and it was alleged by the applicants that the State failed to protect life by law and there was inadequate investigation into the event, therefore breaching Article 2.
[32] Some countries provide legal access to assisted dying, which is completely voluntary and under the control of the dying person rather than a doctor; these countries include: New Zealand (for terminally ill adults), Australia, Canada, Switzerland (however euthanasia is illegal) and some states in the USA including Oregon, Washington and California.
[36] The case of Lambert and Others v France outlines the importance of the margin of appreciation when the court is assessing the positive obligation of the State under Article 2.
In the case of Paton v United Kingdom it was established that if Article 2 were to include in its protection the life of a foetus, then abortion would have to be prohibited even in life-threatening circumstances.
[11] No death resulted but there was found to be liability as the nature of the incident could have been lethal, thus the inadequacy of planning and conduct of the officers constituted a breach.
This has also been a criticism of dissenting judges in McCann v UK, who stated that the courts should be wary of the benefits of hindsight in their finding of a breach of Article 3 on the case.
The signatory states did not incorporate the 4th derogation of shooting to stop access to certain facilities which was suggested at the time of writing of the treaty.