CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 9 juillet 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sB1AFDE2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:14pt } .s2348ECBC { width:232.5pt; display:inline-block } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s87E7BBAE { width:202.76pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF MAFALANI v. CROATIA   (Application no. 32325/13)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   9 July 2015       FINAL   09/10/2015   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mafalani v. Croatia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 June 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 32325/13) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Croatian national, Mr Amir Mafalani (“the applicant”), on 6 May 2013. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms L. Horvat, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, ill-treatment during his arrest and police custody, and absence of an effective investigation in that respect. 4.     On 8 November 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1982 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Lepoglava. A.     Background to the case 6.     On 23 October 2008 I.P., a well-known Croatian journalist, and his business associate N.F. were killed by the explosion of an improvised device placed under I.P.’s car, which was parked in front of his publishing company. The explosion also caused injuries to two employees of the publishing company and considerable material damage on the surrounding buildings and nearby parked cars. 7.     On 23 October 2009 the State Attorney’s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime ( Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta ; hereinafter: the “State Attorney’s Organised Crime Office”) indicted several persons in the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) on charges of conspiracy to kill I.P. and for putting that into action. The applicant was indicted for having participated in the group by aiding and abetting the direct perpetrators. 8.     On 3 November 2010 the Zagreb County Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to sixteen years’ imprisonment. 9.     The applicant’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) on 8 February 2012. B.     The applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by the police 10.     Following the attack against I.P. and his publishing company, the intelligence available to the police showed that the applicant and several other persons could be implicated in the events and it was therefore decided to arrest them. 11.     The Police Director ( Glavni Ravnatelj Policije ) issued an oral order that the arrests be carried out by an antiterrorist team of the Special Police Forces ( Specijalna policija, Antiteroristička jedinica Lučko ; hereinafter: the “ATJ”). 12.     On 29 October 2008, at around 6.05 p.m., the ATJ stormed into the applicant’s flat, where he was at the moment together with his sister and grandmother. 13.     According to the applicant, immediately after breaking into the flat, the AJT officers threw him on the floor and started punching him over the head and body. 14.     According to the Government, an ATJ team of six officers broke into the applicant’s flat and ordered him to lie down. As he started resisting, the police officers applied the throwing technique of “foot sweep”, which made the applicant to lose his balance and while falling on the ground he hit the table with his head. He was immediately offered medical assistance but he refused. 15.     A report available to the Court signed by the Commander-in-chief of the Special Police Forces ( Zapovjednik Specijalne Policije ) of 30 October 2008, which is essentially a verbatim of a report of one of the arresting ATJ officers (see paragraph 36 below), in its relevant part concerning the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest, reads: “... the intervention with a view to arrest [the applicant] started by the ATJ officers forceful breaking the front doors using the [battering ram]. Inside the flat they found the suspect and an older woman to whom they issued several orders: “Police, lie down on the floor”. As the suspect resisted, two officers approached him and grabbed him by the arms but he continued to resist. [The officers] then applied the technique of foot sweep and pulled him to the ground. As he was still trying to set himself free he was handcuffed. While he was falling on the ground he hit the table with his face ... Afterwards ... [the officers] offered to the suspect medical assistance but he refused it saying that he felt good.” 16.     According to the applicant, following his arrest he was blindfolded and taken to a remote place by a river, where he was again beaten up and his head was immersed in the water, forcing him to confess to the murders of I.P. and N.F. and some other crimes. The police officers also continued to beat him up while taking him to the police station. 17.     According to the Government, following the applicant’s arrest he was taken to the parking area of the police station used by the Organised Crime Unit of the Zagreb Police Department ( Policijska uprava zagrebačka, Sektor kriminalističke policije, Odjel organiziranog kriminaliteta ; hereinafter: the “police”) where he was kept in the minivan of the ATJ in the period between 6.45 and 8.30 p.m., awaiting other suspects to be arrested and brought to the police station. 18.     