The family of Jean Charles de Menezes have lost a human rights challenge against the decision not to charge any individual police officer over his death.
A case brought by relatives of the Brazilian, who was mistaken for a suicide bomber and shot dead by marksmen on a London Tube train more than a decade ago, was rejected by European judges.
Lawyers for the family argued the assessment used by prosecutors is incompatible with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which covers the right to life.
However, the European Court of Human Rights' Grand Chamber found there had been no violation.
Mr de Menezes's cousin Patricia da Silva Armani said the family are "deeply disappointed".
She said: "We had hoped that the ruling would give a glimmer of hope, not only to us, but to all other families who have been denied the right to justice after deaths at the hands of the police.
"We find it unbelievable that our innocent cousin could be shot seven times in the head by the Metropolitan police when he had done nothing wrong and yet the police have not had to account for their actions.
"As we have always maintained, we feel that decisions about guilt and innocence should be made by juries, not by faceless bureaucrats and we are deeply saddened that we have been denied that opportunity yet again."
The case centred on an argument that the test applied by the Crown Prosecution Service when determining whether charges should be brought - that there should be sufficient evidence for a "realistic prospect" of conviction - is too high a threshold.
However, the Strasbourg court's judgment concluded that "it cannot be said that the domestic authorities have failed to discharge the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to conduct an effective investigation into the shooting of Mr de Menezes which was capable of leading to the establishment of the facts, a determination of whether the force used was or was not justified in the circumstances and of identifying and - if appropriate - punishing those responsible".
It found Article 2 did not require the test to be lowered in cases where deaths occurred at the hands of state agents.
The court considered that all aspects of the authorities' responsibility for the shooting had been thoroughly investigated.
The decision not to prosecute any individual officer was "due to the fact that, following a thorough investigation, a prosecutor considered all the facts of the case and concluded that there was insufficient evidence against any individual officer to meet the threshold evidential test in respect of any criminal offence," the judgment added.
The complaint also challenged the domestic definition of self-defence but the court found the test applied was not significantly different from its own standard.
The Justice4Jean campaign said the ECHR ruling "fails not only the family of Jean Charles de Menezes but all families seeking accountability after deaths at the hands of the state".
Family solicitor Harriet Wistrich expressed disappointment at the decision but noted that four of the 17 judges dissented.
Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot dead by Metropolitan Police firearms officers at Stockwell Underground station in south London on July 22 2005.
The following year the CPS announced that no individual should be charged. In 2007 the Met was fined £175,000 after being convicted of breaching health and safety laws.
An inquest jury later rejected the police account of the shooting and returned an open verdict. The coroner had already ruled out a verdict of unlawful killing.
In 2009, the family of the electrician agreed an undisclosed settlement with Scotland Yard.
A government spokesman said it "considers the Strasbourg court has handed down the right judgment", adding: "The facts of this case are tragic, but the Government considers that the court has upheld the important principle that individuals are only prosecuted where there is a realistic prospect of conviction."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article