On March 31, 2020, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of the plaintiff in Andreea-Marusi Dumitru v. Romania [3]. In November 2005, Dumitru was shot and wounded by police in a Romanian train depot. In 2006, “the applicant lodged a criminal complaint for attempted murder.” Having been denied an appeal by the Bucharest District Court in 2015, Dumitru brought it to the ECHR in 2016. There she claimed violations of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, saying “the investigation … [into her injury by a police officer] had not complied with … [Romania’s] procedural obligations,” and Article 6, arguing “the length of the investigation [into her criminal complaint] had been excessive.” In regards to the substantive aspects of Article 2, “the Court found that the police officer had not taken adequate precautions to protect human life, in a context of a lack of detailed rules on the use of firearms by the law-enforcement agencies and shortcomings in the planning of the police operation.” Regarding the procedural aspect of Article 2, it found that the investigation was not “prompt and effective,” citing “[s]hortcomings in the taking of evidence” and the excessive amount of time between the initial event and the Bucharest District Court’s final judgement (more than nine years). Regarding the alleged violation of Article 6, “the Court considered that no … issue arose under Article 6” that had not been addressed in its review of the procedural aspect of Article 2. To cover damages and costs and expenses, “[t]he Court held that Romania was to pay the applicant” 28,270 euros.