The available report of the arresting ATJ officer (see paragraph 36 below) in this respect indicates that the applicant was brought to the parking area of the police station at 7.00 p.m. where he was kept in the minivan of the ATJ until 7.40 p.m. and then surrendered to the police inspectors. 19.     Once when he was brought to the police station on 29 October 2008 at around 8.30 p.m. the applicant was placed in a room under the control of two police inspectors M.A. and M.M. 20.     According to reports of these two police inspectors dated 18 April and 14 May 2012 respectively, the applicant was for a while guarded by an ATJ officer but then, at unspecified time, they requested that officer to leave the room. The police inspectors also submitted that the applicant had been handcuffed when he was brought to the police station and then, at unspecified time but sometimes soon after his arrival, the handcuffs were taken off. They also acknowledged that they had seen visible injuries on the applicant’s head and nose for which he had been allegedly offered medical assistance but he had refused it. The emergency had been called in only after the order of their superiors. 21.     The emergency service came to the police station on the same day at 10.55 p.m. The relevant record of the applicant’s examination, in so far as legible, reads: “Brought to the police station. Visible open injury above the left eye; 1,5   centimetre long. Contusion and haematoma of the nose with the possible fracture. Regular general status. The patient refuses to go to the hospital and further treatment.” 22.     The applicant stayed in the police station until 30 October 2008 at 8.30 p.m. During that period he was taken to searches of his house and car and he was questioned by the police inspectors M.A. and M.M. in the presence of a lawyer and a Deputy at the State Attorney’s Organised Crime Office. 23.     According to the applicant, throughout his stay in the police station he was tightly constrained, beaten and threatened that he should make no problems concerning his injuries. 24.     According to the Government, during his stay in the police station the applicant was kept in one of the offices ordinarily used by the police officers. Apart from several minutes upon his arrival to the police station, the applicant was not handcuffed. He also had access to the toilet and drinking water. He was obliged to sit on a chair as there were no beds but it was impossible to take him to the detention unit as the investigative actions were still ongoing. In any case, he had an opportunity to ask for a rest and food but he did not make any such request. 25.     On 30 October 2008, at around 8.30 p.m., the applicant was taken to the Police Detention and Escort Unit ( Jedinica za zadržavanje i prepratu ; hereinafter: “JZP”) for a rest. A report accompanying his transfer, signed by the Chief of the police and dated 30 October 2008 indicated, inter alia , that he had no visible injuries. 26.     A report signed by the on-duty officer at JZP, dated 30 October 2008, indicated that the applicant was admitted to the detention unit with visible injuries of his face. 27.     According to the applicant, during his stay in JZP he was offered a sandwich but he could not eat due to a strong jaw pain. 28.     According to the Government, during his stay in JZP the applicant was placed in a room which was equipped with beds and sanitary facility. The room was appropriately heated and ventilated and had access to natural and artificial light. The hygiene and sanitary conditions were good and the applicant was provided with food and water. 29.     On 31 October 2008 at 9.15 a.m. the police took the applicant from JZP to participate in a further search of his premises. 30.     On the same day, at around 6.45 p.m., the applicant was brought for questioning before an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court. He decided to remain silent concerning the charges held against him, but with regard to his injuries the applicant stressed: “The only thing I would point out is that before I was taken in [to the police station] I fell in my flat and according to the findings of the doctors who were called in to the police station, I sustained a nose fracture, most probably with dislocation. I refused the medical assistance in order to get out from the police station as soon as possible.” 31.     The investigating judge put no additional questions concerning this matter nor did he take any further actions in that respect. 32.     Following the applicant’s questioning, an investigation into the explosion was opened in respect of him and several other persons. At the same time, an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court ordered his pre-trial detention. 33.     On 3 November 2008 the applicant was examined in Zagreb Prison Hospital ( Zatvorska bolnica u Zagrebu ) and several medical records were drafted. 34.     One medical record available to the Court indicates that the applicant sustained his injuries after a fall on 30 October 2008, whereas two other medical reports refer to several blows on the applicant’s head and nose. 35.     Based on his medical examination in Zagreb Prison Hospital, the applicant was diagnosed with contusions of head, nose and shoulder and a nose fracture without dislocation, as well as a distortion of a metal implant in his hand related to an old injury. His general medical condition at the time was regular and he had a smaller hematoma on the left side of his head and nose and smaller hematomas below both eyes. He also had a smaller hematoma on the left shoulder and a visible dislocation of the metal implant in his hand but without a fresh fracture. In July 2009 the applicant again saw a doctor who indicated testicular problems. C.     Investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment 36.     On 29 October 2008 one of the arresting ATJ officers reported on the applicant’s arrest to the Commander of the ATJ. In his report, he indicated that the ATJ had been requested to arrest the applicant in connection with a suspicion of double murder. The report also provides the details of the arrest already observed above (see paragraphs 15 and 18 above). 37.     On 30 October 2008 the Commander of the ATJ requested the Commander-in-chief of the Special Police Forces to assess the lawfulness of the ATJ’s actions; and the latter forwarded that request to the Police Director. 38.     On the same day the Police Director assessed the reports concerning the ATJ actions by indicating the following: “This is to inform you that I find the use of force, namely the physical force and the measures of restraint, used by the ATJ team on 29 October 2008 during the arrest of Amir Mafalani ... lawful within the meaning of sections 54, 55 and 57 of the Police Act and sections 30, 31, 32 and 35 of the By-law on the police conduct.” 39.     In October 2011 the applicant, through lawyers, requested Zagreb Prison Hospital and the emergency services to provide him the relevant medical records concerning the injuries he had sustained during his arrest on 29 October 2008. He also requested the police to provide him the relevant documents related to his arrest. 40.     On 2 November 2011 the police replied that all relevant reports were confidential and could not be disclosed. This reply was forwarded for information to the State Attorney’s Organised Crime Office. 41.     On 11 November 2011, after receiving the reply, the applicant complained to the State Attorney’s Organised Crime Office asking why an effective investigation, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, had not been conducted. 42.     The State Attorney’s Organised Crime Office replied on 16   November 2011, indicating that the applicant should consult the relevant domestic law on the use of police force and that, in case of any complaint to that effect, he could always lodge a criminal complaint with the competent State Attorney’s Office. 43.     In the meantime, the applicant obtained the requested medical records. 44.     On 15 February 2012 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu ) against unidentified perpetrators alleging ill-treatment during his arrest and stay in the police station. 45.     On 20 February 2012 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office informed the applicant that his criminal complaint had been forwarded to the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office ( Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu ) for further examination. 46.     On 3 March 2014 the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office rejected the applicant’s criminal complaint on the grounds that there was no reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed. It relied on a written report of the Police Director and written reports of the police inspectors M.A. and M.M. It also observed the applicant’s medical documentation and search and seizure records as well as the interrogation records in the criminal proceedings against him. D.     The applicant’s civil proceedings against the State 47.     On 31 January 2012 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court ( Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu ) against the State claiming damages in connection with his alleged ill-treatment by the police during his arrest and stay in the police station. 48.     The Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office, representing the State, challenged the applicant’s civil action on the grounds that the police had acted in accordance with the law and that their use of force had been caused by the applicant’s conduct. 49.     During the proceedings, the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court heard the applicant and several witnesses, including the applicant’s sister and grandmother, one of the applicant’s co-suspects and the police inspectors M.A. and M.M. , as well as the Police Director. 50.     The applicant’s grandmother testified that she had seen the police officers immediately attacking and hitting the applicant as they had entered the flat, and his sister confirmed that she had heard him screaming and had also seen him being dragged around by the police. 51.     The applicant’s co-suspect in his testimony submitted that he had seen the applicant seriously injured in the police station, while the police inspectors M.A. and M.M. denied any ill-treatment, as did the Police Director who also stated that the police had monopoly of the use of force. 52.     In his statement of 14 January 2015 the applicant contended that during his arrest he had been severely beaten by the ATJ officers all over his head and body. Afterwards he had been taken near a river and again beaten, subjected to mock execution and immersed in the water. When he was finally brought to the police station, the uniformed police officers continued to beat him with the acquiescence of the police inspectors M.A. and M.M. He was also tightly constrained to a chair and at one point, while he was dragged from one office to another, he felt strong pain in his shoulder. Later on, during his transfer to the investigating judge, two uniformed police officers who escorted him said that he should say nothing about the ill-treatment and that he would soon go home. In the ensuing period, he started feeling various health problems related to the ill-treatment and has been seeing doctors regularly. 53.     The civil proceedings are still pending. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     Constitution 54.     The relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia ( Ustav Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette nos. 56/1990, 135/1997, 8/1998, 113/2000, 124/2000, 28/2001, 41/2001, 55/2001, 76/2010 and 85/2010) read as follows: Article 23 “No one shall be subjected to any form of ill-treatment ...” Article 25 “All detainees and convicted persons shall be treated in a humane manner and with respect for their dignity.” B.     Criminal Code 55.     The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code ( Kazneni zakon , Official Gazette nos. 110/1997, 27/1998, 50/2000, 129/2000, 51/2001, 111/2003, 190/2003, 105/2004, 84/2005, 71/2006 and 110/2007) provide: Article 8 “(1)     Criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences shall be instituted by the State Attorney’s Office in the interest of the Republic of Croatia and its citizens.” Ill-treatment in the performance of official authority Article 127 “(1)     Official, who in the performance of his or her official or public authority, ill-treats or offends another person or otherwise diminishes his or her dignity, shall be punished by imprisonment between three months and three years.” Torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment Article 176 “Official or other person, acting under the incitement or tacit or explicit acquiescence of the official, who inflicts physical or mental pain to another, or causes him or her severe physical or mental suffering in order to illicit from that person or another information or confession, or in order to punish him or her for an offence which he or she or any other person committed or for which he or she is suspected of, or to intimidate him or her or put other form of pressure, or for any other reason related to any form of discrimination, shall be punished by imprisonment between one and eight years.” C.     Code of Criminal Procedure 56.     The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , Official Gazette nos. 110/1997, 27/1998, 58/1999, 112/1999, 58/2002 and 62/2003) at the material time provided: Article 2 “(1)     Criminal proceedings shall only be instituted and conducted upon the order of a qualified prosecutor. ... (2)     In respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution the qualified prosecutor shall be the State Attorney and in respect of criminal offences that may be prosecuted privately the qualified prosecutor shall be a private prosecutor. (3)     Unless otherwise provided by law, the State Attorney shall undertake a criminal prosecution where there is a reasonable suspicion that an identified person has committed a criminal offence subject to public prosecution and where there are no legal impediments to the prosecution of that person. ...” Article 171 “(1)     All state bodies and legal entities shall report any criminal offence that is subject to official prosecution about which they have been informed or about which they have otherwise learnt. ...” Article 173 “(1)     Criminal complaints shall be submitted to the competent State Attorney in writing or orally. ... (3)     If a criminal complaint has been submitted before a court, the police or a State Attorney who is not competent to deal with the matter, they shall forward the criminal complaint to the competent State Attorney.” 57.     On 18 December 2008 a new Code of Criminal Procedure was enacted (Official Gazette, nos. 152/2008, 76/2009, 80/2011, 121/2011, 91/2012, 143/2012, 56/2013, 145/2013 and 152/2014). It fully came into force on 1 September 2011 but provided no substantial amendments with regard to the provisions relevant for the case at issue. D.     Police Act 58.     The relevant provisions of the Police Act ( Zakon o policiji , Official Gazette, nos. 129/2000 and 41/2008) read: Use of force Section 54 “The use of force within the meaning of this Act shall be the use of: physical force, ... measures of restraint ... The force may be used to protect human lives, surmounting resistance, to prevent escape or resist an attack, when warnings and orders are insufficient. A police officer shall use the minimum force necessary to achieve the desired result. An individual, in respect of whom force may be used, shall not be warned if the warning could jeopardise the performance of the official action.” Use of physical force Section 55 “Physical force within the meaning of this Act shall be the use of martial arts techniques or similar actions on the body of a person, which are taken for the purpose of resisting an attack or surmounting the resistance by causing minimum harm.” Measures of restraint Section 57 “Measures of restraint may be used: 1. to surmount the resistance or to resist the attack against a police officer, 2. to prevent the escape of a person, 3. to prevent self-injury or injury to another person.” E.     By-law on the police conduct 59.     The relevant provisions of the By-law on the police conduct ( Pravilnik o načinu policijskog postupanja , Official Gazette no. 81/2003) provide: Use of force General provisions Section 30 “Police officer may use force for one of the reasons provided for in the Police Act if warning and orders are insufficient to achieve the desired result. The police officer, in cases referred to in paragraph 1 of this section, shall use the measure of force which, by causing minimum consequences to the person in respect of whom the measure is taken, guarantees success of the police action.” Section 31 “Police officer shall without any delay provide and secure medical assistance to a person with visible injuries in respect of whom force has been used.” Use of physical force Section 32 “Police officer has the right to use physical force in order to surmount resistance of a person breaching the public peace and order, or in respect of a person who should be brought in [before the competent authority], confined or arrested, or in order to resist attack against [the police officer] or another person or object or premises under his control. The use of physical force shall mean the use of ... other techniques of defence or attack capable to secure obedience of the person who, with his or her conduct, obstructs the enforcement of a police action or carries out an attack ... The police officer shall terminate the use of physical force once when the attack or resistance has ceased.” Measures of restraint Section 35 “The use of measures of restraint is restriction of the freedom of movement ... The measure under paragraph 1 of this section shall be used in a manner securing that it does not cause unnecessary physical injuries to the person restrained. ” F.     Decree on the internal organisation of the Ministry of the Interior 60.     The provisions of the relevant Decree on the internal organisation of the Ministry of the Interior ( Uredba o unutarnjem ustrojstvu Ministarstva unutarnjih poslova ; of 14 December 2000 with further amendments published in the Official Gazette no. 17/2011) read: Section 9 “... (2) The Police Directorate shall consist of the following units: ... 6. Command Centre of the Special Police Forces, ... (3) The Police Directorate shall be managed by the Police Director ... Section 59 “The Command Centre of the Special Police Forces commands and manages ... the ATJ ...   ... The Command Centre of the Special Police Forces shall be commanded by the Commander-in-chief who is responsible to the Police Director.” G.     Civil Obligations Act 61.     The relevant part of the Civil Obligations Act ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , Official Gazette nos. 35/2005 and 41/2008), reads as follows: Section 1046 “Damage is ... infringement of the right to respect for one’s personal dignity (non-pecuniary damage).” H.     State Administration System Act 62.     The relevant provision of the State Administration System Act ( Zakon o sustavu državne uprave , Official Gazette no. 150/2011), reads as follows: Section 14 “Damage caused to a citizen, legal entity or any other party by an illegal or improper act on the part of a State administration body, local administration body or any legal entity with public powers in the exercise of its authority shall be redressed by the Republic of Croatia.” III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL A.     The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment visit to Croatia in 2007 63.     The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”) visited Croatia from 4 to 14 May 2007. The relevant part of its report CPT/Inf (2008) 29 of 9   October 2008 reads: “ 2. Ill-treatment 13.     At the outset of the 2007 visit, the CPT’s delegation was informed of various measures taken by the Ministry of the Interior with a view to putting an end to ill-treatment by the police. In particular, instructions had been adopted aimed at ensuring that police staff strictly observe the relevant legislation and regulations when dealing with persons in custody. Efforts had also been made to step up professional training in order to improve the attitude of police officers towards detained persons. Nevertheless, the information gathered during the visit suggests that continued determined action is needed to combat ill-treatment by the police. The CPT recommends that a clear message of “zero tolerance” of ill-treatment (whether of a physical or verbal nature) be delivered, from the highest level and through ongoing training activities, to all police officers. Police staff should also be reminded that no more force than is strictly necessary should be used when bringing persons presenting violent and/or agitated behaviour under control, be it at the time of apprehension or in a detention facility; once such persons have been brought under control, there can never be any justification for their being struck. 14. It is equally important to promote a culture respectful of the law, where it is regarded as unprofessional – and unsafe from a career path standpoint – to work and associate with colleagues who have resort to ill-treatment. This implies the existence of a clear reporting line, including the adoption of effective safeguards for protecting whistle-blowers. Police officers interviewed on this matter during the 2007 visit generally indicated that if they had reason to believe that colleagues had ill-treated a detained person, they would inform the head of the police station where the possible ill-treatment had occurred, despite the existence of special investigation teams whose task was to inquire into such cases. The CPT recommends that the Croatian authorities establish, within the police, a clear reporting line for information indicative of ill-treatment (which implies the obligation for staff to immediately forward such information to the competent authorities and services). 15. The CPT must also stress that, if the emergence of information indicative of ill-treatment is not followed by a prompt and effective response, those minded to ill-treat persons deprived of their liberty will quickly come to believe that they can perpetrate such acts with impunity. From the information collected during the 2007 visit, it would appear that judges and prosecutors do not always pay sufficient attention to allegations of ill-treatment and frequently fail to take action. At best, the head of the police station where the person making the allegation had been detained would be asked to provide information concerning the alleged ill-treatment. The CPT recommends that whenever a detained person brought before a judge alleges ill-treatment by police officers, these allegations be recorded in writing, a forensic medical examination be immediately ordered, and the necessary steps be taken to ensure that the allegations are properly investigated. Such a procedure should be followed whether or not the person concerned bears visible external injuries. Moreover, even in the absence of an express allegation of ill-treatment, judges and prosecutors should adopt a proactive attitude; for instance, whenever there are other grounds to believe that a person could have been the victim of ill-treatment, a forensic medical examination should be requested. If necessary, the law should be amended to reflect these principles. ” B.     The CPT visit to Croatia in 2012 64.     The CPT visited Croatia from 19 to 27 September 2012. The relevant part of the report CPT/Inf (2014) 9 of 18   March 2014 provides: “ 2. Ill-treatment The Committee recommends that the Croatian authorities reiterate the message that all forms of ill-treatment (be they at the time of apprehension or transportation or during subsequent questioning) are absolutely prohibited, and that the perpetrators of ill-treatment and those encouraging or condoning such acts will be punished accordingly. 4. Conditions of detention 23.     With the entry into force of the CCP in 2009, the Detention and Escort Units are now the primary facilities for holding criminal suspects overnight and for stays of more than 24 hours. The detention and escort unit of Oranice served as the main law enforcement holding facility for the County of Zagreb and offered accommodation of a good standard. Each of the ten cells measured around 30 m2 and was designed to accommodate up to six persons. For this purpose, they were equipped with two long plinths and mattresses/blankets. The cells had access to natural light, sufficient artificial lighting and ventilation and possessed a functioning call-bell. All cells were under CCTV supervision. Detained persons were provided with basic hygiene items and could access a shower room and toilets upon demand. However, there was no outdoor exercise facility, although it would be feasible to create one given that the detention unit is located within a large, secure police compound. The CPT recommends that the Croatian authorities take the necessary steps to offer outdoor exercise to all persons held in police custody for longer than 24 hours. 24.     As already indicated above, persons deprived of their liberty by law enforcement officials are usually detained in police stations in temporary detention cells (smještaj za zadržavanje) before being transferred to the competent detention and escort unit or administrative detention centre. The temporary detention cells visited by the delegation displayed a number of shortcomings such as limited access to natural light and poor artificial lighting (at Zagreb VIII and Petrinja Police Stations respectively) and inadequate ventilation (at Zagreb VIII, VII, IV and Petrinja Police Stations). Steps should be taken to remedy these deficiencies. Each of the cells was equipped with a small wooden bench and a plastic chair and could be considered as acceptable for stays of a few hours. However, some of the temporary detention cells were inadequate for use as overnight accommodation due to their limited size (e.g. a mere 4m2 at Zagreb VIII and Petrinja Police Stations). Despite this, it was clear from custody registers that persons were on occasion held overnight in such cells. The CPT recommends that the Croatian authorities take the necessary steps to ensure that temporary detention cells of less than 5m² are never used for overnight accommodation and that persons held overnight in larger temporary detention cells are provided with a mattress and blankets. 25.     A number of persons met by the delegation who had recently been held in different police stations complained that they had received no food despite being held in these places for several hours. The CPT notes that in accordance with the relevant Rulebook, detained persons are offered three meals a day once they have been transferred to a detention and escort unit. Nevertheless, persons may be kept in police stations for up to 24 hours (or 48 hours in the case of foreign nationals staying irregularly), during which time they should be offered something to eat and drink at regular intervals. The CPT recommends that the Croatian authorities take the necessary steps to ensure that persons detained in police stations for more than a few hours are provided with food. ” THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 65.     The applicant complained of ill-treatment during his arrest and police custody, and of the absence of an effective investigation in that respect. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A.     Admissibility 1.     Applicability of Article 3 of the Convention (a)     The parties’ arguments 66.     The Government submitted that the injuries which the applicant had sustained during his arrest on 29 October 2008 did not reach the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. In particular, the Government stressed that the applicant was a young and strong man and he had already been injured several times in his life, which should have certainly made him more tolerant to pain. Accordingly, the injuries which he had sustained during the arrest, for which he had received prompt medical assistance, could not have caused him suffering reaching the minimum level of severity to fall under Article 3 of the Convention. 67.     The applicant contended that he had been seriously ill-treated by the police and that he had sustained numerous injuries on his head and body. He therefore considered that the Government’s arguments were fully inappropriate and misplaced. (b)     The Court’s assessment 68.     The Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom , 25 March 1993, § 30, Series A no. 247-C; and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR   2006 ‑ IX). 69.     Treatment has been held by the Court to be “inhuman” because, inter alia , it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV). Treatment has been considered “degrading” when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance driving them to act against their will or conscience (see, for example, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 203, ECHR 2012). 70.     Where a person is injured while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, any such injury will lead to a strong presumption that the person was subjected to ill-treatment, which gives rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see, inter alia , Butolen v. Slovenia , no.   41356/08, § 84, 26 April 2012). 71.     The Court notes that it is undisputed that the applicant actually sustained injuries during his encounter with the police in the context of his arrest. These injuries, supported by available medical evidence, in particular include contusions of head, nose and shoulder and a nose fracture (see paragraphs 21 and 34 above). The Court finds them sufficiently serious to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (compare, for example, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria , 28 October 1998, § 95, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII; and Nikiforov v. Russia , no. 42837/04, § 46, 1 July 2010). 72.     Accordingly, the Court rejects the Government’s objection. 2.     Compliance with the six-month time-limit (a)     The parties’ arguments 73.     The Government pointed out that the applicant had for the first time complained before the domestic authorities in January 2012 concerning his alleged ill-treatment by the police in the period between 29 and 31 October 2008. Moreover, in the course of the subsequent investigation into his complaints he had never inquired about the status of the case and had lodged his application with the Court one and a half year later following the opening of the investigation into his complaints. 74.     The applicant argued that it was incumbent on the domestic authorities to institute an official investigation into the circumstances surrounding his case irrespective of any official complaint on his part. He also stressed that throughout the period following his arrest and the alleged ill-treatment he had been under the control of the domestic authorities. In these circumstances he had nevertheless lodged an official criminal complaint within the time-limits provided under the relevant domestic law. In the applicant’s view, no issue could arise with regard to the six-month time-limit given that the investigation at the domestic level had finally ended by the rejection of his criminal complaint on 3 March 2014. (b)     The Court’s assessment 75.     The Court reiterates that the six-month time-limit provided for by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention has a number of aims. Its primary purpose is to maintain legal certainty by ensuring that cases raising issues under the Convention are examined within a reasonable time, and to prevent the authorities and other persons concerned from being kept in a state of uncertainty for a long period of time (see Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no.   27396/06, § 39, 29 June 2012; and El Masri v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” [GC], no. 39630/09, § 135, ECHR 2012). 76.     Normally, the six-month period runs from the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies. However, where it is clear from the outset that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of. Article   35 §   1 cannot be interpreted in a manner which would require an applicant to seize the Court of his complaint before his position in connection with the matter has been finally settled at the domestic level. Where, therefore, an applicant avails himself of an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective, the Court considers that it may be appropriate for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 to take the start of the six-month period from the date on which the applicant first became or ought to have become aware of those circumstances (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no.   27229/95, 22   May 1998, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no.   46477/99, 7   June 2001; and Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, §§ 259-260, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). 77.     The Court has already held that, in cases concerning an investigation into ill-treatment, the obligation of diligence incumbent on applicants contains two distinct but closely linked aspects: on the one hand, the applicants must contact the domestic authorities promptly concerning progress in the investigation – which implies the need to apply to them with diligence, since any delay risks compromising the effectiveness of the investigation – and, on the other, they must lodge their application promptly with the Court as soon as they become aware or should have become aware that the investigation is not effective (see Mocanu and Others , cited above, § 264). 78.     The first aspect of the duty of diligence – that is, the obligation to apply promptly to the domestic authorities – must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case. In this regard, the Court has held that applicants’ delay in lodging a complaint is not decisive where the authorities ought to have been aware that an individual could have been subjected to ill-treatment – particularly in the case of assault which occurs in the presence of police officers – as the authorities’ duty to investigate arises even in the absence of an express complaint (see Velev v. Bulgaria , no. 43531/08, §§   59 ‑ 60, 16 April 2013). Nor does such a delay affect the admissibility of the application where the applicant was in a particularly vulnerable situation, having regard to the complexity of the case and the nature of the alleged human rights violations at stake, and where it was reasonable for the applicant to wait for developments that could have resolved crucial factual or legal issues (see El Masri , cited above, § 142). 79.     With regard to the second aspect of this duty of diligence – that is, the duty on the applicant to lodge an application with the Court as soon as he realises, or ought to have realised, that the investigation is not effective – the Court has stated that the issue of identifying the exact point in time that this stage occurs necessarily depends on the circumstances of the case and that it is difficult to determine it with precision (see Nasirkhayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011). In particular, the Court has considered it indispensable that persons who wish to bring a complaint about the ineffectiveness or lack of an investigation before the Court do not delay unduly in lodging their application. However, so long as there is some meaningful contact with the authorities concerning complaints and requests for information, or some indication, or realistic possibility, of progress in investigative measures, considerations of undue delay by the applicants will not generally arise (see Mocanu and Others , cited above, § 269). 80.     The Court notes in the case at issue that following the applicant’s arrest there were clear indications of the possibility that violence had been used against him. In particular, the authorities must have been alerted of such a possibility on the basis of the applicant’s medical examination in the police station on 29 October 2008 (see paragraph 21 above) as well as the applicant’s statement to the investigating judge on 30 October 2008 where he complained that he was injured and stated that he had refused medical assistance in order to get out from the police station as soon as possible (see paragraph 30 above). Similarly, the findings of the applicant’s medical examination in Zagreb Prison Hospital on 3 November 2008 should have alerted the authorities of the possibility of use of violence against the applicant (see paragraphs 33-34 above). 81.     In these circumstances, even without an express complaint from the applicant, a duty to investigate had already arisen at that early stage. This is so because Article 3 of the Convention requires an official investigation in cases where there are sufficiently clear indications that ill-treatment might have occurred (see Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia , no. 71156/01, § 97, 3 May 2007; and Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, § 62, ECHR 2014). See further, J.L. v. Latvia (no. 23893/06, §§ 11-13 and 73-75, 17 April 2012) where the obligation to investigate arose, inter alia , on the basis of facts implied in the applicant’s complaints made during the criminal proceedings against him; and Pădureţ v. Moldova (no. 33134/03, §§ 63-64, 5 January 2010) where a duty of a prompt investigation arose on the basis of the applicant’s medical examination revealing the possibility of ill-treatment. 82.     Accordingly, although it is true that the applicant started inquiring about the measures taken with regard to his alleged ill-treatment by the police in October 2011 and then lodged an official criminal complaint in February 2012, the Court does not find this delay decisive given that the domestic authorities were sufficiently aware of the possibility that he could have been subjected to ill-treatment and were under a duty to investigate his possible ill-treatment (see Velev , cited above, § 59; and Mocanu and Others , cited above, § 265). In this connection the Court has already acknowledged that the psychological effects of ill-treatment inflicted by State agents may also undermine victims’ c